Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edit by Mike Christie (talk) to last version by Flominator
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{shortcuts|WT:MOS}}
{{Talk header |WT:MOS |search=no }}
{{FAQ|quickedit=no|collapsed=no}}
{{MOS/R}}
{{Round in circles|search=yes}}
{{tmbox|small=yes|text=For a list of suggested abbreviations for referring to style guides , see [[User:Noetica/StyleGuideAbbreviations1|this page]].}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive index
|mask=Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}
{{Section sizes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |1=
{{WikiProject Manual of Style}}
{{Wikipedia Help Project|importance=Top}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(30d)
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive %(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 500K
|counter = 126
|counter = 228
|maxarchivesize = 900K
|algo = old(7d)
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive %(counter)d
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4
}}
}}
[[File:Moshpit2.jpg|thumb|upright=0.9|Welcome to the MOS pit]]
{{archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=7}}
__TOC__
{{clear right}}
{{stb}}


==Style discussions elsewhere==
== Date ranges for soap operas ==
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 06:15, 18 June 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1876457735}}<!-- END PIN -->
Add a link to new discussions at top of list and indicate what kind of discussion it is (move request, RfC, open discussion, deletion discussion, etc.). Follow the links to participate, if interested. Move to ''Concluded'' when decided, and summarize conclusion. Please keep this section at the top of the page.


===Current===
{{formerly|Why do dates in duration lists of Soap Operas have to miss certain digits out if they are in the same decade?}}
(newest on top)
<!--
Don't add threads that are on the same page as this list.
Capitalization-specific entries should go in the corresponding section at the top of:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
-->
* [[Talk:Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh#Requested move 18 December 2024]] - A [[MOS:AT]]/[[WP:AT]] question
* [[Talk:United States Virgin Islands's at-large congressional district#Requested move 10 December 2024]] – Plural possessive [[MOS:POSS]] question
* [[Talk:Second Italo-Ethiopian War#Flags in the infobox]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Proposal to import a line-item from WP:JUDAISMSTYLE into MOS:BIO]] – to use policy-based material on "Christ" found in an essay but more useful in a guideline. (Nov. 2024)
* [[Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Request for comment on the relationship between WP:CRITERIA and WP:TITLEFORMAT]] – Has stylistic implications (punctuation, leading "The", etc.) despite not being intrisically an MoS matter. (Nov. 2024)
* [[Talk:Battle of Tory Island#Infoboxflags]] - use of flag icons in infobox per [[MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS]] (Sep.–Nov. 2024) – See also prior [[Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict#Belligerents flags]].
<!--Please put newer entries at the top.-->


{{block indent|1=<nowiki />
For the dates format, why is it for years selected within one decade does it have to have the first two digits from the end year missing? Such as 1996-98. On the list of soap opera characters, the duration lists for the past characters of Hollyoaks and the current characters of Coronation Street are in this format. The lists look incomplete with some of the digits missing and I can't help feeling the rule seems misguided. Because it seems wrong I have tried to correct the lists and the editors keep reverting them. It just looks wrong in this format and I can't help wondering why it needs to be set out like this.[[Special:Contributions/82.38.49.218|82.38.49.218]] ([[User talk:82.38.49.218|talk]]) 19:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
'''Pretty stale but not "concluded":'''
:This belongs more on [[WT:MOSNUM]] than here. The most recent discussion about this was [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 134#Year ranges 2]]. [[User:A. di M.|<span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​</span>]][[User:A. di M./t0|&nbsp;]] 19:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
* RfC needed on issue raised at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2024 archive#British peer titles in infoboxes]] (June–July 2004, archived without resolution). Presently, the royalty/nobility wikiprojects have imposed putting British peerage titles in place of names in biographical infoboxes, against [[MOS:BIO]], [[MOS:INFOBOX]], and the template's documentation. Either the community will accept this as a best practice and the guidelines changed to accomodate it, or it should be undone and the infobox used consistently and as-intended.
* A [[MOS:JOBTITLES]] revision RfC needs to be drafted, based on [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#JOBTITLES simplification proposal]] (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024, archived without resolution). JOBTITLES remains a point of confusion and conflict, which the guidelines are supposed to prevent not cause.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)#Use of comma and abbreviation of Incorporated]] – Involves [[MOS:TM]] (plus [[WP:COMMONNAME]], [[WP:OFFICIALNAME]], [[WP:POLICYFORK]]). Covers more than thread name implies. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Stalled without resolution; at least 3 options identified which should be put to an RfC.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet"]] – Involves [[MOS:HONORIFIC]], [[MOS:DOCTCAPS]], [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:CHERRYPICKING]], etc. (Sep. 2023 –) ''Result:'' Still unresolved, though consensus seems to lean toward permitting lower-case "prophet" when needed for disambiguation, but no agreement yet on specific guideline wording.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables#Proposal to discourage vertically oriented ("sideways") column headers]] – Specifically in tables, possibly elsewhere. [[MOS:UNITNAMES]] (at the table "General guidelines on use of units") has an example of existing use that is being challenged, and material at [[Help:Table]] is also at issue. (Dec. 2023 –) ''Result:'' Still unresolved.
* [[Help talk:Table/Archive 9#Indenting tables]] – Help page is conflicting with [[MOS:DLIST]] and [[MOS:ACCESS]] on a technical point. (Aug. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' No objection to fixing it, and a suggestion to just do it [[WP:BOLD]]ly, but the work actually has to be done.
<!--Please put newer entries at the top.-->
}}<!-- end of block indent -->


{{block indent|1=<nowiki />
:I am revising the section heading from <i>Why do dates in duration lists of Soap Operas have to miss certain digits out if they are in the same decade?</i> to <i>Date ranges for soap operas</i>. See [[WP:TPOC]]: "Section headings".
'''Capitalization-specific:'''
:*[http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980906.html Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox)]
{{Excerpt| Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters|Current|subsections=no}}
:—[[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]] ([[User talk:Wavelength|talk]]) 20:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
}}
::Didn't know about [[Template:Formerly]]. It had always irritated me when retitling a section broke links to it in edit summaries, and as a result I never did that at all. Nice to know about that template. [[User:A. di M.|<span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​</span>]][[User:A. di M./t0|&nbsp;]] 22:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
:Are these year-ranges in a table or infobox? Particularly where space is short, the two-digit closing year seems preferable. 10:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


===Concluded===
:[[WP:YEAR]]: Years: point 3 (permanent link [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers&oldid=458737407#Longer_periods here]) says the following.
{{collapse top|left=y|title=Extended content}}
:*A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits ({{xt|1881–86}}) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given ({{xt|1881–1986}}).
<!--Please put newer additions at the top, by order of closure. -->
:—[[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]] ([[User talk:Wavelength|talk]]) 19:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
* [[Talk:Kula–Farallon Ridge#Requested move 26 October 2024]] – Use en dash not hyphen in four paired names? ''Result:'' Yes.

* [[WP:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 59#Could MOS:TMRULES be amended to avoid conflict with WP:COMMONNAME, esp for contemporary artists and their works?]] – In short, should we use odd-ball stylization of band names and the like to match their marketing? (July–Aug. 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but a clear consensus against this idea, and against the underlying "conflict" premise; the proponent simply did not understand the policy.
::Let me try and fill you in on the background behind this question. The IP, 82.38.49.218, does not like the use of the two-digit closing year, particularly in the articles [[List of Coronation Street characters]] and [[List of past Hollyoaks characters]]. He/she constantly changes this style, despite warnings and advice to look at [[WP:YEAR]]. On their talk page 82.38.49.218 has said "The Manual of Style is completely flawed and misguided and cannot possibly be adhered to when its "rules" don't seem to make logical sense." He/she was told to come here to bring up and discuss their issues with WP:YEAR. - [[User:JuneGloom07|<font color="Purple" face="Arial">'''JuneGloom'''</font>]] [[User_Talk:JuneGloom07|<font color="Green" face="Times New Roman">Talk</font>]] 15:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
** Various simultaneously executed RMs by the same proponent all concluded against the desired over-stylizations (usually ALL-CAPS) – some by affirmative consensus against, some by no consensus to move.

* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2024 archive#British peer titles in infoboxes]] – Should British peers use their peerage title in place of their name in infoboxes? (June–July 2004) ''Result:'' archived without resolution. This needs to be RfCed.
:::A Google Books search shows only a slight preference for "1881–86" rather than "1881–1886", so neither "style looks lazy as if it has been put together by children of primary school age". So perhaps someone else can explain why we have that rule, and perhaps it should be eliminated. In any case, 82.38.49.218 is to be encouraged to take such questions here, rather than keep re-arguing them for however many specific articles are involved. However, as long as we have that rule, I will comply with it, as explained at [[User:Art LaPella/Because the guideline says so]]. [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 21:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
* [[Talk:Shays's Rebellion#Requested move 27 April 2024]] – [[MOS:POSS]]: "Shays'" or "Shays's"? ''Result:'' "Shays's". No objective rationale was presented for an exception to the guideline, and evidence shows "Shays's" common in source material even if "Shays'" is also common, especially in older sources.

* [[Template talk:Infobox university/Archive 23#Type]] – Should multiple entries be formatted as a list or a single phrase? (Apr.–May 2024) ''Result:'' 4:1 against proposed change to a list format; alternative idea at end neither accepted nor rejected.
Maybe in some articles the 1881-86 looks OK and is not important but in a list that is specifically recording dates it does not look aesthetically pleasing. I genuinely feel that in these Soap Opera lists it looks more presentable, complete and considerably better with all the digits present and not just the last two of the second year.[[Special:Contributions/82.38.49.218|82.38.49.218]] ([[User talk:82.38.49.218|talk]]) 11:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
* [[Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict#Flags and wikilinks in the Infobox "Belligerents" section]] – Do flags in this infobox serve a "useful purpose" per [[MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS]] or are they primarily decorative and should be removed? (Apr.–May 2004) ''Result:'' 3:1 against inclusion; the 1 did not read or understand the entire guideline. See also later [[Talk:Battle of Tory Island#Infoboxflags]].
:Do you have more objective evidence such as style book citations, or is it just "I genuinely feel"? When I refine my Google Books search for lists, I get a similar result: a slight though [[statistically insignificant]] preference for "1881–86", like [http://books.google.com/books?id=6Y5BAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA314&dq=%221881-86+1888%22&hl=en&ei=06y5Tu38FuSQiQKT-OXeBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%221881-86%201888%22&f=false this admittedly old example]. [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 22:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 16#Collages in infoboxes]] – Primarily on a recent habit of military-conflict articles having collages of 4, 6, or even more images in their infobox. (Mar.–May 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but a clear consensus against this practice; image galleries (when appropriate at all per [[WP:GALLERY]]) belong in the article body.
::Many house styles prefer the two-digit closing number, for years and page ranges. In my view it's easier to recognise. In a space-poor table or infobox I can't imagine why editors would want otherwise. [[User:Tony1|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font ></span>]] 06:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 23#RfC on the leads of DOY articles and their FL eligibility]] – [[MOS:LEADLENGTH]] (and [[MOS:LEADREL]]) in "day of year" (DoY) article candidates for "featured list". (Feb. 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, and little clear consensus other than that [[WP:OWN]] / [[WP:CONLEVEL]] apply, as does [[WP:DUE]].

* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/Archive 17#Possessives in condition names]] – On [[Asperger syndrome]] vs. [[Asperger's syndrome]], etc. (Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' No clear consensus reached; a great deal of sourcing is provided, but there's a feeling that real-world usage varies considerably on a case-by-case basis, so [[WP:COMMONNAME]] might invididually trump [[WP:CONSISTENT]]. Worth revisiting in a few years to see whether source usage has shifted.
I don't know how else I can prove my point. It just looks wrong with digits missing and uncompleted. I always feel the need to add the missing digits to the list in order for it to be complete. It looks whole and complete with all the digits added. I disagree that it is easier to recognize as the only people who would have trouble recognizing whole years would have to be incredibly stupid.[[Special:Contributions/82.38.49.218|82.38.49.218]] ([[User talk:82.38.49.218|talk]]) 23:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Names of deceased trans people]] (moved from WP:VPPOL) – Yet another round of this long-term, multi-RfC process. Consensus about "deadnames" seemed possible this time but was mostly elusive. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' no consensus to change the wording of MOS:GENDERID based on this proposal; consensus against changing "should be included" to "may be included".

** Related: See numerous previous deadname-related and more general GENDERID discussions listed below.
:We believe you when you say it just looks wrong ''to you''. The way to prove it looks wrong ''to others'' is to appeal to style books and other documents, as in Tony's admittedly vague "Many house styles" comment. As I showed above, others are about evenly split between the two styles, so I don't see much reason to prefer either. [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 23:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 189#Make Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computer science]] – Proposal to merge a "guideline in all but name" into MoS. (Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' consensus to promote to a guideline (after some significant revisions).

* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 210#Increase default thumbnail size from 220px to 250px]] – Peripherally related to [[MOS:IMAGES]] and [[MOS:ACCESS]]. (Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Consensus to increase to 250px.
== Does [[MOS:RETAIN]] override [[MOS:LQ]]? ==
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#JOBTITLES simplification proposal]] – [[MOS:JOBTITLES]] has long been considered too complicated and hard to follow. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' input stalled out over the holidays, then it was archived without resolution.

** [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2024 archive#RfC on JOBTITLES]] – Abortive, unclear RfC that resolved nothing. (May–Sep. 2023) ''Result:'' unanimously opposed.
Regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mohamad_Anas_Haitham_Soueid&diff=next&oldid=460634242 this edit], does [[MOS:RETAIN]] (retaining the existing variety) override [[MOS:LQ]] (logical quotation)? [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 00:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles/Archive 8#Kangxi radical template/gloss]] – Involves [[MOS:FOREIGN]], [[MOS:SINGLE]], [[MOS:ALLCAPS]], [[MOS:BOLD]]. (Oct.2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Archived without closure. There does not seem to be a compelling reason for this ALL-CAPS behavior in the template/module, but it was still happening in Nov. 2024.

** Discussion re-opened at [[Module talk:Kangxi radical#All-caps]] (Nov. 2024). Changed to lowercase [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Module%3AKangxi_radical&diff=1259286315&oldid=1253292255]; we'll see if that sticks.
:I cannot see any conflict between [[MOS:RETAIN]] and [[MOS:LQ]], Cunard. The absence of LQ is not a style recommended by the Manual of Style, so it can be overridden for conformity. If we were to generalise from such a retention, any style established in an article would be out of reach for MOS, which is counter to the role these guidelines play in the Project.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/Archive 14#Fictional characters known by initials - what qualifies as the "preferred style for their own name" ?]] – Involves [[MOS:WAF]], [[MOS:INITIALS]], [[MOS:TM]], [[MOS:ACRO]], [[WP:OFFICIALNAME]], etc. (Oct. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but there seems to be no appetite for diverging from [[MOS:INITIALS]], and the OP commingled unrelated cases like stagenames of real people.
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>[[User_talk:Noetica |Tea?]]</small></sup> 02:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 16#Making redundant table captions screen-reader-only]] – About use of {{tlx|sronly}} around table captions (which are primarily for screen readers) to hide them from the usual non-screen-reader view, only when their content repeats what is in the table headers. (Nov.–Dec. 2023) ''Result'': Archived without firm resolion. As there was but one opposer of the idea, there is no consensus against doing this. If more opposition arose or some reason, open an RfC about it.
::MoS LQ should not be in the MoS at all; banning American style punctuation does us no good and some harm. However, as long as it ''is'' still here, no I don't think this is particular case merits an override. If this were a long quote, a block quote or full sentence lifted from a source that used American punctuation, then RETAIN would apply. (If the original sentence ''Soueid used the words "project," "merit," and "hope" to describe his plan.'' were lifted whole from the source, then we would be required to keep the American punctuation.) However, the Wikieditor who placed the word "project" worked it into a new sentence designed for the article.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#ALL-CAPS for "keywords for lexical sets"?]] – Involves [[MOS:ALLCAPS]]. (Oct. 2023 – Feb. 2024) ''Result:'' Thinly attended, but there does seem to be a linguistics standard to render [[lexical set]]s in {{sc2|smallcaps}}, so this has been accounted for and added to the exception lists at [[MOS:ALLCAPS]] (since our articles are consistently doing it based on that sourcing).
::I actually raised a similar question a few years ago, is internal consistency more important than any one rule in the MoS, and I got brought up on AN/I for making such edits. Good luck. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 12:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 14#"the late"]] – On [[MOS:EUPHEMISMS]] and whether to add another example to it. (Oct. 2023) ''Result'': Discussion archived without a clear conclusion.
:::There's no evidence that there is an "American style" that's opposite to a "logical style". Neither style is particularly tied to an English language variant, as far as I've been able to tell. So RETAIN seems irrelevant here; we might as well stick with the consistent LQ style. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 16:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles#About adding a link to each hangul syllable using Template:Linktext]] – On use of a template to link Korean characters to Wiktionary (Jan. 2024). ''Result'': general consensus to not do that excessive linking; and a bot request made to clean it up.
::::If the reason we're requiring British/LQ in all articles is that including a character not present in the original inside the quotation marks would be a misquotation, then how could transposing two characters in the middle of the quoted material not be a misquotation?
* [[Talk:Mercedes-Benz]] – Use an en dash instead of a hyphen? ''Result'': Withdrawn
::::Actually there's lots of evidence that there are separate American and British styles. First, if almost all American writers do X and almost all American style guides require X while almost all British writers do Y and almost all British style guides require Y, then it is safe to say "X is American and Y is British," even if they are also other things too. Second, logical style is referred to as "British" and American style is referred to as "American" in a lot of our sources: [[http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2011/08/punctuating-around-quotation-marks.html] [http://www.wilbers.com/FAQPunctuation.htm]
*[[Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_February#P%C4%81keh%C4%81_settlers|Pākehā settlers move review]] – Move review on Pākehā settlers vs. European settlers in New Zealand, related to [[WP:COMMONALITY]], [[WP:TIES]], [[WP:CONSISTENT]], [[WP:RECOGNIZABILITY]] (Feb. 2024). ''Result:'' There were many steps in this process but ultimately [[Pākehā settlers]] was moved to [[European settlers in New Zealand]].
::::Does this mean you have to find the evidence convincing? No. Does this mean you have to agree with APA and CMoS? No. But is there evidence that this is a split along national lines? Yes. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 16:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles of works#MOS:TITLECAPS footnote to handle symbols substituting for words]] – To treat word-substitutions ("U" for "You", "❤️" for "Heart", {{nowrap|"..."}} for elided wording), as "words" for the purposes of a particular line-item about title-case treatment. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Done, with unanimous support.
::::@Dicklyon: Well, that only depends on what you mean by ''particularly''. For certain values of ''particularly'', date formats aren't particularly tied with countries either ([http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=16+November%2CNovember+16&year_start=2000&year_end=2008&corpus=5&smoothing=3][http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=16+November%2CNovember+16&year_start=2000&year_end=2008&corpus=6&smoothing=3]), and still we recommend {{xt|16 November}} in UK-related articles and {{xt|November 16}} in US-related ones. [[User:A. di M.|<span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​</span>]][[User:A. di M./t0|&nbsp;]] 17:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Minor consolidation merge]] – To merge a line-item (about stylization of stage/pen names) out of MOS:INITIALS (where the one of the examples is only semi-pertinent anyway) and into [[MOS:TM]], leaving behind a cross-reference to MOS:TM from [[MOS:NAMES]]. (Nov.–Dec. 2023) ''Result:'' Because of some things that apply to personal not corporate names, this ended up not being practical; intead the MOS:BIO material was cleaned up and cross-references between the two MOS sections was improved; description at: [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Minor overhauling]]. No objections or other issues have come up.
{{Outdent}}
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Standardizing ISBN formatting (and an end to editwarring about it)]] – Proposal to add something to [[MOS:NUM]]. (Oct.–Dec. 2023) ''Result:'' "no consensus as to whether or how to standardize ISBNs or whether to subject them to a CITEVAR-like rule .... The closest thing we have to a consensus here is that spaces (option 4) should not be used."
The original question concerns relations between [[MOS:RETAIN]] and [[MOS:LQ]], as illustrated by the linked diff; but the discussion (since I addressed the question) treats it as concerning [[MOS:QUOTE]] rather than MOS:RETAIN. Neither the question nor MOS:RETAIN mentions preservation of style in quotations. MOS:RETAIN is about the style established in an article. It's all right to change the topic; but let's be aware that this has happened.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#MOS style for odds]] – About changing [[MOS:RATIOS]] to specify a format (new or otherwise) for betting-odds ratios. (Oct.–Dec. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but apparent general agreement that the <code>:</code> style for ratios in general applies to odds ratio in particular like the rest, and MOS:RATIOS updated to say this.

* [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places)#Centralization re: decommunization of names]] – Primarily a matter of article title, but there are related issues such as capitalisation. (Nov. 2023) ''Result:'' basically stalled out, without resolution/action. Specific revision proposal is needed.
<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>[[User_talk:Noetica |Tea?]]</small></sup> 20:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Number format within TV articles - request for views]] – Also involves [[MOS:NUMERALS]]. RfC on "season 3, episode 7" vs. "season three, episode seven" styles (and probably also "seventh season" vs. "7th season", etc.). (Oct.–Nov. 2023) ''Result:'' "season and episode numbers should be expressed as numerals in tables, headings, and article body" (revision of a previous, less clear close).

* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#Proposed change MOS:TERRORIST]] – On how WP uses terms like "terrorist/terrorism" and "freedom fighter", specifically to add a requirement "these words should only be used in quotations or referencing third-party use of the term". (Oct. 2023) ''Result:'' "nearly unanimously opposed".
:Regarding the original question, I agree with Noetica, RETAIN doesn't override LQ since LQ is the only style accepted. Darkfrog says we shouldn't change it if the quote contains TQ, I agree but this is not against LQ. If the quote contains "metres" but we're using US spelling in the article, we leave it; we don't change the quote. LQ ''doesn't'' change the quote. [[User:Jimp|J<small>IM</small>p]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Jimp|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Jimp|cont]]</sub> 20:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC on capitalization after a colon or dash]] – Involves [[MOS:TITLES]], [[WP:AT]], etc. (Sep.–Oct. 2023) ''Result:'' "rough consensus to allow for lowercase or capital letters after dashes or colons in article titles, section titles, and list items".
::Actually, I said that ''long'' quotes, such as blockquotes, should be kept intact. This doesn't appear to be the case in the original poster's question; a single word is placed within quotation marks. I'm saying that if the quotation marks (with their adjacent punctuation) had appeared in the middle of a quotation, then they should not be converted from American to British or vice versa. Regarding what Cunard should do in this particular case, I agree with Noetica. Policies like ENGVAR and RETAIN ''should'' apply to punctuation, but, according to precedent, they don't. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 22:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
* [[Talk:Ulster Scots people#RfC on inclusion of ancestral national flags]] – [[MOS:FLAGS]] / [[MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE]] and Northern Ireland again. (Sep.–Oct. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but near-unanimous consensus against using national flags as ethnicity symbols.
* [[Talk:2023 Hawaii wildfires/Archive 2#Use of Hawaiian symbols in names]] – Involves [[MOS:HAWAII]] and could have implications for what the guideline says due to wildfire news bringing many more editorial eyes to that page than to [[WT:MOSHAWAII]]. (Aug.–Sep. 2023) ''Result:'' Archived without closure or any clear consensus; the general gist seems to be that the state of Hawaii is named Hawaii, the island is named Hawaiʻi, and diacritics ([[ʻokina]] and [[kahakō]]) should not be suppressed in the more localized names (and the US Geological Survey, which sets official placenames, along with the Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names, which basically tells USGS what to do in Hawaii/Hawaiʻi, both agree).
* [[Talk:Bayes' theorem#Requested move 23 August 2023]] – [[MOS:POSS]] stuff. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' Not moved. Lots of invalid arguments, and confused attempt to pit [[WP:COMMONAME]] against MoS (COMMONNAME is not a style policy, never has been one, and never will be; every proposal to incorporate a style matter into a policy has failed).
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 171#RfC: Use of 12 or 24-hour time]] – Wikiproject propsal to change [[MOS:TIME]] or [[MOS:MILFORMAT]]. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' wrong venue, and to the extent people commented on using 24-hour time, it was mostly opposed.
** [[Talk:Franklin–Nashville campaign#RFC on change from 12-hour clock time to 24-hour clock time]] – Above question was raised at a specific article as a "local consensus" matter. (Aug.–Sep. 2023) ''Result:'' unanimous opposition to 24-hour time.
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 50#Multinational bands and music groups]] – Follow-up to "unfruitful" discussions at [[WT:MOSMUSIC]], etc. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure; general agreement basically boils down to "write clearly and don't confuse or over-simplify with an adjective".
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 171#RfC: Abbreviations of rank]] – Wikiproject proposal to change rank abbreviations (to NATO style) in [[MOS:COMMONABBR]]. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' no formal closure, but overwhelming consensus to stick with MoS and ignore NATO preferences.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#Proposal to split MOS:GENDERID from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography]] – And some alternative ideas, including merger into [[WP:BLP]]. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, and the idea was mostly opposed, with no effect but returning all of the shortcuts ([[MOS:GENDERID]], [[MOS:GID]], [[MOS:DEADNAME]], [[WP:GENDERBLP]], [[MOS:NB]]) that someone changed to point to the [[WP:Manual of Style/Gender identity]] essay to now point back to the real guideline at [[WP:Manual of Style/Biography#Gender identity]].
** The essay has since been retooled to be an exegesis of the guideline, though attempts at [[WP:POLICYFORK]]ing are likely to continue, as this is one of our most hotbed internal topics. See also the guideline [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language]], and the essays [[WP:Gender-neutral language]] and [[WP:Gender-neutral language in Wikipedia policies]].
** [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 186#RfC on GENDERID in BLP]] – Proposal to move the MoS material into WP:BLP. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' Procedurally closed as "premature".
* [[Talk:Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod#Requested move 25 August 2023]] – Should the en dash have spaces around it; should it be an em dash? ''Result:'' moved to spaced en dash.
* [[Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 August 5#Hyphen vs. En dash usage (Wikidata)?]] and [[d:Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2023/08#Hyphen vs. En dash to separate years of birth/death?]] – Relating to concordance between wikidata descriptions and enwiki "short description". (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' Good summary: "as long as you choose a comprehensible form, your edits are fine. However, you should not change existing descriptions for stylistic reasons, and also not to unify desriptions for a given set of items"; also observations that various languages, e.g. Spanish, do not use an en dash for this purpose. So, Wikidata will not be changing away from hyphen as default, and any desire to have WD material, like automatically provided short descriptions, will have to do that change on our end.
* [[Talk:Decatur & Eastern Illinois Railroad#Requested move 9 August 2023]] and [[Talk:Central Maine & Quebec Railway#Requested move 9 August 2023]] – Use "&" or "and"? (see [[MOS:&]]). ''Result:'' Follow [[MOS:&]]; the essay [[WP:WikiProject Trains/Style advice]] conflicting with the guideline and with [[WP:COMMONNAME]] policy was noted, and this [[WP:ADVICEFORK]] was fixed in Jan. 2024. The second of these actually closed as "no consensus" because the [[WP:NAC]] who closed it did not know of [[WP:CONLEVEL]] policy and incorrectly treated policy- and guideline-based arguments as no stronger than those based on a contrary essay.
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 184#RFC: Change wording in MOS:SUICIDE to better reflect the supermajority consensus in the RFC that added it]] – Some re-wording proposals, and even a suggestion to remove the language entirely. (July 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, and did not result in wording changes, though a re-do might come to such a conclusion.
* [[Talk:SAG-AFTRA#Requested move 20 July 2023]] – move to [[SAG–AFTRA]] like [[AFL–CIO]], or is there a reason to hyphenate as [[SAG-AFTRA]]? (July 2023) ''Result:'' Not moved. The closer actually misunderstood the guideline wording badly, and this has created a [[WP:CONSISTENT]] policy failure with titles of other such entities including AFL–CIO, and the Famous Players-Lasky decision covered just below. This probably needs to be re-done.
** [[Talk:2023 SAG-AFTRA strike#Requested move 20 July 2023]] – ditto. ''Result:'' Procedurally closed as a [[WP:TALKFORK]] of the RM above.
* [[Talk:Famous Players-Lasky#Requested move 24 June 2023]] –&nbsp;proposal to use dash instead of hyphen. (June–July 2023) ''Result:'' Use the dash per [[MOS:DASH]]; a followup RM to add "Corporation" to the title rejected that idea despite [[WP:NCCORP]] supporting it, one of several recent RM incidents suggesting that at least some portions of the page do not enjoy consensus.
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 185#RfC: Proposed addition to MOS:GENDERID - when to include deadnames]] – Proposal to change [[MOS:DEADNAME]] that "encyclopaedic significance of the deadname [be] established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources, or if they were notable prior to transitioning". (June–July 2023) ''Result:'' "no clear consensus".
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 182#RFC: MOS:GENDERID and the deadnames of deceased trans and nonbinary persons]] – Primarily about "When should Wikipedia articles include the former name of a deceased trans or nonbinary person who was not notable prior to transitioning?" (May–June 2023) ''Result:'' "there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. Where, exactly, the lines of encyclopedic interest and avoiding confusion are is not simple or clear and will likely need discussion on individual articles, although there is definitely space for more guidance in the MOS". This has let to a lot of follow-on discussion and dispute.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations/Archive 2#"Acronyms in page titles" is mis-placed in an MoS page]] – Proposal to move section to naming-convention guideline. (June 2023) ''Result:'' no pro or con input; re-opened (Jan. 2024) on main MoS page.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#Remove the "living" qualifier in MOS:DEADNAME]] – Proposal to make anti-deadnaming rules apply to the long-deceased as well. (Apr.–May 2023) ''Result:'' No consensus to remove ''living'', so "the ''living'' qualifier, shall remain in place". The May–June 2023 RfC above was an outgrowth of this discussion.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 17#RfC Can notable Brazilian jiu-jitsu people display a rank icon in their infobox like Judo people do?]] – essential information, or icon cruft? (Mar.–Apr. 2023) ''Result:'' "There is consensus against inclusion of rank icons."
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing/Archive 10#RfC about replacing "vs." and "v" with "vs" in boxing match article titles]] – involves [[MOS:MISCSHORT]] and [[MOS:TIES]]. (Feb.–Mar. 2023) ''Result:'' no consensus to use "v"; continue to use "vs." or "vs" as suits the [[MOS:ENGVAR]] of the article.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Archive 8#Bold and Italics]] – Should an external style guide be used in place of [[WP:MOS]] in chapter lists (e.g. [[List of Alpha Phi Alpha chapters]])? (Jan.–Feb. 2023) ''Result:'' Insufficient input to reach a consensus. Needs to be RfCed. But the {{lang|la|status quo}} default principle is that a lack of consensus to create an exception to general rules does not result in such an exception.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 162#Decimals when quoting time periods?]] – Open discussion as to whether decimalized years should be used in personal biographies. (Jan. 2023) ''Result:'' discussion archived; majority felt that decimalized years are not standard in biographical prose and should be limited to a statistical/mathematical context.
<!--Please put newer entries at the top.-->
{{block indent|1=<nowiki />
{{Excerpt| Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters|Concluded|subsections=no}}
}}
{{collapse bottom}}


== Retain or remove citation indicators in quoted text? ==
Thank you everyone for your input here. I followed [[MOS:LQ]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mohamad_Anas_Haitham_Soueid&diff=prev&oldid=460582388 here] but was [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mohamad_Anas_Haitham_Soueid&diff=next&oldid=460634242 reverted] by the creator who used [[WP:RETAIN]] to justify his/her reversion. Per the discussion here that [[WP:RETAIN]] and [[MOS:LQ]] do not conflict with each other, I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mohamad_Anas_Haitham_Soueid&diff=prev&oldid=461026561 reverted] the creator's reversion. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 23:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


Is it acceptable to remove citation indicators – ¹ or (Gorgon, 1993) – that appear within quoted text (this would be to improve readability). I'm not referring to citing quoted material, but to citation marks ''within'' quoted material. Thanks! [[User:Tsavage|Tsavage]] ([[User talk:Tsavage|talk]]) 12:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::I have reverted:
:::(1) Please don't attempt to shut down conversations within a day of posing them; that's ''not'' how [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] is formed at all. Less than one day of discussion, with minimal participation (three users!), does not justify making sweeping conclusions as to policy. You and I know this equally well.
:::(2) The ''rationale'' for [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining the existing variety|retaining the existing variety]] is to prevent exactly these sorts of pointless, arbitrary changes. There is a strong preference to use ''the style most strongly connected'' to the topic ([[American English]] for U.S. articles; [[British English]] for UK articles; [[Australian English]] for Australian articles) and in the absence of any national connection to the article topic, to retain the style of the first major editor. Here, the article in question is ''both'' tied to American style and written originally in American style. These both weigh extremely strongly to retaining the existing variety.
:::(3) Placing commas and periods ''within'' quotation marks is ''universally the style in the United States''. There seemed to be some confusion as to this above. See, for instance:
:::: A. [[APA style]], [[AP style]], [[The Chicago Manual of Style|Chicago style]], and [[MLA style]] <u>all</u> prefer the dominant American rule. Chelsea Lee, [http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2011/08/punctuating-around-quotation-marks.html AP Style] (official blog) (August 11, 2011).
:::: B. Strunk and White's authoritative, widely-cited ''[[The Elements of Style|Elements of Style]]'' (1918) [http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk2.html states that]: "Formal quotations, cited as documentary evidence, are introduced by a colon and enclosed in quotation marks."
:::: C. "Put the period inside quotation marks. This is simply a rule in American English. There are no exceptions." Richard Lauchman: ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=fRu518Y83_0C Punctuation at Work: Simple Principles for Achieving Clarity and Good Style]'' (2010). [[American Management Association]].
::: I don't go around changing British style to American style (at least not intentionally), especially on British topics. Nor should anyone, as here, go around changing American style to British style, especial on American topics.<u>No useful purpose is served by changing one completely acceptable and internally-consistent form of English to another completely acceptable form of English.</u> It is antithetical to the idea of an ''international'' encyclopedia to impose ''a single, particular national English variety''. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 23:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


:Yes. References to footnotes are usually silently omitted, as they are not a part of the text flow anyway. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 11:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::But MOS:LQ is a more specific guideline than MOS:RETAIN and ENGVAR. So if MOS:LQ were intended to apply only to British articles, it would say so, rather than expecting the more general MOS:RETAIN and ENGVAR guidelines to explain details like quote marks. 3 users might not be a consensus, but the existence of the MOS:LQ guideline is [[prima facie]] evidence of a consensus, although we might clarify it by changing MOS:LQ to explicitly cover American English text. This is not a stylistic opinion; that is, I won't stop Neutrality and Darkfrog from changing MOS:LQ their way. [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 00:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks. Is this addressed in the MoS? I couldn't find mention [[MOS:QUOTE]]. This would seem a common situation when citing academic sources. [[User:Tsavage|Tsavage]] ([[User talk:Tsavage|talk]]) 15:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Inserting a clarification is an idea I can get beyond. But I would disagree that the existence of one guideline precludes the other. The "leave acceptable English as it is" principle is ''equally explicit and clear'' as the quotation language, and if I recall correctly it is the more long-established principle, imposed to ensure that users don't do exactly what we saw here - swoop down on an article and change grammar from one for reason. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 01:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
:::I added it while doing some other cleanup. It's entirely normal to silently (not with "...") remove inline citations from quoted material, since WP isn't providing the source info, and to the reader it will be just be frustrating (they'll go looking for "Smith 1997" or whatever, and not find it). If our article is also citing the same source, then linking the quoted citation to our citation might be useful, but shouldn't be seen as manadatory. A general principle of quotation (inline or block) is to only quote what is pertinent, what is contextually necessary for our purposes; otherwise we're wandering into over-quotation which is both poor writing and apt to be a copyright issue unless the source is public-domain. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 13:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No guideline is intended to apply to every situation; hence the (misnamed) "Ignore All Rules", or more practically, its 12-word text. We can leave exceptions to be decided one at a time, as they come up, or we can describe an exception with a more detailed guideline. "Leave acceptable English as it is" could be used as an argument against the application of any rule in the Manual of Style, so that can't be what was intended; it has to mean don't change British English to U.S. or vice versa, and even that has exceptions. The goal of ensuring that users don't swoop down and change grammar also means national varieties of English, obviously not any possible grammar change, and the broader goal of stability is best served by everybody agreeing to follow the guidelines. Yes, LQ might be considered part of a national variety of English, but WP:LQ should make it clear that it isn't. [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 01:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::::Thanks. Your addition is helpful and doesn't seem to overcomplicate things. I realized the primary aim with quoted material is not to forensically reproduce it from the source (as I'd kinda been doing), it's to accurately represent the meaning as it appears in the full context of the source. Which makes minor silent adjustments for readability fine, provided meaning is strictly preserved – comprehension and judgement are of course required. [[User:Tsavage|Tsavage]] ([[User talk:Tsavage|talk]]) 17:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


== MOS:NOTLATIN and the Americanist phonetic notation ==
:::::Neutrality claims "It is antithetical to the idea of an ''international'' encyclopedia to impose ''a single, particular national English variety''." Nonsense. It is perfectly acceptable and normal for a publication, including an encyclopedia, to establish any house style it wants to. It is perfectly legitimate to either revise submissions so they conform to the house style, or reject them. Trying to undermine the house style by strained reading of the manual of style is nasty and underhanded. Accept defeat. Now. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 01:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::: "Accept defeat. Now"? Seriously? [[Wikipedia:Civility]], please. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 01:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


Hello, per the discussion at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Muthkwey]], I thought it may be best to start a discussion here. We have come to a bit of a stand-still regarding the status of [[Americanist phonetic notation]] (NAPA). Per the discussion, several languages in the Pacific Northwest Coast use Americanist Phonetic Notation and as it stands, it is recognized as a non-Latin script in the system. The challenge is that there exists no recognized romanization system for NAPA, per NOTLATIN’s requirement for romanization of non-Latin scripts, nor is there an incentive to do so.
Absolutely "leave acceptable English as it is". TQ is ''not'' acceptable, not here, per well established consensus. It doesn't matter how long your list of other style guides which disagree with ours is: they disagree with ours. WP has chosen LQ, use LQ or gain consensus to change the guideline. [[User:Jimp|J<small>IM</small>p]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Jimp|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Jimp|cont]]</sub> 01:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


In typical usage beyond Wikipedia, words in Northwest Coast languages rendered in NAPA are typically left as-is, with no romanization, or with a transliteration if there so exists a historical example. However, those transliterations are few and far between, and are often inconsistent as they differ author to author. It would not be a sustainable system, because those words only constitute a small portion of the lexicon.
:1) Placing the period inside the quotation marks is not the ''universal'' American style. It is simply what the overwhelming majority does. There are a few exceptions, such as ACS and many computer programming style guides.
:2) ENGVAR and RETAIN don't apply to punctuation ''but they should''. As always, I am 100% behind changing WP:LQ to require, or at the absolute least, to ''allow'' American punctuation in articles that are otherwise written in American English.
:Neutrality, what's really going on here is that a lot of the regulars on this page really ''really'' don't like American-style punctuation. (See Jimp's comment above; Jimp sees American punctuation as "unacceptable.") Some of them believe that it causes misquotations and errors. Some of them believe that the commas-always-in and commas-according-to-sense rules aren't really American and British, respectively. ''Yes'' WP:LQ conflicts with RETAIN and ENGVAR. But it's going to take more than a scolding to get them to change their minds about it. Stick around. Be polite. Listen to everyone. Show evidence and cite sources supporting your position. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 02:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
:: Your words are well taken and appreciated. Some notes:
:::(1) Commas and periods going inside punctuation marks is as universal in American English as "logical quotation" is in British English. As cited above, all four major American style guides (many of which also govern ''outside'' the U.S. in various academic disciplines) concur. So does every other noted authority on North American grammar. It's undoubtedly taught in nearly every composition course imaginable. It is more than a prevailing practice: It is nearly-universally accepted doctrine.
:::(2) It's not just American usage, but also near-universal [[Canadian English]] usage as well. The [http://www.writingcentre.uottawa.ca/hypergrammar/qmarks.html University of Ottawa Writing Centre recommends it]. So does the [http://mqup.mcgill.ca/downloads/styleguide.pdf official style guide] for the [[McGill-Queen's University Press]].
:::(3) As you note, some "Manual of Style regulars" express a personal, apparently deep-seated (and rather bizarre) animus toward U.S. style. That's fine (although it shows some wacky [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles|ownership]]-like tendencies), but that doesn't change the fact that (a) the North American style is attested over more than 100 years of style guides and practice; (b) North American English and its punctuation style is used on millions of articles here, and practice should carry significant weight in interpreting prevailing style, and (c) the punctuation-inside-quotation marks is used in the variant of English that the majority of our readers and world of English-language writers use.
:::(4) I feel that to the extent that language conflicts (and I do not think it necessary does): we should go to (1) the more fundamental, principle-based rule (''i.e.,'' strong national ties followed by first major contributor determines grammar), and (2) the more common sense rule that is consistent with editing harmony (prevent arbitrary changes) and practice (i.e., both [[color]] and [[colour]] are acceptable here, in accordance with the national variety rules; there is '''no''' reason quotation marks are different). To say that there is a special "carve-out" for quotation marks, such that articles on North American-related topics should be modified to reflect British grammar, is in direct contravention of established policy and leads to an absurd result. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 02:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::::I agree with you on most of these points. However, we should work by changing the MoS so that it is more in keeping with the sources, with common sense and with the principles of professional-quality writing rather than by working against the MoS. Bottom line, Cunard ''was'' following the rules when he or she reverted that change. The problem is the rule, not Cunard's relationship with it. If you go around changing British to American, ''even in situations in which it makes sense to do so'' you can be brought up on AN/I for it. I was. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 02:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::::: Well, I [[Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism|don't really care]] about targeted by the self-appointed grammar police. I've been here a ''long'' time and my focus is on contributing content; I'm not intimidated by other people's foolishness or English-variety obsessions.
:::::However, if you start a [[Wikipedia:Request for comment]] to clarify the Manual of Style to eliminate absurd result and bring it clearly in line with the longstanding national varieties of English policy, I would gladly participate and encourage wide participation. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 02:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::It would be a significant modification, ''not'' a "clarification." Most of us, including those who disagree with the rule, are clear on its meaning and acknowledge its existence.
::::::You're entitled to disagree with an element of the MoS, but it's rather unfair to suggest that those who seek to enforce it (and revert your non-compliant edits) are foolish, obsessive grammar police. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 03:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::: Perhaps it was strongly worded. Still, I think it quite fair to term the practice of changing grammar from one standard, acceptable variety to another ''silly'' and ''arbitrary'', especially in the context that we ''explicitly don't'' change spelling from standard, acceptable variety to another. As to the number of articles that have been affected by this, I edit with some regularity and I haven't seen this issue crop up until today. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 03:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::[[MOS:RETAIN]] (to which I've contributed) is part of [[MOS:ENGVAR]], which directs users to [[MOS:PUNCT]] (encompassing [[MOS:LQ]]) for an explanation of our punctuation rules.
::::::::[[MOS:RETAIN]] correctly states that "an article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another," '''not''' that such a change shouldn't be made for compliance with the MoS.
::::::::When I mentioned "a massive number" of articles affected, I was referring to a hypothetical scenario in which the MoS is altered to recommend typesetters' quotation in articles written in American English. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 04:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::Indeed, it's quite reasonable to argue that we should use typesetters' quotation in articles written in American English, but that would constitute a significant alteration to a longstanding MoS rule (however "absurd" it might be).
:::::For the record, I agree that it would have made more sense that way. However, I also feel that it's far too late for such a change (affecting a massive number of articles) to be practical, particularly given the relatively modest benefit (which, regardless, many would argue is outweighed by benefits of the status quo). —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 03:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


My question is whether NAPA should/would be recognized as a Latin script for the purposes of WP:NOTLATIN. NAPA derives heavily from Latin script, with the exception of a few Greek letters. Those letters represent various sounds, and each one serves a specific purpose. If it is not recognized as a Latin script, what would be the best course of action to allow various words to conform with WP:NOTLATIN, since there is no existing romanization system, and any generated romanization therefore would mostly be in violation of [[WP:OR]]. Any insight on this would be greatly appreciated. [[User:Ornithoptera|Ornithoptera]] ([[User talk:Ornithoptera|talk]]) 19:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::'''Neutrality:'''
::::Interesting username, under the circumstances. You are an admin and have been on the Project since 2004, it seems. Must I remind you about assuming good faith, and about the need for civility? Talk of "self-appointed grammar police" or "other people's foolishness" is unhelpful. So was this, from you:
::::<blockquote>As you note, some "Manual of Style regulars" express a personal, apparently deep-seated (and rather bizarre) animus toward U.S. style. That's fine (although it shows some wacky [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles|ownership]]-like tendencies),&nbsp;...</blockquote>
::::The first accusation is unfounded; if it were well-founded, and if LQ is to be strictly identified as non-American, then some Americans who post on this page have a "personal, apparently deep-seated (and rather bizarre) animus toward U.S. style". The second accusation, concerning ownership, is cheap and easy to level. Some of us are staunch defenders of MOS for the sake of stability and readability in the Project's {{numberofarticles}} articles. That is not to be confused with ownership. I don't agree with everything in MOS by any means; but I abide by it when I edit. Do you think that the "British" preference for single quote marks should have equal standing with the "American" preference for double quotes? I don't; but when I write or edit elsewhere according to Cambridge norms in which single quotes rule, I do it without complaint.
::::In both cases (quotes, and LQ versus TQ) there are compelling reasons favouring one way over the other. It is not simply a matter of evolved regional differences, as with spelling. Just as the metric system is demonstrably superior to alternatives, so are double quotes by default, and LQ by default. That has been the judgement here; but even if we disagree, we might still see merit in consistency, and in the avoidance of thousands of needless squabbles at articles&nbsp;– like the squabble at [[Mohamad Anas Haitham Soueid]], which brought Cunard and you here. Needlessly, if there is a recommendation at MOS and it is respected.
::::It would be a separate matter to initiate, yet again, a properly labelled and well-advertised discussion of LQ through an RFC, on this talkpage. Do so if you are inclined to disturb a long-standing guideline here. That is every editor's prerogative, of course.
::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>[[User_talk:Noetica |Tea?]]</small></sup> 03:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::As I understand it, double quotation marks are acceptable in British English (the ''Guardian'', ''Telegraph'', and ''Times of London'' appear to use it). It's fundamentally different from enforcing a style that is non-standard in North American English, especially on North American articles. As for "needless squabbles" - such squabbles are ''promoted'', not discouraged, by a rule that seeks to use one particular variety of English usage (a minority one, at that) universally, especially when that has '''''never''''' been our policy for spelling or word choice at all. It is likely to confuse and cause conflict ''much more'' than if we use our standard English varieties practice which has served us well for many years. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 03:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


:Sounds Latin enough to me. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 11:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
When I became acquainted with Wikipedia, its exclusive use of logical quotation surprised me. (As an American, I was accustomed to using typesetters' quotation.) But irrespective of whether this longstanding house style rule is sensible, it ''clearly'' exists.<br />Neutrality is badly misapplying [[WP:RETAIN]], which advises against unneeded changes from one MoS-sanctioned style to another, '''not''' from a non-MoS-sanctioned style to an MoS-sanctioned style. (As Art LaPella noted, Neutrality's interpretation would prevent us from maintaining ''any'' style guideline, provided that an alternative constituted "acceptable English.")<br />I find it interesting that a dispute arose regarding this particular MoS rule, as it's one that I've cited to dispel the mistaken belief that [[WP:RETAIN]] means "permit every widespread style element in existence." —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 03:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
:: I do not argue that we should "permit every widespread style element in existence." That is not my interpretation, nor has anyone suggesting that. There are some style elements that we don't use (for example, we '''bold''' article titles in lead sections, when we could just as easily ''italicize'' them), but those elements have no acceptable-grammar implications. For these, our standards are uncontroversial; they promote efficiency and there is no reason not to have them.
:: Here, the issue is fundamentally different because (1) quotations marks and punctuation usage are an integral part of grammar in any English varieties; (2) we have a longstanding policy that English varieties should be chosen, and retained, according to topical ties and the first major contributor (in spelling and word usage; e.g., [[color]] or [[colour]] acceptable; use of "[[cookie]]" in either U.S. or British context is acceptable) and (3) it [[Inductive reasoning|naturally follows]] that punctuation, too, falls under (or should fall under) the same rule. Nobody is arguing we should have crazy, wacky rules; what ''is'' being said is that punctuation shouldn't have an inexplicable "carve-out" from the general rule. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 03:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
:::I understand the distinction, largely agree (in principle) with what you've written above (which is more specific than some of your previous statements), and don't include you among those arguing that we should "permit every widespread style element in existence." (I was referring to past discussions.) —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 04:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


::Agree. The concept of a "romanisation" of NAPA doesn't make sense to me. In fact, NAPA in some ways strikingly resembles romanisation schemes for Cyrillic, and Cyrillic variants that have been used to transcribe or write down previously unwritten languages, so much that in the past I've wondered if UPA and NAPA originally ''arose'' as romanisations of Cyrillic-based transcriptions. --[[User:Florian Blaschke|Florian Blaschke]] ([[User talk:Florian Blaschke|talk]]) 01:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
This horse has been dead so long it has decayed past the point of stinking. Rather than continuing to beat it, go read [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/quotation and punctuation]]. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jc3s5h|contribs]]) 03:35, 17 November 2011‎ (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:<strike>David,</strike> Jc3s5h, the reason this issue keeps coming up is because WP:LQ is a bad or at least an essentially problematic rule. We have ENGVAR and RETAIN saying one thing (that Wikipedia allows/celebrates different varieties of English), and we have WP:LQ saying the exact opposite (that Wikipedia allows only British). It's not a dead horse; it's a perennial. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 03:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::The above comment was written by Jc3s5h. I accidentally added my signature when appending {{tl|unsigned}}. (My apologies for the confusion.)
::As stated elsewhere in the section, my opinion is we should have taken a different approach (using typesetters' quotation in articles written in American English), but it's too late for such a change to be practical. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 04:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Sorry about that. Why is it too late to change the MoS? A lot of featured articles already use American punctuation, and, as Neutrality has said, many regular articles do too. It's not like we'd have to go and correct the punctuation of American-spelling article in a day; it's that people would be ''allowed'' to do so, as Neutrality did in the case under discussion. This would legitimize something that's already going on.[[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 04:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::::Darkfrog24 and Neutrality can wish for a change to the MOS concerning logical quote marks. My wish is for a policy that imposes a mandatory waiting period before a new RfC may be introduced that is substantially the same as a previous RfC. Perhaps it should be a sliding scale, 6 months for 2 participants up to 2 years for 100 participants. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 04:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::::You make a compelling argument, Darkfrog. My impression has been that most of our articles comply with the current rule, but I've never actually paid much attention (and easily could have overlooked many instances of typesetters' punctuation, particularly given the fact that it was drilled into me throughout my education.) And if I recall correctly, one of my earliest edits (before I'd seen the MoS or even registered an account) was a well-meaning change from logical punctuation to typesetters' punctuation.
::::I'd be interested in seeing an approximate breakdown of our current usage in American English articles. (I don't know how easy it would be to create one, however.) —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 04:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::Of the 206 or so featured articles that have appeared since April, 10 have used only American style on their big day, 6 have used mostly American style, 66 have used only British, 55 have used mostly British, 37 have been more or less half, 13 have used none and I classified 19 as "other." [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 04:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::Are you saying that most conform to LQ, or nearly so? That's good. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 05:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::Those are the articles most likely to have been edited to follow an LQ policy (because they went through the FAC process and thus have been extensively edited). I would imagine the proportion would be much lower in other articles, particularly in North American-related articles. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 05:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Neutrality&mdash;Yup. Dicklyon&mdash;If 111/206 is "most," then yes. If 111/206 is "a little more than half," then no. If we exclude "none" and "other," it comes to between 63 and 64%. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 05:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::111 out of a total of 206 looks somewhat weeker than 111 mostly or only British (i.e. LQ, right) vs 16 mostly or only American (TQ). Above I'd called TQ unacceptable. Let me just clarify that I'm not refering to ''my'' preference but to the current WP guidelines. Yes, it ''is'' "quite fair to term the practice of changing grammar from one standard, acceptable variety to another ''silly'' and ''arbitrary''" but TQ is not acceptable inasmuch as it is against our guidelines. These are the guidelines, if you disagree with them, you've got every right to do so, but if you're suggesting that there's no reason to have them, I'd disagree with that. The long-standing WP:LQ guideline is based on the principle of not changing a quote. It may be argued that the changes made by TQ are regular enough as generally not to cause significant miscommunication. This may be true but the fact remains that TQ ''does'' change the quote. This puts the LQ vs TQ issue into a different boat than "colourise" vs "colourize" vs "colorize". [[User:Jimp|J<small>IM</small>p]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Jimp|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Jimp|cont]]</sub> 06:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::But that's just it. American punctuation ''doesn't'' change the content of the quoted material. Learning that is part of learning how to read. Schoolchildren see the teacher write "She said 'apples,' peaches,' and pears'" on the board and they learn that the comma is part of the process, not part of a fruit. It's kind of like how schoolchildren in British-ish areas learn that "centre" is pronounced "sen-ter" and not "sen-treh." The -tre spelling looks counterintuitive and it looks like it would confuse people, but it doesn't.
:::::::::Can you offer evidence, Jimp, that American punctuation changes quoted material? [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 13:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::This is an important point. In mainstream American/Canadian English, it's understood that commas and periods (full stops) appearing within quotation marks are ''not'' necessarily parts of the quoted material. The assertion that typesetters' quotation "changes the quote" relies on the application of a rule that simply doesn't exist (outside certain specialty publications) in these English varieties.
::::::::::Certainly, logical quotation draws a distinction not present in typesetters' quotation, and it's reasonable to argue that Wikipedia benefits from the added specificity. It's unreasonable, conversely, to suggest that typesetters' quotation is inherently ''wrong''. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 19:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::So what you're saying, David Levy, is "It looks like the added specificity British/LQ might prevent problems on Wikipedia." The question, then, is "What problems?"
:::::::::::A few months ago, I asked "Has anyone ever seen a problem on Wikipedia that could be attributed to American punctuation? What did it look like? Any errors in subsequent editing?" I was expecting some waffling, "Well, I saw one but it was so long ago that I don't remember," or "I saw some, but I don't want to go dig up the page histories," but that's not what happened. Not counting people who answered, "American punctuation itself is always an error," ''no one could remember even one.''
:::::::::::We've seen that American punctuation is far from absent from Wikipedia. If problems that can be attributed to American punctuation are so rare under ordinary Wikipedia conditions that not even Noetica could remember even one case, then any benefits that British/LQ might offer are outweighed by the benefits of allowing people to use contextually correct punctuation. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 20:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::I can understand why some people prefer logical quotation's additional specificity (particularly if they're conditioned to expect it), but I'm not aware of any significant problems caused by typesetters' punctuation. So no, it doesn't appear to me that our longstanding rule prevents such problems. (Like you, however, I welcome examples.) —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 22:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::If you consider the quote to be that which is within the inverted commas, then, by definition, TQ changes the quote in that it puts stuff within the inverted commas that doesn't belong to the quote. You might argue that this definition of "quote" is based on LQ and doesn't apply to TQ, that these punctuation marks added within the inverted commas are understood not to belong to the quote. The problem is, though, with TQ we cannot always be sure whether a punctuation mark is or isn't part of the quote whereas with LQ is perfectly clear. So perhaps what I'd called the principle of not changing the quote should be rephrased as a principle of clarity. With LQ is is clear whether or not a punctuation mark was part of the quote. Therefore it still makes sense to consider this as a special case rather than lumping it with other ENGVAR issues such as spelling and date formatting ("color" is as clear as "colour" and "18 Nov" is as clear as "Nov 18"). Consensus has shown that editors value this clarity. [[User:Jimp|J<small>IM</small>p]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Jimp|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Jimp|cont]]</sub> 01:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::But I don't. Jimp, have you ever seen a style guide or other source say "every character between the quotation marks must be from the original"? If you wanted to put the claim that every character between the quotation marks/inverted commas must be from the original into a Wikipedia article, would you be able to find a source that says so?
:::::::::::::::British/LQ style isn't clear; it's silent. When the period is inside the quotation marks, we don't know what the original punctuation was. When the period is outside the quotation marks, we don't know what the original punctuation was. In both cases, we have to look at the source material. With regard to information provided, British and American styles do about the same.
:::::::::::::::If American punctuation causes so much confusion that it ''must'' be treated differently from spelling and date systems, then please point to at least one case of that actually happening on Wikipedia. If it's so rare that you've never seen it happen, then it's not a big enough problem to merit requiring incorrect punctuation in American English articles. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 01:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::If you do decide to answer my question, either here or just to yourself, then consider this: Have you ever seen anyone on Wikipedia get confused about dates? Have you ever seen anyone mistake April 10 for October 4 because the date was written 4-10-2011 or 10-4-2011? Like punctuation, it's pretty well divided along national lines, and it sure looks like it would confuse people. How often have you seen it happen? [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 02:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Not ''all'' editors value this clarity, no, but there are enough that the consensus has been in favour of LQ for years. I'm afraid I don't have a list of style guides to prove that there is support of LQ out there. I learnt what inverted commas were many years ago and used them in a logical way for decades before I'd ever heard of this TQ vs LQ tiff. Then I discovered that there's a name for my way of punctuating. With LQ you don't need a list of arbitary rules, inverted commas enclose quotes, that's it. It was decided that WP should similarly follow logic inspite of the fact that some prefer not to (i.e. to use TQ). WP:MOS is not an article; it's a set of guidelines. It doesn't require reliable sources; it requires consensus. We're all free to challenge consensus but this guideline has yet to be successfully challenged. If though, you'd still like to see some backing up of LQ in the world out there, I believe [[User:SMcCandlish/Logical_quotation|SMcCandlish's essay]] (which you've read, Darkfrog) has a bunch.<p>I'm not quite sure I'm getting you when you say LQ style isn't clear but silent. With LQ if there is a full stop within the inverted commas, it's part of the quote. With TQ, it might or might not be. When the full stop is outside with LQ (it doesn't happen with TQ) there are a number of things that this could entail; perhaps it's unimportant, perhaps no punctuation is possible, perhaps it's obvious.<p>I'm not trying to insist that TQ causes so much confusion that it ''must'' be treated differently to spelling and date formats. I'm offering an explanation of the fact that it ''has been'' treated differently until now.<p>Yes, I have seen confusion caused by the use of all numeric dates (like "4/10/2011"). [[User:Jimp|J<small>IM</small>p]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Jimp|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Jimp|cont]]</sub> 03:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
:Yes, but in British/LQ rules, the writer not ''supposed'' to put the period inside the quotation mark for sentence fragments, short-form works, etc. When either American or British styles are used correctly, no situation arises in which British provides more information than American. Also, here's a question specific to Wikipedia conditions. If I see a sentence fragment with a period inside, I don't know if that period was present or not because I don't know if the editor who placed it was using British or American style, don't know if the editor was using it correctly, etc. (That's something not likely to be much of an issue for someone who's reading a work that does not have multiple nonprofessional writers.)
:The rules of British style are just as arbitrary as the rules of American style. Some guys back in 1906 thought that one thing seemed more appealing than another and got a lot of other people to agree. That's all. British style is called logical, but we could just as easily make the case that it is more logical to always put periods and commas inside the quotation marks, because it's more consistent, because it's easier to teach, because it's easier to copy edit or for whatever reason.
:Safe to say you've seen ''more'' confusion stemming from date formats than you have from American punctuation? I've been editing a lot of science papers this week and I notice that geneticists tend to use beta-actin as a baseline when assessing gene expression. I was trying to use date formats as a sort of a control group, an example of something for which the occasional problem has been observed. Actual problems caused by American style still seem a bit like Bigfoot. Lots of people believe in them, but no one seems to have a photo that doesn't turn out to be of some backpacker who hasn't shaved in a while. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 04:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


== Stale advice: slashes have been line-breaks since 2005 (Unicode 4.1.0) ==
'''Darkfrog:'''
:Earlier you wrote this:
:<blockquote>If problems that can be attributed to American punctuation are so rare under ordinary Wikipedia conditions that <u>not even Noetica could remember even one case</u>, then any benefits that British/LQ might offer are outweighed by the benefits of allowing people to use contextually correct punctuation.</blockquote>
:Who says I can't remember a case? When have I ever said that? I'm tired of you pushing this same spurious point every time the topic comes up; so I thought of just ''one'' article to go to that was likely to have quotes I could easily check: ''[[Pride and Prejudice]]''. Here is the ''first quote'' I found in the article:
:<blockquote>He is "not a sensible man, and the deficiency of nature had been but little assisted by education or society." Mr Collins is obsequious,&nbsp;[...]</blockquote>
:That style of quoting ''needlessly'' gives a false impression of how the character was described, and of the way a sentence ends in this author's writing. Here is the actual text (the first sentence of Chapter 15):
:<blockquote>Mr Collins was not a sensible man, and the deficiency of nature had been but little assisted by education or society; the greatest part of his life having been spent under the guidance of an illiterate and miserly father; and though he belonged to one of the universities, he had merely kept the necessary terms, without forming at it any useful acquaintance.</blockquote>
:Soon we find in the article this quote from a secondary source, duly referenced:
:<blockquote>This has been defined as "the free representation of a character's speech, by which one means, not words actually spoken by a character, but the words that typify the character's thoughts, or the way the character would think or speak, if she thought or spoke<u>".</u>[4]</blockquote>
:This quote affirms for us that the article distinguishes between <u>."</u> and <u>".</u> at the end of the end of a quotation. In other words, we are led to believe that LQ is in play. So does this:
:<blockquote>[...] the final chapter of Fanny Burney's Cecilia, called "Pride and Prejudice<u>",</u> where&nbsp;[...]</blockquote>
:And several other instances give the same impression of care in quoting sources, though in other instances the care is clearly absent.
:Now, what if the source were ''not'' one I could check? What if I needed to quote, on of off Wikipedia, what Wikipedia quotes about Mr Collins? Suppose I want to use LQ in my own text:
:<blockquote>According to Wikipedia's quotation, Austen says of Mr Collins that he is "not a sensible man, and the deficiency of nature had been but little assisted by education or society[&nbsp;<u>".</u> or <u>."</u>&nbsp;]</blockquote>
:I could not tell how to punctuate the end of my sentence. Prudence would dictate this:
:<blockquote>"[...] by education or society<u>".</u></blockquote>
:After all, I would be out on a limb, and in fact in error, if I did it this way:
:<blockquote>"[...] by education or society<u>."</u></blockquote>
:The only excuse would be that I am faithfully replicating Wikipedia's error!
:It is exactly where the article fails to use LQ that the problem occurs; and the inconsistency in the article makes matters even worse. It is hard to escape the conclusion: ''consistent'' use of LQ offers the best defence against misleading our readers. If MOS recommended that LQ be used ''or'' not used, with consistency only within an article, the difficulty I sketch above would still be there. And anyway, the best way to ensure consistency in an article is to recommend just ''one'' way, for ''every article''. As the guideline stands, editors have some hope of learning what is expected. And then, above all, experienced and responsible editors can set an example of respecting the well-chosen and well-settled guidelines we have in place here. That is what happens with featured articles, up to a point. This sort of rigour is the way forward, subject to small and very carefully judged corrections in our bearing.
:&nbsp;
:Darkfrog, that is the ''first quote'' in the ''first article'' I checked. A more compelling case could easily be made, given time and patience, looking further through the riches of Wikipedia. But I do not have that time, and I will continue my patience only if this matter is dealt with rationally and without misrepresentation in future. Take care.
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>[[User_talk:Noetica |Tea?]]</small></sup> 07:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
::Who said you couldn't remember any cases of problems caused by American punctuation? '''You did.''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_125#RFC:_Rationale_behind_the_ban_and_majority_vs._sources] Post is signed 23:50, 5 August.
:::''"Do you recall any instances of American punctuation causing any non-hypothetical misquotations or errors in subsequent editing on Wikipedia?"''
:::''No I don't. But:''
::(Followed by a list of other points.) If you've remembered something now that you didn't then or if you've changed your mind, that's one thing, but I'm certainly not misrepresenting what you said.
::Regarding your examples, '''you still haven't shown any problems that are created by American punctuation.''' 1) Someone quoted a line from ''Pride and Prejudice'' and placed a period at the end of it. Where is the problem or error? The period is part of the quotation process. Regardless of where the period is placed, the quote does not misrepresent the book or the character. 2&mdash;on) The use of British style in the article ''might'' mean that British style is being used consistently or it ''might'' mean that a mix of British and American styles are being used. In the 207 featured articles that I examined, 98 used a mixture of British and American.
::If you want to write your own article copying a full sentence from Wikipedia, then, if you're writing it in American English, placing the period or comma inside the quotation marks is what you should do. This does not make the claim that the period was present in the original, so there is no misquotation. If you're writing your article in British English, then you would have to check the original material to be sure or make your best guess.
::But Wikipedia does ''not'' recommend one way for every article. Wikipedia explicitly permits both British and American English, as well as Canadian, Australian, and others. In British English, placing periods and commas according to sense, as Fowler put it, is correct. In American English, it is incorrect. It is better to be consistently correct than consistently British. Having one rule for dates, spelling and other matters but making a magical exception for punctuation is pretty far from consistent. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 14:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


{{alink|Slashes (strokes)}} says "On the other hand, if two long words are connected by an unspaced slash, an {{tl|wbr}} added after the slash will allow a linebreak at that point."
:::Darkfrog, you write: "If you're writing your article in British English, then you would have to check the original material to be sure or make your best guess." But I set up the case first by using a checkable source (''Pride and Prejudice''), and then by extrapolating to instances in which I could not check the source, but had only Wikipedia's quote available. And as you pretty well admit, Wikipedia's quote (if it forfeits the precision of LQ) let's me down. The quote is in a way disabled for further use.
:::As for trying to catch me in an inconsistency, nice try! It can be done, I'm sure; but you still misrepresent the facts here. Look closely at what you quote. In August of this year you asked exactly this: "<u>Do</u> you recall any instances of American punctuation causing <u>any non-hypothetical misquotations or errors in subsequent editing on Wikipedia</u>?" And no, I did not; and I answered accurately and at length. But you report it now in these terms: "If <u>problems that can be attributed to American punctuation</u> are so rare under ordinary Wikipedia conditions that not even Noetica <u>could</u> remember even one case,&nbsp;...". That's not the same. I responded accurately this time to what you wrote this time&nbsp;– again, at length. The points I went on to make last time are also applicable in the present discussion, since your arguments are recycled here anyway. Let editors search on this, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_125#RFC:_Rationale_behind_the_ban_and_majority_vs._sources Archive 125]: "Famously, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
:::Sometimes we need to settle things and move on: not crank up the same tired old discussion every time, as if it were worthwhile or new. Do you see me harping at length on ellipses, possessives, or the naming of centuries every time the opportunity comes up? No. I'll make my comment about those provisions, but I won't launch a diatribe to change MOS because those guidelines are not quite to my liking. Not every time!
:::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>[[User_talk:Noetica |Tea?]]</small></sup> 20:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


I've recently tweaked a couple of articles doing this, and realized that my browser will allow breaks after slashes without any special markup. This is part of the [https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr14/#SY current Unicode line-break algorithm]. Looking into the archives, it was added to support breaking URLs between [http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr14/tr14-15.html Unicode 4.0.1 (2004-03-30)] and [https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr14/tr14-17.html Unicode 4.1.0 (2005-08-29)].
::::OK, I looked closely. I think it boils down to distinguishing between a "problem" and an "error". [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 22:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


It's been 19 years. Do we still need this advice? I ask because ''some'' parts of WP are aggressively backward-compatible: {{tl|wbr}} still expands to <code>&lt;wbr/>&amp;#8203;</code> since apparently IE7 and earlier don't support <code>&lt;wbr/></code>. But I seriously doubt that WP is ''consistently'' backward-compatible; I'm sure there are lots of more recent edits where the editors didn't see a problem with long /-separated lists on their browsers and didn't do anything tricky. [[Special:Contributions/97.102.205.224|97.102.205.224]] ([[User talk:97.102.205.224|talk]]) 17:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Can we please drop the semantic argument about who said or didn't say x? It really doesn't matter. Let's attempt to understand each other's concerns.
::::The relevant issue regarding typesetters' quotation is that it doesn't specify whether a trailing comma or period (full stop) is attributable to the quoted source. The dispute, as I understand it, pertains to the existence/nature of a resultant problem.
::::It appears that some of us are on slightly different wavelengths, which is causing confusion and acrimony. Here's a rough summary of the back-and-forth:
:::::TQ proponents: "What's the problem with TQ?"
:::::LQ proponents: "TQ doesn't convey whether certain punctuation is part of the quotation."
:::::TQ proponents: "Okay, but what problem does this cause?"
:::::LQ proponents: "Huh? I just told you the problem."
:::::TQ proponents: "No, you didn't. You noted a difference, but you didn't explain how it causes a problem."
:::::LQ proponents: "That difference ''is'' the problem."
::::And around and around we go. Jimp, for example, refers to the ambiguity as a "problem" in and of itself, which is difficult for those of us accustomed to typesetters' quotation to understand. (We were educated to regard the distinction as unimportant and unwritten, so we have little or no concept of any harm caused by its omission.) Meanwhile, for someone accustomed to logical quotation, I assume that it seems similarly difficult to understand why we're requesting elaboration regarding the harm caused by a patently obvious and inexcusable deficiency.
::::However, buried within the exchange is the point that logical quotation is directly adaptable to typesetters' quotation, while typesetters' quotation is ''not'' directly adaptable to logical quotation. In other words, if an article is written with logical quotation, a third party can easily convert it to typesetters' quotation without a need to consult the original sources. Conversely, an article written with typesetters' quotation lacks information essential to a third party that wishes to republish it with logical quotation.
::::Whether this justifies a rule requiring American/Canadian English articles to incorporate a punctuation style explicitly deemed "incorrect" in American/Canadian schools is debatable, but I must acknowledge that I find the argument compelling. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 22:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


:Look at Good articles (or former Good articles) from years ago they read like they do now and it just shows that the Manual of Style will stay exactly the same as it has been for 18 years unfortunately. [[User:This0k|This0k]] ([[User talk:This0k|talk]]) 02:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::Art LaPella: "I think it boils down to distinguishing between a 'problem' and an 'error'." That's part of it, yes. But as David Levy puts it, "Can we please drop the semantic argument about who said or didn't say x? It really doesn't matter." I will not do that, provided Darkfrog does not distort particular wording (''my'' particular wording) in a way that favours the case against LQ, knowingly or otherwise.
::David Levy: Yes; except that I consider it unhelpful to continue characterising the TQ–LQ divide as an American–British divide (or as any similar regional divide). There are, for one thing, different implementations of the LQ idea. What dominates in British publishing is one variant (or perhaps there are two or a couple more involved). The divide between technical usages and popular usages is probably more relevant to the adoption of LQ on Wikipedia, and it is founded on considerations of simplicity in use, clarity, and freedom from ambiguity, not on regional allegiances. Same for the preference for double quotes, straight quotes, and simple three-point ellipses (not pre-formed ones, and not ".&nbsp;.&nbsp;." which requires hard spaces). I have said before (as Darkfrog can no doubt verify) that adjustments are needed in the current LQ guideline; but I am not going to embark on that, when someone might pick up an opportunity for unsettling it. It would all cost too much time.
::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>[[User_talk:Noetica |Tea?]]</small></sup> 01:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


==Input needed on disagreement over where the lifespan goes in relation to a baronetcy or a peerage title==
:::No one is suggesting that the divide is purely regional, but we're discussing the style used in non-specialist encyclopedia articles written in American/Canadian English.
[[User:Muéro|Muéro]] and I disagree on where the lifespan goes in relation to a name that includes a baronetcy or a peerage title. It started with Muéro removing honorifics from the lead of several articles on peers (many of which I have on my watchlist), following the recently changed guidelines at [[WP:POSTNOM]]. This is not controversial, but in their edits, he also removed a comma unrelated to the honorifics, but called for by [[WP:COMMA]] ("''Don't let other punctuation distract you from the need for a comma, especially when the comma collides with a bracket or parenthesis''").
:::I don't know how the matter is handled in your country, but in mine (the U.S.), teachers commonly treat logical quotation as an ''error'' (i.e. something for which points are deducted and/or corrections are made).
:::I'm not suggesting that this automatically precludes the use of logical quotation in American/Canadian English Wikipedia articles, but I hope that you can understand why some editors regard it as anomalous. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 02:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
::::That's right: no one is suggesting that the divide is purely regional. I did not say anyone did. But some emphasize (this time and always before) an American–British divide for the topic. That is, as I say, unhelpful. (Nor do I even think that is so clear a distinction between such regional varieties these days. Especially as the web continues its unifying work, here on Wikipedia and elsewhere, things might become more level. As with writing, as with printing, as with television.) And yes, of course I can understand the difficulty some have with LQ. Everywhere! Same for en dashes, if they are unfamiliar with contemporary best practice in anglophone publishing. And same for straight quotes and apostrophes as practical adaptations for collaborative web writing, and so on. I don't like everything in MOS myself, as I have said above. But I think ''you'' agree: it's best to respect standards that are long-established and rationally based, even if we can find some fault with them.
::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>[[User_talk:Noetica |Tea?]]</small></sup> 04:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


I pointed this out to them, and they acknowledged the error, but then they instead started to leave another comma in place, a comma that was required by the now obsolete guideline. I can't find the guideline in the history of this article, but it went something like this:
:::::We should add this line: ''TQ: But British punctuation doesn't say whether the punctuation was part of the quote or not either.''
:''For people with a baronetcy or a peerage, the post-nominals should be separated from each other, <u>and from the name</u>, by a comma, for consistency's sake.'' (my underscore)
:::::Noetica: '''Absence of evidence isn't evidence of presence either, now is it?'''
:::::Regarding whether American/TQ is American and British/LQ is British. I've repeatedly (and in this topic) offered sources showing that the national divide is real. Please offer sources of your own that support your belief that it isn't. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 06:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


That is the comma Muéro left in place, and the result was this:
:::::1. I'm unclear on why you regard discussion of a regional divide as unhelpful. To my understanding, it's factual that typographical quotation strongly predominates in American and Canadian English (to the extent that teachers treat logical quotation as an error).
John Doe, 1st Baron Doe, (1 January 1801 – 31 December 1881), was a Whig politician ...
:::::2. While people naturally experience the greatest ease when writing in the styles to which they're accustomed, the argument isn't that logical quotation is more difficult to use; it's that it's incongruous with mainstream American/Canadian English. Perhaps the incongruity is justified, but it nonetheless seems unusual.
:::::3. Yes, I agree that adherence to the MoS (including elements with which one personally finds fault) is important. Unless and until a rule is modified/removed (as a result of consensus or a lack thereof), it's an essential source of stability in a collaborative environment. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 06:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::It's not that talking about regional variation is unhelpful; it's talking about regional variation highlights why WP:LQ really shouldn't be here. This whole question came up because Neutrality wanted found WP:LQ to be in conflict with WP:RETAIN. ENGVAR and RETAIN are all about national varieties of English and when to use which one on Wikipedia. Fans of WP:LQ like to maintain that British style isn't really British and American style isn't really American because if that were true, then arguments like "We should be following ENGVAR" or "We shouldn't use British punctuation in articles on clearly American topics," etc. which some pretty strong arguments in favor of permitting American punctuation, would hold no weight. There are also probably a couple of people on here who actively want to erase regional differences between varieties of English and create one international style and they figure, probably correctly, that Wikipedia would be a reasonably effective place to push that.
::::::If British/LQ becomes some kind of international alternative in five or ten or twenty years, we can always change the MoS then, but right now, that's not the case. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 23:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


I pointed out to Muéro that this is also wrong, and that punctuation rarely – if ever – precedes a parenthetical expression. But they are adamant that it should be there.


So here we are. I'd like input from the project, and I'm sure Muéro would like that too.


The discussion originated on [[User talk:Muéro#Comma removal in connection with postnom removal|Muéro's talk page]], but I'm copying it here, and closing it there, while notifying them.
===Does MOS:RETAIN override MOS:LQ? (part 2)===
Here are some examples of expressions where, in each case, a quotation from the beginning to the comma can be misleading if the comma is not quoted.
*<i>He said that he would be there, if he could be excused from his job.</i>
*<i>Climate change will extinguish many species, unless humans radically change their lifestyles.</i>
*<i>residents of London, Ontario</i>
*<i>This treatment cures all ailments, except those of type Z.</i>
*<i>We enjoyed the experience, but not without some problems.</i>
—[[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]] ([[User talk:Wavelength|talk]]) 00:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


===The discussion on Muéro's talk page===
:In each and every instance, quoting only up to the comma is inherently misleading (and therefore should not be done), irrespective of whether a period (full stop) appears within the quotation marks. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 01:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello.


Thank you for your contributions. Regarding your edit of [[Frederick Curzon, 7th Earl Howe]], and similar edits removing postnoms per the new guidelines, please don't remove the comma '''''after''''' the parenthetical birth–death expression. It's supposed to be there per [[WP:COMMA]]: "''Don't let other punctuation distract you from the need for a comma, especially when the comma collides with a bracket or parenthesis''".
:Very well; and using LQ consistently would enable the inference that a quoted comma was indeed quoted, and not added as an artefact of the operation of quoting. Still, the main thing is not to misrepresent what is quoted. LQ is only one of the safeguards against that, and others are needed. Like this, when the textual and semantic details are important:
:<blockquote>He said "[c]limate change will extinguish many species,&nbsp;[...]", not "global warming will extinguish many species".</blockquote>
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>[[User_talk:Noetica |Tea?]]</small></sup> 01:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


Thank you. [[User:HandsomeFella|HandsomeFella]] ([[User talk:HandsomeFella|talk]]) 15:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::What I (and others accustomed to typesetters' quotation) have difficulty understanding is why it's inherently important to know whether the comma is attributable to the original source. (I understand the argument regarding republication by parties using logical quotation, but I fail to grasp the underlying need.)
::In each of the above examples, I don't believe that it's advisable to quote only up to the comma, as this significantly alters the text's meaning. But if this ''is'' done, I don't see how knowledge of whether the comma is part of the quotation meaningfully affects a reader's comprehension of the quoted material.
::To be clear, I'm not arguing with you. I sincerely wish to gain a better understanding of the issue. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 02:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


:Ah, good catch. I can't wait for the day when nobility titles are also excluded entirely, which would make that comma unnecessary anyway. [[User:Muéro|Muéro]]<sup>([[User_talk:Muéro|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Muéro|c]])</sup> 15:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, I'm one who is "accustomed to typesetters' quotation" too. I have to be, if I were not naturally. But I see the rationality of LQ, as you do; and I see the rationality of having a single consistent recommendation on Wikipedia (as you do, right?). As for what matters in fidelity to a quoted source, it is hard to predict the needs of readers and the sorts of misunderstandings that can be spawned by not caring. Rarely do writers and editors ''set out'' to confuse readers; but they often achieve it nonetheless.
:::I can see you are not arguing with me. You do not, for a start, identify and criticise points that I actually make&nbsp;☺!
:::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>[[User_talk:Noetica |Tea?]]</small></sup> 04:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


::Hello again.
::::Omitting the words that come after the comma would be a misquotation regardless of whether American or British style is used. American punctuation does not make the claim that the comma or period was part of the quoted material, so it does not make the claim that the sentence stops at any particular place.
::::I would support WP:LQ if Wikipedia discarded ENGVAR and required every article to use British spelling, grammar and other conventions only. ''That'' would be consistency. Our current rule is trendiness and codified pet peeves. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 06:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
::::Litmus test: If you saw "He said he would be there"[period] or "residents of London"[period] or "The treatment cures all ailments"[period] wouldn't you revert it as a misquotation? You would ''really'' go "Well the period's outside, so everything's fine, not deceitful at all"? [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 06:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


::Thank you for your understanding. Re: your latest edits, you're now leaving a comma in place that shouldn't be there.
::::Indeed, I see value in Wikipedia-wide consistency. However, I also see value in adhering to an English variety's usual conventions when writing in said variety, except when there's a good reason not to. (We agree, I presume, that mandating consistent American or British spelling throughout Wikipedia would be a bad idea.)
::::The issue, as I see it, is that there is disagreement regarding the existence of a good enough reason to deviate from the quotation style prevalent in American/Canadian English when writing in those varieties. Personally, I see reasonable arguments from both sides. But I regard our longstanding rule as the default and would need to see a stronger argument from the pro-TQ camp to be convinced that it makes sense for the MoS to be changed (irrespective of what would have been the optimal choice in the first place). I also believe, of course, that we should abide by the MoS unless and until such a change is made.
::::I'm sorry if you regard my previous response as a straw man of sorts. I certainly didn't intend to distort your position or anyone else's. I simply don't understand what essential information (apart from that which is needed to author an LQ version of the text) is lost in TQ. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 06:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::Sting your own position does not misrepresent mine, D. Levy. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 13:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::I was primarily addressing the statement that I "do not, for a start, identify and criticise points that [Noetica] actually [makes]" (the seriousness of which is unclear to me, as a "smiley" emoticon follows), but I'm glad that I haven't misrepresented your position. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, (29 April 1936 – 26 February 2024),
== Circa ==
^ ^ ^
A B C


::Commas A and C are paired, comma B should be removed along with the postnoms that followed it. Commas rarely precede parentheses.
What justification is there for [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=444647917 this MoS edit]?


::Cheers.
The edit by {{User|Kotniski }} occurred on 13&nbsp;August 2011 in [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Abbreviations|MoS#Abbreviations]] with the insertion of the sentence "''Circa''. &ndash; To indicate approximately, the unitalicised abbreviation c. (followed by a space) is '''preferred''' over circa, ca., or approx". Why is c. preferred over ''circa'' by whom and under whose authority? This change, I believe, is not consistent with "Use c. '''only for''' dates in small spaces and in the opening sentence of a biography (see MOS:DOB). It should not be italicised in normal usage. Do not use ca." found in [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(abbreviations)#Miscellaneous_initialisms|MoS (abbreviations)#miscellaneous initialisms]] (and inserted July 2011.


--[[User:Senra|Senra]] ([[User Talk:Senra|Talk]]) 13:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
::[[User:HandsomeFella|HandsomeFella]] ([[User talk:HandsomeFella|talk]]) 17:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't think that makes sense. If someone doesn't have a nobility/royalty title, there is no comma before or after the life span. When adding the nobility/royalty title, the pair of commas should go before and after the nobility/royalty title. Why, when adding the nobility/royalty title, would the life span get looped into the comma pair? [[User:Muéro|Muéro]]<sup>([[User_talk:Muéro|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Muéro|c]])</sup> 17:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


====Step by step====
:You're right, it's inconsistent, and therefore I will stop changing "circa" to "c." except where those inconsistent guidelines agree, or until that inconsistency is reconciled. [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 16:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it makes perfect sense. You don't put a parenthetical expression '''''after''''' punctuation, do you?
Let me take this step by step. Normally, the first sentence would be something like this:
John Doe was a Whig politician ...


Now let's add that he was a peer:
:: I think [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Abbreviations|MoS#Abbreviations]] just needs re-wording slightly or we should add examples such as
John Doe, 1st Baron Doe, was a Whig politician ...
::*"WRONG: ''circa''&nbsp;two-thousand&nbsp;soldiers"
^ ^
::*"RIGHT: c.&nbsp;two-thousand&nbsp;soldiers"
A B
::*"WRONG: c.&nbsp;1800" (except where brevity is warranted in an infobox for example)
The commas A and B are paired, i.e. the "parenthetical" title is set off at both ends (unless when there is other punctuation, like at the end of sentence). Let's see what happens without the closing (second) comma:
::*"RIGHT: ''circa''&nbsp;1800"
John Doe, 1st Baron Doe was a Whig politician ...
:: --[[User:Senra|Senra]] ([[User Talk:Senra|Talk]]) 20:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


If the commas aren't paired, the sentence reads "1st Baron Doe was a Whig politician", and "John Doe" is left dangling at the start of the sentence.
:::I just realized Kotniski didn't invent the circa rule in August; all he did was [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=444647613 move that guideline], which is much older. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers&diff=10165681&oldid=10165652 The rule's most direct ancestor traces all the way back to 2005.] [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=148400604&oldid=148390273 It was transferred here in 2007.] [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 21:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


Now, let's add the life span. Where do we add it? Before punctuation.
== Glossary of style guide terms ==
John Doe, 1st Baron Doe (1 January 1801 – 31 December 1881), was a Whig politician ...
^ ^
A B
The commas A and B are still paired. See?


[[User:HandsomeFella|HandsomeFella]] ([[User talk:HandsomeFella|talk]]) 23:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Someone might wish to start the page "[[Glossary of style guide terms]]". It can be categorized in [[:Category:Glossaries]]. <br>
—[[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]] ([[User talk:Wavelength|talk]]) 03:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


:The nobility title is a nonessential appositive. Commas go before and after a nonessential appositive. I'm assuming you don't consider the lifespan, which is never set off by commas in a Wikipedia article, to be a part of the same nonessential appositive somehow, right? If it's not included in the nobility title nonessential appositive, then it goes outside the commas. [[User:Muéro|Muéro]]<sup>([[User_talk:Muéro|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Muéro|c]])</sup> 00:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
== Diacritics in article titles ==


::No, it doesn't. Sure, the lifespan parenthetical isn't part of the appositive, but neither are the commas, which is demonstrated by the fact that at, if the name and title occurred at the end of a sentence, there wouldn't be a comma; there would be a period/full stop:
There is a discussion about diacritics in article titles at [[User talk:Jimbo Wales#Diacrtics in our article titles when the RSs do otherwise]] (permanent link [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=461446068#Diacrtics_in_our_article_titles_when_the_RSs_do_otherwise here]). <br>
... {{xt|Joseph Smith bequeathed the manor to his nephew, John Doe, 1st Baron Doe (1801–1881).}}
—[[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]] ([[User talk:Wavelength|talk]]) 16:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
:[[User talk:Jimbo Wales#Diacritics in our article titles when the RSs do otherwise|Corrected link]] [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 21:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
::Thank you. The heading was [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=461462286&oldid=461461651 corrected] at 18:47, 19 November 2011.
::—[[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]] ([[User talk:Wavelength|talk]]) 23:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
::The discussion has been archived at [[User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 88#Diacritics in our article titles when the RSs do otherwise]].
::—[[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]] ([[User talk:Wavelength|talk]]) 17:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


::You wouldn't place the parenthetical outside the sentence like this, would you?
== Elaboration on MOS:TIES ==
... {{!xt|Joseph Smith bequeathed the manor to his nephew, John Doe, 1st Baron Doe. (1801–1881)}}


::Ergo: normal rules apply, which is that punctuation doesn't precede a parenthetical. (The exception being when there is a complete sentence inside the parentheses, in which case punctuation occurs both at the end of the preceding sentence, i.e. before the parenthetical, and before the closing parenthetical, as shown here.)
I suggest that further elaboration be made with the following statement in Strong Nation Ties to a Topic: "For articles about modern writers or their works, it is sometimes decided to use the variety of English in which the subject wrote".
::Commas go before and after an appositive (unless there is other punctuation), but that does not necessarily mean immediately after.


::[[User:HandsomeFella|HandsomeFella]] ([[User talk:HandsomeFella|talk]]) 10:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
This should probably be expanded with examples such as these:
:::"Punctuation doesn't precede a parenthetical" is not a rule at all. It's just something you made up.
:::If the parenthetical were being applied to the nobility title, then the parenthetical should go within the commas that set off the nobility title. But the parenthetical is being applied to the actual name of the person, which came before the nonessential appositive that is set off by commas.
:::If you dislike the placement of the nobility title between the name and the lifespan parenthetical, I wouldn't disagree. I'd happily remove the nobility title entirely from the lead sentence (or heck, the whole article). Or put the lifespan parenthetical first, and then the nobility title. But wherever the nobility appositive is being stuck, it gets set off by commas. That's the rule. [[User:Muéro|Muéro]]<sup>([[User_talk:Muéro|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Muéro|c]])</sup> 13:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::This one is simple: a comma is ''never'' placed immediately before other punctuation. Instead it's placed ''after'' them or, in case or semicolons and periods, omitted altogether. While [[MOS:COMMA]] doesn't say so quite explicitly (supposedly treating it as one of these common sense things that everybody already knows?), it gives an example of how to do it correctly: "Burke and Wills, fed by locals (on beans, fish, and ngardu), survived for a few months." (With the second parenthetical comma ''after'' the closing bracket.) So, by analogy, "John Doe, 1st Baron Doe (1 January 1801 – 31 December 1881), was a Whig politician" is indeed correct. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 08:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:Concur with the OP and with Gawaon on the typographical point; we don't use a comma right before a round-bracketed parenthetical, nor does much of anyone else in the world. One might make an argument that "logically", in the way a computer program would approach logic, there should or could be one there, and this is the direction Muéro has been going, but human language does not operate on such a basis, being a matter of convention combined with expediency, not a matter of a JSON-like syntax in which a comma that really should not be needed to parse the material must be present anyway or the operation will fail.<p>That said, we do have several interrelating issues in play in this titles and post-noms sector that are worth cataloguing and considering in some detail:</p>
:# Something like "Xerxes Youill Zounds, Grand Poobah of Elbonia–Brobdingnag (3 May 1571 – 24 July 1644), was ..." is {{em|always}} indicating the life-span dates. If there is a need to specify the duration of a peerage, including a change in titles, that should be done in plain English in the article body, and is not going to be lead-sentence or even lead-section material. It's body material, like "Upon the death of his father, Zounds became 3rd poobah of Elbonia on 12 December 1629. He was elevated to 1st grand poobah of Elbonia–Brobdingnag on 20 June 1639 by High King Korki IX of Kerblachistan. Zounds was also the bishop of Lilliput from ca. 1630 to 14 February 1633, when he was defrocked by the archbishop of Elbonia."
:# As an anti-classist myself, I still have to observe/concede that "don't include any titles or post-noms because they are classist" is not a viable position. WP is [[WP:NOTSOAPBOX|not a socio-political activism tool]], and when any such title or honor (whether earned or hereditary or otherwise) is pertinent to a notable article subject, it should be covered, more prominently the more important it is within the context of their notability. (See below for an idea toward suppressing lead inclusion when not related to notability at all but a late-coming add-on to the pile of someone's life aachievements.)
:# There's a been a very long-standing {{lang|la|de facto}} consensus to always include peerage titles {{em|and}} important post-nominals (but not academic or professional titles or post nominals like "Dr[.]" or "PhD", or guild/union stuff like "[[American Society of Cinematographers|ASC]]", "[[Producers Guild of America|PGA]]") in the lead sentence. Virtually every applicable article has been written this way.
:# A recent-ish RfC (I seem to have lost the link to it – help me out?) with probably much too low a turnout upended part of this, and now has us remove the post-nominals from the lead {{em|sentence}}. This has not sat well, and actually introduces some writing problems that the RfC participants did not anticipate. For example, WP does not, except in an article on the subject being abbreviated, introduce an acronym/initialism unless it is going to be re-used later in the same article. But if our bio subject's investiture as a [[Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath]] is covered in the body only, the point at which this is done has no need to a "KCB" appearing at that point, since "KCB" is used as a post-nominal not otherwise and would not be re-used later in the article; the result is that the "KCB" that applies to this person has no logical place to go in the article any longer, since it was actually only pertinent in the lead sentence, attached to the person's name. We could do something very awkward like state that this knighthood entitles/entitled this person to use "Sir" or "Dame" and the post-nominal "KCB", but this sort of blather would have to be repeated throughout many thousands of articles, and was already very concisely conveyed by the original lead sentence without having to spell it out and micro-[[WP:COATRACK]] the bio article with detailia about how a particular order's nomenclatural rules operate. Simply showing rather than telling was better.<p>So, this really should be re-RfCed, at a higher-profile venue like [[WP:VPPOL]] so we are certain that the community at large really wants to impose this lead rule change and its problems all in the name of shaving a few characters off the lead sentence. "The postnoms will be in the infobox anyway" isn't the (or an) answer, since not all bios have infoboxes, and there is staunch resistance to adding them in many cases. A potential compromise might be to not include postnoms in lead sentence but in an infobox when one is present and has a parameter for it.</p>
:#Even without revisiting that with a better RfC, the present wording at [[MOS:POSTNOM]] is daft: "post-nominal letters may be included in the main body of the article, but not in the lead sentence of the article". This has already lead to dispute about whether it means post-noms are banned from the entire lead or only the literal lead sentence, because it only addresses the lead sentence and the post-lead-section article body. The correct answer (if you look at the RfC discussion and the alleged consensus arising from it) is that this should instead read something like "post-nominal letters may be included, but not in the lead sentence of the article"; there was no consenus to ban them from the entire lead section. However, this runs into the problem above: Because post-nominal letters are used directly with full names, and generally only upon first introduction, there effectively is no practical place for them, in the lead section or in the article body, other than the lead sentence (except arguably in an infobox if it's there and has a place for this information).
:#Next, there's a misapprehension here (evidenced in the beginning of this thread) that this anti-postnom RfC result somehow also means to remove peerage and nobility titles from the lead. It does not. They are a different category of thing and were not addressed in that RfC. It is possible that a consensus might be reached to remove peerage titles when they are not pertinent to the subject's notability (e.g. that would have been the case with [[Christopher Guest]] had he remained an actor/director/producer only and not taken a seat in the House of Lords). There are also many life baronetcies created late in the life of the recipients and to little public awareness; a case can be made to exclude them from the lead sentence and probably from the entire lead section. But this is something for a consensus discussion on an article-by-article basis, or for a new RfC if we wanted a categoric rule of some kind about it.
:#A side issue is that some parties from the nobility and peerage wikiprojects have, by [[WP:FAITACCOMPLI]] behavior, programmatically usurped the {{para|name}} parameter of {{tlx|infobox person}} and its offshoots, abusing it to hold the peerage title, when that really belongs in {{para|postnom}} since it is in fact post-nominal (it's just not a post-nominal abbreviation). See [[Margaret Thatcher]] for the typical absurd result. Because this has been done to thousands and thousands of articles and involves yet another "wikiproject rebellion" against the norms of the entire rest of the project, I suspect this is probably best addressed with another WP:VPPOL RfC so there can be no doubt about the community consensus level of the result (which will obviously be to stop having our infobox blatantly lie to our readers that Margaret Thatcher's {{em|name}} is "The Baroness Thatcher". For the Thatcher case, the obvious solution is: {{para|name|Margaret Hilda Thatcher}}{{para|honorific_suffix|Baroness Thatcher&lt;br /&gt;{{tlp|Post-nominals|country{{=}}GBR|size{{=}}100%|LG|OM|DStJ|PC|FRS|HonFRSC}} }}, and this is what agrees with the lead of the article. (Note lack of "The" before "Baroness".)</p><p>These infoboxes are also failing [[MOS:HONORIFIC]] by including honorific {{em|salutation}} phrases like "The Right Honorourable" that are not part of the name in any sense, but used when writing a letter to such a person or when introducing them as speaker, and so on; that sort of information does not belong in a bio article (much less thousands of them robotically) but in an article on forms-of-address etiquette and probably again in the article on the title (baronet or whatever the case may be).
:There are probably other issues to address, but this is a lot already. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 13:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


== Any objections to extending MOS:TIES to all nations and regions? ==
*Newer ''Dragon Quest'' games, which are localized in British English in all English-speaking regions, should have their articles also be written in British English. Older games in the series that use American English should have their articles written in American English.


Currently [[MOS:TIES]] qualifies itself to English-speaking nations. However, in an increasingly multicultural world with English emerging as the [[lingua franca]], at minimum in the [[Western world]], why qualify this part of the MoS like that, ESPECIALLY when it also impacts on [[MOS:UNIT]]? For example, the [[European Union]] has 24 official languages, including English, and multilingualism is one of its founding principles.
*Games developed by Bioware Edmonton should use Canadian English (with "Spectre" instead of "Specter" in the ''Mass Effect'' series) with "day month year", or little endian, date format (as can be seen on the save/load screen in the ''Mass Effect'' series). Games developed by non-Canadian Bioware studios, such as Bioware Austin's ''Star Wars: The Old Republic'', should likewise use American English with middle endian date format, as shown in the promotional website for that game.


Would it not make sense to extend [[MOS:TIES]] to nations (and regions) irrespective of whether they traditionally speak English or not? Because I can see how saying to someone that embraces multilingualism and values Europe's rich linguistic diversity wishing to contribute to an article on a topic with strong ties to their nation or region in the EU, where English is an official language, that in this case that tie doesn’t count (and someone else gets to decide) might be perceived as ... well ... rude and arrogant, which isn't just unnecessary but also unproductive. Would the article not benefit from including anyone with a strong tie to it?
*Despite ''Minecraft'' creator Markus "Notch" Persson being Swedish, he actually prefers American English as shown on some of his Twitter posts. Therefore, American English should be used on both his page and ''Minecraft'''s.


I must note I would prefer if there was an established international variant, but I also find it practical not to have to waste time and effort trying to work out whether in a given article its meter or metre, organise or organize, or SI first and then imperial, or imperial first and then SI. Because getting it wrong just causes unnecessary consternation, especially if the article is inhabited by one or more "[[Shelob]]s". [[User:Elrondil|Elrondil]] ([[User talk:Elrondil|talk]]) 06:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
It should be made clear that the subject's preferred dialect ought to be taken into account more often, as seen on J. R. R. Tolkien's page (with Oxford-style English being used instead of the more common British spellings, such as "–ise"). This only applies, however, if said dialect is considered formal and recognized as a valid dialect to write in Wikipedia. Otherwise, the formal dialect for the subject's home country is used.
:I'm not in favor of this idea. TIES is an exceptional case that should be used only when it's very clear; the main rule is RETAIN.
:In practice I think this proposal comes down to "don't use American English in articles about Europe". I don't agree with that. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 06:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{reply to |Trovatore}} The proposal doesn’t suggest it no longer needs to be clear, nor that that main rule is no longer retain. It simply proposes that MORE voices are heard.
::As for the “don’t use American English in Europe” bit ... that would then only happen if most voices then want that. The solution surely isn’t “but I don’t like that, so let’s exclude them from the set of voices allowed to speak”. Fear not, they may choose American, who knows. [[User:Elrondil|Elrondil]] ([[User talk:Elrondil|talk]]) 06:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Also not in favor for the reasons cited by Trovatore. [[User:Doremo|Doremo]] ([[User talk:Doremo|talk]]) 07:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:I do object to this.
:Moreover, from what I understand it's a perennial suggestion, so I recommend perusing [[Special:Permalink/1247026952#Discussion on other talk page and project|the last major flare-up of it from June]], wherein I happen to embark on a journey from the exact wrong position all the way to the right one, filling your heart with hope for a better future as you follow my progress. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 07:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::If it keeps coming up, perhaps there is something there.
::However, you do highlight its more complex than I originally thought, so back to the drawing board 🤔. [[User:Elrondil|Elrondil]] ([[User talk:Elrondil|talk]]) 06:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Not a chance.''' The purpose of MOS:TIES is entirely, only, solely about English-language dialects that exist at a more or less national level and in a formal [[Register (sociolinguistics)|register]] suitable for encyclopedia writing. Under no circumstances would we accept an English pidgin/creole or some vaguely identifiable informal habits of English-as-a-second-language users in some country or region as a "variety of English" to accept for encyclopedia writing. If you encounter "Franglais", "Spanglish", "Deutchlish", etc., in any of our articles it should be normalized on the spot to whichever form of standardized English suits the subject best if there are strong [[MOS:TIES]], or to the form that the article already most closely matches (British, American, Canadian, or some other dialect of a country with majority or official and large minority English usage in a formal register). Another way of looking at this: There is no strong tie between Finland and any form of English. Even the "Well, it at least shouldn't be American, but British, because the UK is part of Europe and the US is not" sort of argument fails, because there's more than one national dialect of English in Europe (Irish, for now, and probably Scottish if they have another independence referendum). If there's not a particular encyclopedia-appropriate variety/dialect of English in widespread use in a country, then that country by definition has no strong tie to any such particular variety. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 06:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{reply to |SMcCandlish}} Thank you for stating very clearly and firmly that {{tq|the purpose of [[MOS:TIES]] is entirely, only, solely about English-language dialects}}, because THAT means my primary concern of how it relates to [[MOS:UNIT]] is a non-issue!
::For the record, I did not, and still don’t, propose that “Franglais” and so on become accepted English variants. Because that would be insane, pointless and not useful. [[User:Elrondil|Elrondil]] ([[User talk:Elrondil|talk]]) 06:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::If this is something to do with promotion of ''crore'' and ''lakh'' in articles that pertain to India, there's already a big thread about that at [[WT:MOSNUM]] (again), and last I looked the consensus wasn't really changing: they're permissible as secondary units, but always need to be converted because they don't mean anything to anyone outside India and parts of its immediate neighbors (and of course among first-gen Indic diaspora). Maybe the tide has shifted in that discussion; I last looked at it about a week ago. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 06:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::No. I wasn’t aware of that thread. [[User:Elrondil|Elrondil]] ([[User talk:Elrondil|talk]]) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The thread to which you refer is “RfC Indian numbering conventions”? [[User:Elrondil|Elrondil]] ([[User talk:Elrondil|talk]]) 06:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don’t think there is any real overlap with the “RfC Indian numbering conventions” thread.
::::I also think [[MOS:TIES]] is a dog’s breakfast, but happy to leave it alone at this time.
::::Are there any objections then to apply the direction from {{u|SMcCandlish}} that {{tq|the purpose of [[MOS:TIES]] is entirely, only, solely about English-language dialects}} to [[MOS:UNITS]] and decouple "respect the principle of 'strong national ties'" from MOS:TIES? For example, change it to "respect the underlying principle of strong national ties as also used in MOS:TIES but in a different context”, and then also qualify the following with ''only''?
::::*In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States only, the …
::::*In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom only, the …
::::*In all other articles, the …
::::[[User:Elrondil|Elrondil]] ([[User talk:Elrondil|talk]]) 08:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Well, you're been so vague about why you are asking these things, what rationale you could have for making up a new rule or changing any existing one, without any reference to an ongoing and important on-site problem, that all one has been left with is guesswork based on encounters with extant or recent discussions that seem like they could be pertinent. [shrug] "{{tq|Are there any objections}}"?: '''Yes.''', I can think of a number:
:::::#There is no clear rationale for what you're proposing, much less a consensus to do it. Substantive changes to policies and guidelines ([[WP:P&G]]) need consensus or they will not be accepted (unless they, rarely, hit upon something that needed to adjusted and no one else noticed until now, which isn't the case here).
:::::#There are strong rationales against it, most obviously:
:::::#:A. Your implicit notion that units of measure have no connection to dialect (or "variety" as WP likes to say) is not correct.
:::::#:B. Even if it were, it'd be immaterial. The next implicit idea in your proposal (quite central to it really) is that if P&G page X reiterates a general principle from another, Y, and cites the latter for the explanation, such that X applies that principle to X's circumstances because they are reasonably analogous to Y's, that this somehow creates a [[WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY|bureaucratic]] rules-chain dependency in which every aspect of the context of the cited origin of the principle in Y must also be applicable to the citing circumstances of X. Nothing on Wikipedia works that way at all. Cf. [[WP:WIKILAWYER]]: it's a mistake to try to interpret our P&G as essentially a legal system (or as something like a procedural programming language, or a chain of dependencies in building software from source code; more than one analogy works).
:::::#:C. Because of point B, and because of the guideline's current "where applicable" wording (which is there for a reason and meaningful), your first rewrite idea, of tacking on a bunch of "respect the underlying principle of strong national ties as also used in MOS:TIES but in a different context" verbiage it entirely superfluous. The two versions convey the same meaning, because it is already understood that the principle (not the detail-by-detail contextual specifics) of TIES is being applied at UNITS. This is the way our entire P&G system operates. It wouldn't really be possible for it to be any other way. If UNITS was literally just restating TIES, down to the specifics of exactly what TIES covers, then UNITS would be redundant (in this regard) with TIES, and its wording about this issue would've been deleted long ago and replaced with a simple cross-reference to TIES without further comment. The kind of exemplary and contextual more-than-crossreferencing done at UNITS is entirely normal. And important: an editor looking for "what to do about units" is unlikely to instead stumble upon "what to do about national-level usage disputes", and so would be unlikely to find the TIES principles and then be certain how to contextually apply them (if at all) to units, without being basically an expert in our style guide the way some Tolkien fans learn Elvish.
:::::#:D. The next bit of suggested rewriting is to inject "only" into two line items, but this change would have a nonsensical and undesirable result in two ways: It would make those items applicable under no circumstances to anywhere but the US and the UK, respectively (even to former UK colonies with English- and units-usage norms virtually indistinguishable from British in an encyclopedic [[Register (socio-linguistics)|register]]); and it would necessitate (to fix that new problem) expanding that into a long list of every country with anything that WP would consider a "national variety of English" with pertinent unit-usage norms. The purpose of those two examples is {{em|as examples}} (not as an exhaustive list) of how to approach these matters. The examples were chosen because they settled previously recurrent disputes. So, what long-term, recurrent, serious problem can you point to that you think your changes would resolve? The examples are not there to serve as the beginning of an ever-growing rulebook to address every imaginable case with a new micro-topical line item to thump. The purpose of giving a general principle and providing some prominent examples is to obviate the need to have a pile of micro-rules. (MOS:NUM is already too detailed as it is.)
:::::# The long-term stability of these guidelines is very important, because even small but meaningful/operative changes to them can affect many thousands up to potentially millions of articles, for reasons that almost always resolve to trivial and subjective peccadilloes. That cascading-wave-of-unneeded-changes problem (and all the fighting the endless trivial tweaks would generate) is never more of a danger than when a national-level and frequent usage matter is at issue (and literally millions of our articles do have measures with units in them). See also [[WP:MOSBLOAT]]: If MoS, after 20-odd years, doesn't already have a rule about something, then it needs to {{em|not}} have a rule about it, because it is not necessary for the project to do what it does successfully, and MoS is already way too long.
:::::# Your "I also think [[MOS:TIES]] is a dog's breakfast, but happy to leave it alone at this time" approach does not bode well. Our policies and guidelines don't exist as hills to die on. The purpose of these style guidelines is (aside from the main one of producing intelligible and consistent content for our readers) {{em|dissuading}} style-warring behavior. Arriving with the idea that the rules are broken and that at some forthcoming time you're going to fix them is antithetical to their purpose and to the needs of the community. It largely doesn't matter {{em|what}} any particular line-item in MoS sets out (except when there is objectively a reader-clarity improvement offered by one option over another), only that it sets out, and long-term retains, {{em|something}} that addresses a recurrent dispute pattern and brings it mostly (hopefully entirely) to an end, and/or that it produces better content for our readers – even if that "something" is arbitrary or is a compromise that can't please everyone. Just as a word to the wise, [[MOS:ENGVAR]] (including TIES) is pretty much the hardest-fought consensus compromise reached in MoS's history, and is also one of the oldest and most stable, so if you think you're going to make serious changes to it, you are very mistaken. It's like going to Canada and declaring your mission is to undo the country's approach to French and English as official languages.
:::::This might all come off as harsh, but [[WP:Policy writing is hard]], and the vast majority of proposals to change any P&G are off the mark. There are many devils in many details (thus the length of this), with a lot of nuanced interrelations between different rules (or advice or best practices or whatever you want to call them). Most of the real kinks were worked out long ago. Those that remain are subject to long-term dispute that hasn't produced a workable compromise. There is no such dispute about the material you want to change. And there are sometimes severe costs for making changes that are not vital to make.<!--
-->PS: I've tried hard to find a "yes" to put into this pile of "no", and there is one! Namely, your version is correct that the "scare quotes" around ''strong national ties'' shouldn't be there. I just went and removed them, so thanks for that. Otherwise, no element of your draft appears to be clearly an improvement. Here's the original wording: {{xt|The choice of primary units depends on the circumstances, and should respect the principle of [[MOS:TIES|strong national ties]], where applicable}}. Here's yours (presumably also keeping the original's first 10 words and the link): {{!xt|respect the underlying principle of strong national ties as also used in [[MOS:TIES]] but in a different context}}. Mentioning the other guideline by name is redundant with linking to it, and all our P&G pages are fairly (not entirely) consistent in, when practical, using plain English with links around pertinent terms rather than injecting page names. Mentioning it by shortcut in particular is "newbie-unfriendly" and wrongly presumes memorization of our shortcut strings. "Underlying" is a puff word and doesn't serve a concrete purpose in the sentence. (And underlying what? It has no clear downstream referent.) "As also used in" is more redundancy; if we're linking to TIES as the locus of the principle, it's already automatically understood that the principle is applied at the place we're linking to. "But in a different context" is a combination of redundancy with the implication of the link again, and quite odd wording: Why is there a "but" in this? (What it is contrasting against?) "Different" from what? Different in what way? And "context" is conceptually misused in this construction, in that the general principle at TIES is a meta-context, of all usage/style disputes pertaining to national-level English dialects, while use of units is a subset of that, a sub-context, not a conflicting/alternative context. Finally, unit usage is only {{em|sometimes}} a subset of the usage in a national variety of English, thus the original's "where applicable" – a key point that your version drops, despite it seeming to be central to the bee in your bonnet. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 11:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Introducing Scottish as an additional form of English would cause mayhem - or at least a shedload of future editing - here. We’ve already had a nationalist-driven push towards replacing ‘British’ with ‘English’ or ‘Scottish’ in bio articles, usually uncited and based purely on supposition or the subject’s birthplace. Fortunately, Scottish Independence appears to be receding as a prospect, at least in the short to medium term. [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 07:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't disagree (and we had a real template at {{tlx|Use Scottish English}} in 2013, with an attempt to re-create it in 2016). Several years ago, I tried to get rid of all the "Use {{var|Foo}} English", and related, templates declaring "national varieties" that, in reality, are completely indistinguishable from general British English {{em|in an encyclopedic register}}, and could all collectively be covered by a "Use Commonwealth English" template. ENGVAR only applies to national (not subnational) varieties, and only those dialects that exist in distinct forms and with a formal register (by definition: if you can't write encyclopedia-appropriate material in a dialect, then it doesn't belong in our articles for any reason, so ENGVAR cannot be used to "protect" it from edits). But nationalistic sentiments won out in the end, and we still have all that claptrap, with ridiculous results like articles being tagged with {{tlx|Use Jamaican English}}, {{tlx|Use Singaporean English}}, etc. (Likewise we have no use of American-splitoff variants, either, like "Use Guam English", etc.) Too many editors who should know better and should think just a tiny bit harder have utterly mistaken the purpose of these as something like "national pride" flags to put on articles, in a verging-on-[[WP:OWN]] manner. These tags absolutely do not resolve to "write an article about Nigeria using colloquialisms and grammatical oddities found only in the informal speech and writing of English in Nigeria, which will be confusing to everyone else in the world". If someone tries that crap in response to such a template, rewrite the material per [[MOS:COMMONALITY]] and [[MOS:TONE]]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 11:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== MOS:NOTGALLERY ==
This should be used because it can reduce ambiguity for certain subjects. For example:


At another talk page, I was writing an explanation of why articles should not be swamped in a plethora of images, planning to cite [[MOS:NOTGALLERY]]. Fortunately for once I checked first and found that it is just an alias for [[WP:NOTDB]], not a statement that article spaces should not be mirrors of Commons.
*Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw was born in the United Kingdom, but currently lives in Australia. When Croshaw's distinctly-English accent can be heard in his videos, it becomes reasonable to assume that British English is his preferred dialect, not Australian English, so his article should be written in British English.


Given that the majority of visitors do so on mobile phones, is there a case for an explicit policy that says that curation is essential, [[less is more]]?
Keep in mind that the current policy only mentions the works of single authors, when by extension, it should apply to organizations such as video game companies as well. —[[User:C. Raleigh|C. Raleigh]] ([[User talk:C. Raleigh|talk]]) 06:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


Or would it be enough to change the target of NOTGALLERY to [[MOS:IMAGEREL]] (which might need a little expansion because right now it just says {{tq|Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important [[multimedia learning|illustrative aid]] to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting.}} At least a reference to [[WP:ARTICLESIZE]]? (which is expressed in terms of word count, not megabytes, so would also need work). [[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 17:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:Formal written British English and formal written Australian English are very similar, though, so an article that's correct in one is likely to be correct in the other as well. [[User:A. di M.|<span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​</span>]][[User:A. di M./t0|&nbsp;]] 16:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


:I think IMAGEREL would be a better redirect target. I want this to point to guidance that images should be included selectively rather than overwhelming articles with images. NOTDB instead seems to be guidance that images should be relevant and accompanied by text, which is not enough to prevent big indiscriminate galleries. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 20:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::True, it is more of a minor example, which is why I listed it last. I just like to have even the smaller details covered, even if the chance of such ambiguity is unlikely. —[[User:C. Raleigh|C. Raleigh]] ([[User talk:C. Raleigh|talk]]) 21:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


::I've had second thoughts about this one. It is probably not wise to make NOTGALLERY an exception to the general rule that WP:NOTaaaaaaaa shortcuts all redirect to [[WP:Wikipedia is not]]. So the better plan is to add a short sentence to the current target to say that {{tq|Wikipedia is not a database of images or a {{lang|fr|[[catalogue raisonné]]}}; those are among the functions of [[Wikimedia Commons]]. Image use in Wikipedia articles must comply with [[MOS:IMAGEREL]].}} I will do that now.
== National Variations In English: An objection to the current regulations ==
::IMAGEREL needs some work too, to make it even more explicit that to bury an article in a mass of images is sure way to ensure that nobody reads it. --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 10:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:While some types of "galleries" should be avoided, articles on certain visual topics do benefit from many visual examples. I also do not think we should explicitly outlaw the [[catalogue raisonné]] model while allowing many other bibliographic lists. One size does not fit all, and such a change would need to be debated with the folks curating [[WP:NOT]] and those who work on visual topics. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 10:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::Pending further discussion, I have removed the reference to ''catalogue raisonné'' from my amendment (so that it now reads simply {{tq|Wikipedia articles are not a repository of images: image use in Wikipedia articles must comply with [[MOS:IMAGEREL]].}} to item 4, "Photographs or media files".
::I agree certainly that, in an article about an artist or an artistic movement, it is essential to illustrate the phases of their artistic development. That to me is clearly in keeping with IMAGEREL and wp:localconsensus can determine relevancy. But to include an image of <em>every</em> work in an artist's ''[[Work of art|oeuvre]]''? How is that a valid exception to NOTDB? (and likely a COPYVIO too). And why not show every putter manufactured by ACME Golf Inc? every locomotive made by ACME Rail Inc? every postage stamp (including all misprints) produced by the Austro-Hungarian empire? We have articles so swamped in pointless images that they have become essentially unusable to visitors on mobile. How does that make any sense? --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 11:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I would definitely oppose including every work in an artist's oeuvre in an article on the ''artist'', but I want to make sure we do not outlaw [[List of paintings by Edvard Munch]], where the images are perfectly encyclopaedic and just as relevant for identification as the images in [[List of members of the 19th Bundestag]]. Tables in such long lists are often not great for small screens, but that is a separate issue from the number of images. Generally, lists are not the same as other articles in their use of images, so the rules should reflect that. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 12:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't see a problem with that. Clearly the application of IMAGEREL should (and would) be different between a list article v a fairly broad concept article. To take your example, it would be entirely reasonable to include every image we have in the list article, provided that we use small thumbnails (upright=0.2); conversely (IMO) the bio article about Munch should be curated so that it has just one carefully chosen image to illustrate each phase of the development of his style [or at least his age, if we don't have a suitable RS], with maybe one or two especially notable examples that he did . Surely we don't want to replicate Commons? --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 18:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Please, let's not compromise the full extent of the encyclopedia by limiting what has always been one of its main features. Images and galleries define and describe just as much as text. That many choose to "read" Wikipedia on tinier gadgets should not dictate the coverage and image-styling of encyclopedic content articles. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 11:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::The problem we have at the moment with some articles is what {{u|David Eppstein}} describes above as "big indiscriminate galleries" and rote copying of everything in Commons for no evident informative purpose, a form of [[visual clutter]]. As IMAGEREL begins, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important [[multimedia learning|illustrative aid]] to understanding". Without curation, the information gets buried in the woodpile.
::I am not proposing a principle that we must minimise the number of images, period. My proposal is that we provide a policy basis that editors can use to say "that point is already adequately illustrated, another image adds nothing new" or "this article had become so bogged down in images that it no longer navigable". I am talking about edge cases here, in most articles it is not an issue. But some have become swamped in an uncritical replica of Commons. This is not to enable wikilawyering, it just makes it easier to explain the rationale. --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 18:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::As an example of the sort of burying articles in galleries that I would object to, see [[hexagonal prism]], where (at least in its [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hexagonal_prism&oldid=1240218750 current version]) four of its six sections are entirely image galleries (in some cases hidden in collapsed templates, with much of their content peripheral to the main article topic).
:::We do need wording that distinguishes this case from [[List of paintings by Edvard Munch]], where the galleries are entirely appropriate, though. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 18:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::But as far as I can see, the List of paintings by Edvard Munch (and similar lists by artists) already complies with IMAGEREL, because the use of images in that article is ''proportionate and entirely relevant to that context''. Conversely, to put all those paintings in the Munch bio article as a giant gallery would not be proportionate (IMO).
::::So to focus this discussion, can anyone suggest another sentence we can use to amplify the point made in the opening sentence of IMAGEREL? ("Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding".) How about
::::{{blockquote|Consequently, each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose: for guidance, see [[less is more]].}}
::::AFAICS, that responds to and respects both the Munch examples above. (FWIW, very few if any of the visual arts articles suffer from this swamping problem. The issue affects high profile articles like [[Swastika]].) [[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 11:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:It is entirely enough that we have the [[MOS:IMAGEREL]] shortcut. A proposal to retarget [[WP:NOTGALLERY]] to that would almost certainly fail, because it's part of a very long-standing set of policy (not guideline) WP:NOT{{var|FOO}} shortcuts to sections of [[WP:NOT]], and such a change would both confuse editors today and render archived discussions of policy misleading. "Ain't broke; don't fix it." <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 06:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Audio video guidance ==
I do not agree with the rules as they currently stand and would like to outline my case with the intention of having the rules re-considered with regard to national variations in English within articles. I've been advised that the 'Talk' page on the articles themselves is not the place to debate this matter because the matter is already one of established conclusion, in so far that it has been resolved on this page 'Manual of Style' - however I am disputing this part of the Manual of Style and therefore request permission to outline my case here. --[[User:Thedaveformula|Thedaveformula]] ([[User talk:Thedaveformula|talk]]) 20:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi there, I'm noting a lack of guidance for Audio video content, I've mentioned this at [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images]]. It seems people just edit MOS rather than run through large discussions, but I'm reluctant to start plunging in before getting some help. Here is what i think is needed:
:Please do outline your case here.
:—[[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]] ([[User talk:Wavelength|talk]]) 20:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


* Something explaining that the guidance at [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images]] applies to Audio-video content in most cases, eg regarding relevance, image quality, textual information, offensive images, placement, size, location, availability. Nearly all of the page is relevant, in fact.
* The download advice might need to be different. Do videos or audio need a warning that they are large files? This is not assumed, it seems.


There is a case for some separate AV guidance, regarding:
The following is a summary of the case for reviewing the regulations pertaining to national variations of English and their use in Wikipedia articles.


* Length: should inline videos be shorter where possible? Does this apply to audio clips?
It is the contention here that the objective of Wikipedia should be to accurately represent truth, reality and facts consistently and in a manner that is best understood by the majority of readers, and that the current rules regarding national variation of English undermine this objective.
* Language: if audio or video is original language, should subtitled content be preferred rather than recording originals? Should songs be subtitled where possible? What are the requirements for validating translations (what are the relevant WP policies on translation of original source material that apply?)
* Rendition: historical accents and historical musical performances might be very rare. Should we say that modern standards are fine, in the absence of authentic reconstructions?
* Public domain renditions: if audio or video is a rendition of a public domain source, for example a work by Mozart, or a speech by Caesar, what are the requirements for source validation (these should reference WP's general guidelines, but these are mostly focused on secondary sources).


[[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 20:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
The approach to spelling does not serve best the education of readers since the decision on which version of English should be used is currently decided what boils down to a 'first come, first served' basis, with minor exceptions. Quotations, proper names, titles, and explicit comparisons on the subject of the variations themselves are rightly exempt from the stated neutral policy and rightly so. In addition, as also stated on the Manual of Style page, articles with strong national ties should be written in the language of that nation's English and this is also uncontested herein.
*Elsewhere, someone asked whether an RfC would be needed to add guidance on this topic. I think not -- while discussion will be needed on details, I can't see anyone objecting to clarifying that multimedia beyond everyday images should follow similar guidelines to those for image. The question is where to say that. We don't want to duplicate guidance on contextual significance etc., because that creates two things that need to be kept in sync. Probably the best thing is to expand MOS/Images to explicitly cover other multimedia. See BTW [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music_samples]], which has a ''contextual significance'' section. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 20:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Thanks very much (and yes that was me!) I agree that MOS:Images would be best, especially to get this started.
*:The ''contextual significance'' contains much about in-copyright works. That is in general very helpful. In-copyright video samples feels like something rather complex that might need an RFC, and might be best parked until there is a little more in place. [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@[[User:EEng|EEng]] Would it be helpful if I draft up something on [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images]] and ask for feedback? [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 21:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I suggest you wait a while so that the experienced editors gathered here can lend their thoughts. After that, you might take the conversation back to Talk:MOS/Images, but since that page has 1/5 watchers of this one, and you've already put a pointer there to this thread here, it might be better to continue here as you begin to draft. There's no hurry to this, so the slower you take it, and the greater the extent to which others can get their thoughts in, the smoother it will go. (I'm afraid I'm really tied up IRL so the time I myslf can contribute is limited.) [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 21:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Happy to wait. I made a stab at below, but I can wait for further thoughts / feedback here. What I've provided relates to historical source content, as most of the AV I've been dealing with falls into this category; I have guessed at some other considerations but it is currently narrower than it should be. [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 21:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


<blockquote>Audiovisual content can also be used for illustrative purposes. Most of the guidance on images above applies to audio visual content. Additionally, consider:
However, the overall approach to spelling in general is not serving the needs of readers because it is not representing accuracy to the majority of readers. I am not an expert in linguistics nor in Wikipedia, if I may be so immodest I will say that I have a considerable knowledge in the field of Orthopaedic surgery - it is this interest that led me to Wikipedia's article on the subject. I am eager to improve this article and to work on it heavily with the aim of producing a very high standard page. I will not - however - do so whilst the spelling is 'orthopedic'.


* '''Length''': inline videos or audio that is shorter will be easier for users to watch. Consider clipping long form content, and linking to the original on Commons, or elsewhere. Longer videos (eg, over 10 minutes) may be more suitable for links than inline video, unless they are highly relevant to the page's subject.
The spelling in the article, and undoubtedly there are other examples, is nothing short of American exceptionalism. My intention to change it is not anti-American English, a variation for which I hold great respect, but based on a neutrality that rests on global consideration. The vast majority of readers who may wish to learn about Orthopaedic surgery are not from the United States of America but from countries where the spelling is 'Orthopaedic'. Nothingstanding this fact, it is the case that 'Orthopaedic' is the preferred spelling within many highly regarded American institutions such as the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, and Foot & Ankle International.
* '''Rendition''': historical accents and historical musical performances of content may be very rare. Modern renditions are fine, where authentic reconstructions are not available, and may be preferred, where there is uncertainty about the original performances.
* '''Musical, poetic and literary content''': aesthetic considerations are higher for these kinds of content. Where possible, the performances should be considered good by other editors. Where editors find performances are poor, content should generally not be included.
* '''Language''': where audio or video is in the original language, subtitles should generally be preferred rather than translated versions, as this reflects the original more closely and text files are easier to correct than mistakes in audio-visual content. Where possible, songs should be subtitled. Original language versions should be made available where where possible for artistic content.
* '''Translations of subtitles''' should be verifiable, but as with other Wikipedia content, competent editors can create them. While academic translations are preferred, where subtitle translations are longer than 10-20 words, use of academic translations is likely to constitute copyright infringement. Here, a Wikipedian's translation should ideally be verifiable against an academic translation. (See [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources|Non-English sources]] for further guidance.)
* '''Public domain renditions''': if audio or video is a rendition of a public domain source, for example a work by Mozart, or a speech by Caesar, the original sources must be valid. The performance should be comparable and follow the original. Where possible, include links on media file pages so that editors can make checks.
* '''Sourcing''': as with images, sourcing of audio-visual content needs to be copyright compliant. Sources of CC video and audio can include Youtube, Flickr and CC search tools. Care should be taken to ensure the licensing claims appear to be valid.
* See also: [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples]]</blockquote> [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 21:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


:The "Language" point is a bit unclear to me. Is it asking for subtitles to be in English or the original language? If the phrase "rather than translated versions" is referring to the spoken or written material, that seems to contradict the phrase "where audio or video is in the original language". Which is also a weird way to say it because the "original language" could be English. Given that this is English Wikipedia, an English version should be provided whether or not there is a non-English version.
Now there *are* American organisations of the highest standard who use the spelling 'Orthopedic' and I have no quarrel or right to argue with their spelling in their country or their expertise in the field. That being said, given that 'Orthopaedic' is the spelling used and recognised by many, many more people around the world, I cannot see how it is proper to use American English in this article.
:Subtitles should be provided for all videos with an audio track, to make them accessible for readers who cannot hear or find it difficult. There are additional guidelines at [[MOS:ANIMATION]].
:Not sure the "Sourcing" point needs to be made, as this is explained in detail for images generally.
:The "Length" point should probably link to the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples]] and point out the copyright issue when displaying here under fair use. It should say "video" not "videos" to be grammatical.
:I would drop the "Translations of subtitles" point and just link to [[WP:NONENG]] for guidance on translations.
:The "Public domain renditions" point does not make any sense to me, and I would just drop it.
:I'm not sure whether the "Rendition" point needs to be made, but if it does, it's confusing. I think it's supposed to be recommending that historically accurate renditions of older works are preferred, if available. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't, depending on what the purpose of inclusion in the article is. Might be better just to leave this point off; I don't see any similar guidance for audio samples of music. Page editors can decide which samples are best out of those available.
:Another point probably worth making is that a video should be considered an optional part of an article. In other words, any content vital to reader understanding should be included in the text and not be omitted on the assumption that reader will watch the video. Many readers will not be able to view video due to technical limitations, such as using a web browser that is not configured with a video player, or reading an article in another medium such as an app, paper printout, or text-to-speech system (including those who cannot see or find it difficult to read text). There is more specific guidance against putting text in images at [[MOS:TEXTASIMAGES]].
:It's fine for a video to re-explain something that's already explained in the text if having a moving image clarifies substantially, but it seems wasteful for embedded videos to effectively repeat or rephrase the text.
:-- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 22:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks very much!
::* Regarding '''language''', this was meant to be about non-English content, think Bach or Mozart in German or Latin; or Goethe's poetry.
::* On '''Sourcing''', the section on images does not include YT, which is significant for CC video.
::* On '''translation''', the situation for subtitles is a bit different, as usually you cannot use academic in-copyright translations, so this mention is retained.
::* On '''public domain renditions''', this was the subject of a [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_198#Videos_from_YT_and_WP:RSPYT|long and unclear discussion recently]]. Does that help? Take a file such as [[:File:Queen Elizabeth I's Reprimand of an Insolent Polish Ambassador..webm]]. There is some need for verification, even tho it is not being used as a citation? I've edited it for clarity.
::* On '''style of renditions''', this has come up a few times in discussion, including at the link above, where a user claimed only a Catholic priest could do a Latin audio recording; also at [[:la:wikipedia:Disputatio_Vicipaediae:Pellicula_mensis/Maii_2025|a parallel discussion]] on LA Wikipedia about accents and delivery, preferring a modern standard over historical guesses. I figured the same principle might apply to say reading Shakespeare, or using 16th century instruments; it simply shouldn't be a consideration, but sometimes editors think it should be.
::* I've added the points on (1) text as images, (2) subtitles for EN content, (3) optionality of AV content
::'''VERSION 0.2'''
::Audiovisual content can also be used for illustrative purposes. Most of the guidance on images above applies to audio visual content. Importantly, audio-visual content should not be an essential part of a page, which is necessary to understand the whole. This is because not all readers will be able to download or access the content, for example because of technical limitations or relying on text to speech tools. With audio and video just as with any content, relevance is paramount; consult [[WP:DUE]] for further context. There must be a clear reason for including the content on the page.
::Additionally, consider:
::* '''Length''': inline videos or audio that is shorter will be easier for users to watch. Consider clipping long form content, and linking to the original on Commons, or elsewhere. Longer videos (eg, over 10 minutes) may be more suitable for links than inline video, unless they are highly relevant to the page's subject.
::* '''Rendition''': historical accents and historical musical performances are not required. Modern renditions of audio are acceptable. For example, there is no need to read Shakespeare with an Elizabethan pronunciation.
::* '''Musical, poetic and literary content''': aesthetic considerations are higher for these kinds of content. Where possible, the performances should be considered good by other editors. Where editors find performances are poor, content should generally not be included.
::* '''Subtitles for comprehension''': In English language videos, an English language subtitle track should always be provided for accessibility. See [[MOS:ANIMATION]] for more details.
::* '''Subtitles for translation''': where audio or video is originally in a non-English language, for example a Goethe poem, subtitles should generally be preferred over than translated audio, as this reflects the original more closely and text files are easier to correct than mistakes in audio-visual content. Where possible, songs should be subtitled. Original language versions should be made available where where possible for artistic content.
::* '''Translations of subtitles''' See [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources|Non-English sources]] for guidance. Note that longer subtitle sequences may need to be translated by Wikipedians rather than obtained from academic sources to avoid copyright infringement.
::* '''Embedding text''': As with images, rendered text should be avoided in video content. See [[MOS:TEXTASIMAGES]] for more information.
::* '''Public domain renditions''': if audio or video is a rendition of a public domain source, for example a work by Mozart, or a speech by Caesar, it must be possible to check the original scores or texts. An editor should be able to compare the performance with the original. Where possible, include links on media file pages so that editors can make checks.
::* '''Sourcing''': as with images, sourcing of audio-visual content needs to be copyright compliant. Sources of CC video and audio can include Youtube, Flickr and CC search tools. Care should be taken to ensure the licensing claims appear to be valid.
::* See also: [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples]]


::[[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 23:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
It was contended in the talk page that since the term was first used by a Frenchman, 'Orthopedie', that this justifies the use of 'Orthopedic' as opposed to 'Orthopaedic'. I don't think I need spend much time refuting this argument beyond saying that firstly the term is from a Latin root which includes the 'a' and the nationality of the first person to practice the subject is neither here nor there.
:::This appears to be related to situations such as [[Talk:Niccolò_Machiavelli#RFC_on_video_inclusion]], where a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Machiavelli-_Letter_to_Francisco_Vettori..webm video] consisting of a person reading a letter aloud was included in an article, one example of a series of such edits. It is not clear to me that we need a bunch of guidelines about the best form for this sort of application because it is not clear that it is desirable to include such videos in the first place - the cart is being put before the horse. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 23:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, I certainly would like to clear up some of the misapprehensions that regretfully appeared in that discussion. It's a discussion I will deeply regret getting involved in for some time.
::::I'll be clear about the other discussions and examples of this content for context:
::::* [[List of poems by Catullus]]; [[Poetry of Catullus]] no debate and no questions occurred
::::* [[Neo-Latin]]; no questions raised (I am the main editor for this page but plenty of people make edits)
::::* [[Frederick the Great]]; [[Talk:Frederick_the_Great#Reading_of_a_letter_regarding_the_Polish_territories|video suggested and included]] as a link after discussion with editors
::::* [[Samuel Johnson]]; [[Talk:Samuel_Johnson#Reading_from_Samuel_Johnson's_letter_of_thanks_for_his_Oxford_degree|video suggested but not included]] after discussion with editors
::::* [[Latin]]; readings included; no discussion or objection
::::* [[Martin Luther]]; reading of his disputes with no objections raised
::::* [[Henry VIII]]; reading of his defence of Catholicism; posted and no objections raised
::::* [[Elizabeth I]]; [[Talk:Elizabeth_I#Queen_Elizabeth_and_the_Polish_ambassador_1597|video flagged as a possible addition as a link]]; no response yet
::::* [[Immanuel Kant]] and [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]; early work added; an editor has asked me to check whether these are sufficiently relevant; I've agreed to do so and remove the videos if [[WP:DUE]] is not met.
::::@[[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] I hope you can at least see that normally I try to be as collaborative as I can be. there's not much point going further into why that discussion became hard for me. However, policy is the place where we make guidelines to avoid disputes and lack of clarity.
::::What meets [[WP:DUE]] overrides any other consideration, to my mind so I have added that to the draft text. (''With audio and video just as with any content, relevance is paramount; consult [[WP:DUE]] for further context. There must be a clear reason for including the content on the page.'') [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 00:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::As regards the other articles where there was no discussion, just because there was no dissent at the moment doesn't mean there wont be in the future. What happened at the Machiavelli article could just as easily happen in the other ones
:::::I am also asking you kindly to please stop making the issues with that RfC bigger than what they are. [[User:Plasticwonder|Plasticwonder]] ([[User talk:Plasticwonder|talk]]) 00:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::We can take this discussion in two ways:
::::::* We can either construtively discuss the principles behind what video content should be allowable; or
::::::* We can decide that emotions are too high for it and pause it
::::::I do need this guidance, because there are divergences of opinion on some of the points, and it's important to me to be able to resolve them. But my guess is that if the three of us are just going to rehash the RFC discussion, then that would a terrible use of other people's time and energy. A break off would make sense, in my view. [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 00:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No one's emotions are high but yours, judging by your rather relentless snipes against my character and the fact that you have so much as admitted it in the RfC. You have also stated that the RfC "needed to die" (quite strong words) when I gave you a chance to change your mind, and now you want to pause now that the discussion is nearing a close?
:::::::I do not get what you are trying to accomplish here, to be fair. [[User:Plasticwonder|Plasticwonder]] ([[User talk:Plasticwonder|talk]]) 00:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It is not needed to rehash the RFC here, but I did feel that fresh eyes on this talk page should have enough context to understand what the proposal is about. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 00:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks, I appreciate that as a valid concern. Does the change regarding [[WP:DUE]] help, or do you feel more is needed? For context, other points raised in the RFC such as regarding the need to be able to validate translation is also included. [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 00:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I dropped the video from [[Henry VIII]]; it seemed like excessive detail. It's already on ''[[Defence of the Seven Sacraments]]'' where it's a bit more appropriate. But even there, it seems like it violates the video equivalent of [[MOS:TEXTASIMAGES]]. Same for [[Martin Luther]] and [[On the Bondage of the Will]].
:::::I also posted that the video for [[Elizabeth I]] should probably just be kept on Commons; there's already a general link to the topic there.
:::::I agree it's not clear that videos of performances of works should generally be included, so I would also be hesitant about specifying anything in particular about those. Uploaded videos cover a broad variety of subjects, including scientific phenomena, buildings, and specific events. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 03:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I would like to understand [[MOS:TEXTASIMAGES]] a bit more, especially regarding accessibility in particular, as this is certainly an overriding concern. What makes the text subtitle files inaccessible and not regarded as text? [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 09:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Subtitles are, of course, text. They are less accessible than the text in an article because some readers will have technical or logistical difficulty watching video and thus reading subtitles or listening to audio narration. For readers that ''do'' watch a video (which presumably has an animation or something which illustrates the subject of the article in a way a still image cannot), it ''increases'' accessibility by allowing people who cannot hear or find it difficult to know what is being said or what sounds are happening in the video. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 15:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::[[Wikipedia:Image use policy]] already says that for user-created diagrams, etc., a source for the underlying data must be included. To me, this applies straightforwardly to videos that are presenting public-domain content. A citation to the original work is kind of implied, but a reference to a specific version or even better an online copy, should suffice. YouTube videos that we're importing into Wikipedia as on-article videos are no different than diagrams or maps or explanatory videos uploaded by random Wikipedia or Commons users, assuming an appropriate copyright license. The reliability of YouTube is not really in question, any more than the reliability of any given Wikipedia editor is, when they are just repackaging information from a different underlying source in a more digestible way. That's different than citing a YouTube video as a reliable source for the information itself.
:::I'm not sure I have enough examples to make a guideline about video length. Ten minutes seems way too long for download on a mobile phone, and most videos I would expect to be under a minute. Perhaps there are exceptions, but I'd want to survey how videos are being used now. In the meantime, I would trim the 0.2 version down to reduce scope and reduce overlap with other pages and rephrase and retitle:
:::----
:::'''Video content (v. 0.3)'''
:::* The guidelines on this page also generally apply to videos.
:::* Many readers will not be able to play videos, because of technical limitations of their web browser, because they are seeing article content on a different web site or app, or because they are using a different medium, such as paper or text-to-speech system. Some readers cannot see or find it difficult. Videos should be used as a ''supplement'' to article material, to concisely illustrate the subject in a way that a still image or text cannot do. Videos should not replace article text, and articles should remain coherent and comprehensive when video playback is not available.
:::* Similar to [[MOS:TEXTASIMAGES]], for accessibility and file size reasons:
:::** Videos that simply show text should be replaced with text.
:::** Videos that simply show a sequence of still pictures should be replaced with an image gallery.
:::** Videos of text being read aloud should be replaced with text, or if the sound of words is being demonstrated, audio files (with the text being read in the file caption or in closed captioning).
:::** Videos of text and narration with should be converted to article text.
:::* The copyright and other guidelines on [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples]] also apply to video samples.
:::* The policies on [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]] also generally apply to videos.
:::* Accessibility guidelines at [[MOS:ANIMATION]] apply.
:::----
:::-- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 03:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::[[Wikipedia:Videos]] has additional suggestions; not sure if it's appropriate to link there from here. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::With your commentary, this makes a lot of sense. I would point out that there was a lot of heat generated over YT reliability in the aforementioned RFC, so it would be good to point that it can be used. YT is not mentioned as a source for images in the images section above; an alternative would be to add it there in the list of common sources, but that also seems odd. I know one can point to the archive discussion, but that is not generally available knowledge for anyone looking at the guidance in future. [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 09:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I added a clarifying note at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources]] for YouTube; hopefully this will not be controversial. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 02:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Unfortunately that has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FPerennial_sources&diff=1263693182&oldid=1263692821 reverted as "unnecessary"]. It might make more sense here, because this is about video as illustration, and there is [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Finding_images_on_the_Internet|parallel advice for images above about CC content sources]]. Perhaps it should be parallel advice to this, eg mentioning that YT has a search facility for CC content (and there isn't anything else AFAIK). [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 09:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I started a discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Imported YouTube videos]]. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 20:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks - quick observation that we have lost that the guidance for illustrative audio content would also generally derive from the images guidance. The music samples page linked is wholly focused on samples from copyrighted material; there is a lot of PD / CC music material on WP, especially for classical music. Sometimes this could do with subtitling, etc, care in positioning, checks for relevance, etc. [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 09:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::OK, what are you suggesting? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 18:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I think, where appropriate, add audio, eg "The guidelines on this page also generally apply to videos and audio files"; maybe "where appropriate, for instance non-English language audio files should include subtitles". I'm not sure there is much else. [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 22:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::And where would you find that addition to be appropriate? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 02:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I would amend the title to "Video and Audio content"; I would amend bullet one to "The guidelines on this page also generally apply to videos and audio files". Under "Similar to MOS:TEXTASIMAGES, for accessibility and file size reasons:" I would add "where appropriate, for instance non-English language audio files should include subtitles". The accessibility guidelines could move to be bullet two, in order that audio and video advice is at the top. [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 08:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It looks to me like hardly anything on [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images]] applies to audio files, and it seems like the wrong place to go looking for style advice about them. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 22:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::For example:
::::::::::::::* [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature|pertinence]]
::::::::::::::* [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature|quality]]
::::::::::::::* [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Avoid presenting textual information as images|text as sound?]]
::::::::::::::* [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Location|Location in article]]
::::::::::::::* [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#References from article text|References from article text]]
::::::::::::::* [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Inline images|Placing files inline]]
::::::::::::::* [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Making images available|Making images available]] Uploading to commons, recording information about files, changes in editing and download size etc
::::::::::::::These seem pretty substantially helpful guidance to me, and pretty similar level of relevance as to video files. [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 09:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Yeah, most of the material in those sections is not relevant to audio. I'd say if you feel strongly that guidance is needed for audio generally and not just music samples, we should create a new page. Editors shouldn't have to read through a whole page about images just to pick out the occasional tidbit on audio files, if they're only interested in the latter. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 20:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I've posted the 0.3 draft for now, since that wouldn't be changed by adding an audio page somewhere else. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 20:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Thanks for posting the v 0.3. On audio, I would think about this from a few user perspectives:
::::::::::::::::* There is currently no MOS advice at all on audio files and approaching general layout, pertinence, etc. What would the user do? Currently, MOS offers them nothing, so they must either guess or work off examples on other pages.
::::::::::::::::* If a user asks for advice, where would they be pointed? (my guess: [[MOS:Images]] as closest match.
::::::::::::::::IMO, it would be better to offer them something, even apologetically ("There is currently no detailed advice on MOS regarding use of audio files, but the basic principles of [[WP:DUE]] and some considerations at [[MOS:Images]] may be helpful.") This could be placed at a page relevant to other audio usage files, for example. [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 10:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Feel free to propose a draft if you like. It's also possible no particular guidance is needed, if people are able to figure this stuff out using common sense and regular editorial judgement, and if disputes arise, turn to the various policy and guideline pages on topics like due weight. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 21:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:Given the small amount of material to include about this, and the redundancy that would be required with MOS:IMAGES if "MOS:VIDEOS" were its own page, and given the short nature of the audio samples MoS page, I think the most sensible approach is to merge all of this into a WP:Manual_of_Style/Images_and_multimedia page with a top MOS:MEDIA shortcut (which I'm surprised doesn't already exist as an internal disambiguation page), then MOS:IMAGES, etc., going to sections. We have too many separate MoS pages as it is, and this is an ideal merge of two of them and a proposed third. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Sure, that's a reasonable alternate approach. I think it would work if we put the things that apply across all three at the top, and then make it clear with section headers which those interested in a specific media type should look at without having to read inapplicable guidelines. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 08:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::+1 to both of these observations. [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 09:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yeps. If we hammer out a videos-related section, I'll be happy to do the work (most MoS merges and the like are done by me because I kind of have a database in my head of all the rules and how they interrelate, and 19 years of observing how misinterpretations, lawyering, and other problems can be avoided by careful wording. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 14:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think what we could agree on for videos has been added. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 00:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== misleading text in [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes]] ==
Consider a young person in Australia, the United Kingdom, or any other country whose English is not American - a much greater number of young people I may add. These students may have an interest in medicine and log on to find that the spelling used by the vast majority of the medical world is not the spelling used by Wikipedia - this is at complete odds with the stated 'neutrality' of Wikipedia.


The text on keyboard entry of dashes in {{slink|Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Dashes}} is misleading. The text {{tqq|or on a Windows keyboard }} implies a technique specific to windows when in fact it is valid for any OS. -- [[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 15:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Given Wikipedia's exponentially growing role in educating people across the world and its adherance to high standards I propose that spelling be decided on the version of English that is most widely used across the world. The current rules are not satisfactory in achieving this aim and therefore I submit that they be changed. --[[User:Thedaveformula|Thedaveformula]] ([[User talk:Thedaveformula|talk]]) 22:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
:Actually more than 60% of English-as-a-first-language speakers, worldwide, live in the United States. So be careful what you wish for. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 22:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
:True. What it should say: "on a Windows keyboard enter them manually as {{key press|Alt|0}} {{key press|1|5|0|chain=}} (on the numeric keypad) for en dash, and {{key press|Alt|0}} {{key press|1|5|1|chain=}} for em dash." -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 16:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Wrong on two counts:
::# No. It should not say anything at all, per [[WP:NOTHOWTO]].
::# And even if it does, those [[alt code]]s are only valid for [[code page 1252]] and related. They don't work if the user has a different default code page installed.
::Delete it completely. --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 17:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I doubt that NOTHOWTO is meant to apply to the MOS. It's surely helpful for editors and hence should stay, reworded if needed. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 08:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Gaewon is correct: NOTHOWTO applies to articles only. MOS is littered with how-to stuff, as is should where the ratio {{nobreak|<code>(editor confusion and time saved)/([[WP:MOSBLOAT]])</code>}} seems sufficiently high. However, if this starts getting into weeds of code pages and such, it may be best to relegate the whole thing to [[WP:How to make dashes]], with a pointer to that from MOS. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 20:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::So why not simply recommend {{tl|mdash}}, {{tl|ndash}} and {{tl|snd}} rather than advise keyboard callisthenics? --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 20:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, I have always advocated symbolic representations (templates such as you list, or html escapes such as &amp;mdash;) of the various dashes (and in some cases, even hyphens), rather than having them appear literally in the wikisource, so that editors can see at a glance that the right character is present. But even though [[User:EEng#correct|EEng is pretty much always right]], I can't seem to get people on board with this. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 20:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I am happy typing the dashes on my Apple keyboards but also happy with recommending the templates rather than giving keyboard-specific advice. What I would like to avoid is warring bands of gnomes going around changing unicode dashes to templated dashes and vice versa. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 21:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Edit conflict: yes, different route to the same answer. --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 20:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::JMF's policy understanding {{em|is}} mistaken above. [[WP:NOTHOWTO]] only applies to article content (and other reader-facing content, like portals and the front page features). If it applied to internal documentation, then we would have to delete the entire "Help:" namespace and about 95% what is in "Wikipedia:" namespace. However, the technical point JMF raised is entirely correct, and we should not be telling editors to use keyboard codes that will do the wrong thing (or nothing) if they don't happen to be using the "right" code page. To {{tq|1=simply recommend {{tl|mdash}}, {{tl|ndash}} and {{tl|snd}}}} is the sensible approach. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Let's just direct people to [[Wikipedia:How to make dashes]]. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 23:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Is there a MOS guidance that applies to changing between common terms based on the name of the Wiki article? ==
::If we consider the number of variations of English as a first language, the American spelling of 'orthopaedic' is out-numbered. --[[User:Thedaveformula|Thedaveformula]] ([[User talk:Thedaveformula|talk]]) 22:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
:::You want to count ''dialects'' instead of speakers???? By what possible justification? --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 22:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


Do we have a guideline for dealing with different name, common names for the same thing ([[Inline-four engine]] vs [[Straight-four engine]])? The target article, [[Straight-four engine]], has used both names (changed in 2009 and 2022). Sources use both terms but I think the shorted "I4" is used more often in sources. I presume we would follow something like the MOS:ENGVAR where if there is no source preference we go with what the editors used first. Recently an editor, {{u|Kumboloi}}, made a number of good faith changes in linking articles from "inline-four" to "straight-four" to align external article text with the target article name. Is there a guide on this? How should this be handled? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 14:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I want this matter taken seriously by the way, by all. --[[User:Thedaveformula|Thedaveformula]] ([[User talk:Thedaveformula|talk]]) 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
:First and foremost, you are not the first person who has attempted to make this argument. Many have tried and failed, just as surely as this attempt will. (I read your comment at [[Talk:Orthopedic surgery]] ''I'm going to stop editing this article and take this matter a level higher. I'm going to win this case.'') Not very likely, especially when you attempt to give us ultimatums like this: ''I am eager to improve this article and to work on it heavily with the aim of producing a very high standard page. I will not - however - do so whilst the spelling is orthopedic''. Not gonna win many friends like that on Wikipedia.
:Given that its a flat out fact that the majority of English speakers in the world read and write in American English, there is probably very little basis for so many pages to be written in the less common dialects or spellings. There are far too many pages as it is, with British spelling as the default, so its very unlikely that this MOS will change to accommodate even more.--[[User:Jojhutton|<font color="#A81933">JOJ</font>]] [[User talk:Jojhutton|<font color="#CC9900"><sup>Hutton</sup>]]</font> 23:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


:It's a policy, our [[WP:NC|naming conventions policy]], which largely doubles as our policy on article titles. Generally, for a given thing there's no reason to use a different name in the prose of any other article than one would use in the article about the thing itself, if that makes sense.<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 14:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::If you take a crayon and colour in all the countries that use the word 'orthopaedic' and then take a different coloured crayon and colour in all the countries using the term 'orthopedic', you will see that the global medical commpany, regardless of how many people there are in the USA, prefer the spelling 'orthopaedic'. And yes I do plan on winning this case because I don't see how a school child in London or Auckland should have to be subjected to the American spelling of the word when they see in their own hospitals signs saying 'Orthopaedic' Do you understand what I am saying? And while I'm at it, regarding the 'you won't make friends here if you don't use American English' comment, what do you expect me to do? Sit down and spend hours researching the subject to make it a fantastic wikipedia page but use the language variation of another country? --[[User:Thedaveformula|Thedaveformula]] ([[User talk:Thedaveformula|talk]]) 23:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
::I'm not sure where the naming convention says we should change article text in a case like this. The article in question indicates both names are common (''A straight-four engine (also referred to as an inline-four engine)''). This is also reflected in the two name changes over the years. I don't see where the naming convention says we should favor the target article name vs what the individual article sources are using. Consider a hypothetical, I'm created a Wiki article about the new "CarX". My RS source that says, "CarX uses an ''inline four engine''". Why would I not follow the source vs use the title of our straight four article? This is especially true if if the hyperlink is added later by a different editor. Also, until 2022 the title of the article was "inline". A consensus of 3 editors changed the article name. That's fine but the result is many changes to other articles. If a new consensus of 5 editors reverses the change do we flop back? I think it's less disruptive (makes articles more stable) if we avoid article text changes in cases like this. However, I am interested in knowing what guidance might apply here. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 15:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, that's what we expect you to do if you're going to edit the page. Them's the rules. No one is forcing you. If you're not willing, we'll just have to muddle by somehow without your expertise. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 23:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
::: I'm interested in understanding this. My motivation in making the edits came down to a suspicion that there was some type of penalty incurred by linking through a redirect page, or that the redirects imposed a maintenance overhead. I hadn't read the naming convention, but if there's no real reason to reduce the number of redirected links, and recognizing that the target page could just as easily be renamed again in the future, I'll stop doing these edits. (Personally, I prefer "inline" to "straight", but I can see how the renaming would help organize the associated pages.) Thanks. [[User:Kumboloi|Kumboloi]] ([[User talk:Kumboloi|talk]]) 15:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::(I'll modify that slightly &mdash; it's OK if you want to write in your own dialect, and let someone else change it to the one used in the article. If you edit war over those changes, though, there will probably be consequences.) --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 23:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
::::My reasoning is [[WP:NC]] stresses how we are required to name things, as we are un all editorial decisions, based on WP:V and WP:NPOV (in many cases this boils down to the result of [[WP:COMMONNAME]]). It has provisions specific to the article title and not the body, but much of it is expressing how to apply V and NPOV in deciding what to call things.
::::If we take alternative names as such—e.g. that, all else being equal, we do take ''inline four'' and ''straight four'' to be synonyms, truly referring to the same thing for our purposes—it makes very little sense to "wall off" which names are used in a particular article, as there are no clear limits on how strictly this would have to be observed. Am I allowed to use any synonymous nouns, verbs, or adjectives in my synthesis that don't happen to appear in my three best sources? On the other hand, naming according to a generalized scope is surely more coherent for a hyperlinked encyclopedia providing tertiary analysis instead of merely refactoring and reshuffling the specific language of our secondary sources.
::::Of course exceptions abound, much of the time alternative names and redirects should be freely used according to syntactical and contextual concerns—but I believe this to be correct mindset to assume by default. I don't think any given article that uses [[First World War]] needs to be changed. However, in cases like these, I feel it pays dividends to use terminology consistently between pages. If readers are encountering technical or domain specific language for the first time, we create the most helpful and coherent tertiary analysis for them if we zoom out a bit. It makes no sense to prefer ''[[Sassanid]]'' to ''[[Sasanian]]'' just because the book we're citing prefers the former—e.g., in an article about a specific battle, or a broad conceptual article not specific to the Sasanians—our deliberately preferring ''Sassanid'' simply does not aid the reader in becoming familiar with whatever additional context they're going to go to [[Sasanian Empire]] for in order to better understand our other article.
::::If I wake up and find this totally incoherent, I apologize. It's hard to speak clearly about naming and reference, though it's one of my favorite things to think about. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 16:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::[[WP:NOTBROKEN]] clearly says: "Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline>[[redirect]]</syntaxhighlight> with <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline>[[target|redirect]]</syntaxhighlight>." So if a link already leads to the correct article, but using an alternative name that redirects, that's ''absolutely fine'' and nothing more needs to be done. I realize that you're probably not talking about piping, but about changing the link text and link target together – but that too is unnecessary if the existing link target works fine (by redirecting). [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 17:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Kumboloi, thanks for that explanation. It reaffirms my believe that you were acting in good faith (I hope you took my revert that way as well). [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 19:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think there needs to be a good reason to not use the article title in text (and they do exist), and that can be discussed on a per-case basis at the relevant article (or other) talk page.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 17:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 17:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Just so long as it is realized that THERE RATHER OFTEN IS A GOOD REASON! National language preferences for one thing. Busywork drive-by changes should be strongly discouraged. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 18:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Goes without saying! <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 19:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I just thought I'd drive by and agree with that. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 22:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:The answer the the OP's question is "More or less ''yes''", in the form of [[MOS:STYLEVAR]]. Remesense's idea above that article titles policy and its dependent naming-conventions guidelines and essays (which actually defer to MoS on style questions) somehow dictate in-article content. They absolutely do not, or we would simply merge them. However, agreement with the page title can actually qualify as a good reason for a text change under STYLEVAR a lot of time, such as when a old page title (and our mirroring of it in the text) was a misnomer, unhelpfully ambiguous, obsolete, or obscurantist. When such problems don't apply, then having more than one way to refer to the subject is a boon to editors and readers, since it allows us to write less repetitively. But the lead should almost always agree with the title, and start with the term/name in the title and secondarily provide any noteworthy alternative(s). Some exceptions of course apply, such as when a term/name in the title is a colloquialism and used for [[WP:COMMONNAME]] purposes in the title but is not the best way to introduce the first sentence (this is especially common at biographical articles, in which we often give the full "Elizabeth" or "Robert" name of someone more commonly called "Liz" or "Bobby" and given that way in the page title). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I think they must dictate in-article content to a degree at least—it would make no sense to use a particular name in the title and initial definition (I've been assuming congruence throughout, e.g. no disambiguators considered) and then never again. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 03:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::That's a correlation/causation mix-up. What you're talking about is just [[WP:Common sense]] (to the point of "Don't be intentionally perverse as if with a goal of confusing readers as much as possible") and a matter of [[MOS:BETTER]]. It's not an element of title policy or of naming conventions, which do not address article content (except a few of the worst-written NC pages have a statement or two in them about body content that needs to move out of those pages; I've been cleaning those up as I run across them). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 14:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I've been racking my brain trying to articulate exactly what I mean here, but I do not think it is <em>merely</em> correlative. Hopefully that is a useful thought inasmuch beyond just the trivial truth that the language one is exposed to affects the language they go on to use and think in terms of. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 19:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== Legibility of thumbnails at default size ==
::::: 'someone else change it' i.e. an American. But I don't work for the USA. [[User:Thedaveformula|Thedaveformula]] ([[User talk:Thedaveformula|talk]]) 23:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
{{Moved discussion from|Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Legibility of thumbnails at default size}}
:::::: It needn't be an American. I'm American, and I sometimes change spellings to British, when appropriate for the article they're in. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 23:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
[[File:The Bosses of the Senate by Joseph Keppler.jpg|thumb|220px|Noisy haze at 220px]]
::::Them might be the rules but I'm challenging the rules cause I don't think the rules are fair. If I put in hours of work to bring this website what could possibly be considered for a featured article, I want to write it in the language I use. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Thedaveformula|Thedaveformula]] ([[User talk:Thedaveformula|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thedaveformula|contribs]]) 23:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
[[File:Greater Coat of Arms of the Russian Empire.svg|thumb|165px|Noisy haze at 165px]]
:::::You are free to challenge, but you aren't going to win. The existing rules are a grand compromise that allow us all to work together, and prevent a costly and useless split of en.wiki into two varieties with only minor differences between them. The argument "I really know a lot about orthop(a)edics, and unless you change the rules for the whole project I'm not going to share it with you" is not going anywhere. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 23:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I am surprised there is no direct statement along the lines of {{xt|If possible, the selection, placement, and sizing of images should allow readers to fully decipher what they are intended to illustrate; thumbnails should be legible with the default base size of 220px without requiring readers to expand them.}} It seems like much of the guidance has this as an unstated goal, but there are cases where it is slightly less intuitive that this is a principle that editors should heed. My one worry is hypothetical quibbling over what any given image is intended to illustrate—is the specific text written on a street sign important for illustrative purposes?—but I feel like that's totally explicable in each instance via editor discussion. It's clear that some appropriate images cannot be legible at thumbnail size in context, either because they are visually intricate or the placement context simply won't allow it, but it seems helpful to state that editors should make an attempt when it is possible. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 16:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::(EC) But not everyone uses your language and spelling. Wikipedia has ways to settle these type of potential disputes. What you seem to be suggesting is that if Wikipedia isn't going to use the spelling you prefer, on the articles you prefer to write on, then you don't want to write at all. Basically the Wikipedian equivalent of picking up your ball and going home, because you can't have everything your way.--[[User:Jojhutton|<font color="#A81933">JOJ</font>]] [[User talk:Jojhutton|<font color="#CC9900"><sup>Hutton</sup>]]</font> 23:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
:{{ping|Remsense}} Can you give an example? [[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::And what if another editor highly knowledgeable on the subject prefers American English? Then what? —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 23:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
::Clicked around until I found one: at [[Crony capitalism#In sections of an economy]], it's not really possible for me to discern the field of figures as men sitting at desks rather than just noise. This image should be displayed at a slightly larger size, and maybe cropped a bit.
::Another class of examples is insignia and coats of arms, where arguably key details that would be legible in the original contexts are illegible at thumbnail sizes in infoboxes, especially in cases where there are especially elaborate versions that editors sometimes opt for out of a misplaced sense of completeness (I guess). <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 17:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::[[File:Ethnic Origins in Phoenix.png|thumb|220px]]
:::[[File:Map of the Original City of Philadelphia in 1682 by Thomas Holme.jpg|thumb|220px]]
:::They're everywhere. [[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 21:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::That is something that gives me pause: this seems like a common-sense guideline to me, but either it's so obvious that it shouldn't be a guideline (?) or it's not nearly as obvious to others. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 21:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I've always found it odd that we don't have a minimum size recommendation. Can't tell you how many times I see collages or galleries that have teeny mini images that lack accessibility for all. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 03:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do to print articles out (or otherwise have them in a format where the thumbnails are all you get), also. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 03:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I do worry my criterion above is too loosey-goosey to be a good guideline; I don't think there's a problem with speaking in terms of minimum size as such, maybe it's better getting the intended point across? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 03:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Definitely better getting the intended point across. If we try to impose a numeric min. size, people are going to argue about it until the end of fargin' time, based on the behavior of their preferred devices and browsers, and so on. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC); rev'd. 13:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::What do you think about the potential phrasing first presented—i.e. {{xt|if at all possible, what images are being used to illustrate should be fully legible when scaled according to the default base size}} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 03:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Lots of unnecessary words. {{xt|When possible, images with text should be legible when ...}} I'm not sure what "according to" the default base size means. Is it really the {{em|default}} base size? Are more than handful of editors reading this going to understand what "base size" means? I thinking there must be a clearer way to get the point across, but the goal seems right. (Speaking of "getting the intended point across": ironically, my previous message had an extraneous word, "than", in it – in a position that reversed or at least badly confused my meaning, so I've removed it.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 13:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm not sure how to phrase it. It's not just images with text either, it's all images that are added but cannot actually be deciphered without expansion. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 04:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Commas around incorporated businesses' names ==
:::<font color="green">''If you take a crayon and colour in all the countries that use the word 'orthopaedic' and then take a different coloured crayon and colour in all the countries using the term 'orthopedic', you will see that the global medical commpany, regardless of how many people there are in the USA, prefer the spelling 'orthopaedic'.''</font>
:::By that logic, British English would be the default variety throughout the site. Similarly, if we were to base the decision on the number of native speakers, American English would be the default variety throughout the site. Do you understand why neither option is viable?
:::<font color="green">''And yes I do plan on winning this case because I don't see how a school child in London or Auckland should have to be subjected to the American spelling of the word when they see in their own hospitals signs saying 'Orthopaedic'''</font>
:::The wording "subjected to" appears to imply that this is a terrible burden.
:::No matter which English variety someone prefers, he or she will encounter inconsistent spellings and terminology when reading Wikipedia. Most of us (irrespective of location) agree that this isn't a big deal (and is preferable to any alternative).
:::<font color="green">''And while I'm at it, regarding the 'you won't make friends here if you don't use American English' comment, what do you expect me to do?''</font>
:::That isn't what Jojhutton wrote. He correctly pointed out that you won't win many friends via your ultimatum.
:::<font color="green">''Sit down and spend hours researching the subject to make it a fantastic wikipedia page but use the language variation of another country?''</font>
:::That's one option. Countless editors do so on a regular basis.
:::Your other option is to follow through on your threat by withholding your contributions. If you believe that such an outcome is preferable to contributing to the dissemination of free knowledge in an English variety other than the one that you prefer, that's your prerogative. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 23:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


from looking at [[MOS:COMMA]], there isn't any guidance on how to deal with names with ''[[Incorporation (business)|Inc.]]''. multiple articles do any of the following, either with no comma, a comma only before and a comma around the word.
:Adapting to unfamiliar spellings is like adapting to unfamiliar driving regulations. See [[Right- and left-hand traffic]].
:—[[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]] ([[User talk:Wavelength|talk]]) 00:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


# {{xt|Mumumu Inc. is a company ...}}
:Dave (if I may abbreviate), welcome to Wikipedia and its many excitements and chagrins; and welcome to [[WT:MOS]]. I think you did the right thing by coming here, and I hope we can work together on the issue that concerns you.
# {{xt|Mumumu, Inc. is a company ...}}
:Let me make a small correction: ''orthopaedic'' with its related words is best considered to come from two Greek words, not Latin&nbsp;– though of course the form is influenced by passage through Latin or by Latin practice. The first element means "straight, right", as in ''orthography'' ("straight writing") and ''orthodoxy'' ("straight belief"). The noun from which the second element is formed can be transliterated ''paideia''. It means "rearing of children", and ''pais'' (''paid-'') means "child".
# {{xt|Mumumu, Inc., is a company ...}}
:Now, that digression becomes relevant when we turn back to the topic. How to spell a word founded in Greek (with its different alphabet), through learned Latin (with its rather systematic Latin adaptations of Greek spelling)? Different varieties of English make different choices, and certainly these have varied across time. Look at another derivative of ''pais'': "pederasty". Here is the [[SOED]] account of its etymology:
:<blockquote>[mod.L ''paederastia'' f. Gk, f. ''paiderastēs'', f. ''paid-'', ''pais'' boy + ''erastēs'' lover.]</blockquote>
:[[OED]] used to cite the word as "pæderasty, ped-" (note the "æ"), but not simply as "pederasty" (the current entry). Current OED gives this historical information:
:<blockquote>16 paederastie, 17– paederasty, 18– pederasty.</blockquote>
:Now some questions for you: Which of those forms in OED is "right"? When did it become "right"? Who decides?
:I am a conservative in many of these matters; and being an Australian I resist ''thoughtless'' adoption of American spelling. I am ''not'' singlemindedly opposed to American ways with the language, and fully accept American practices when they plainly have rationality or practical convenience on their side. This is not such a case. There are simply two ways to spell the word "orthopaedic", and neither is right in all contexts, for all time. You would write "pederasty", correct? So would almost everyone. No doubt some objected to the reduction to "pederasty"; perhaps some still do. Practicality has settled for us a simplified "orthotised" form. A hyperp<b><u>æ</u></b>dantic purist might insist on "paiderasteia", or insist that we speak and write Greek.
:I sympathise&nbsp;– or as my American colleagues and many others would have it, I sympathize. But the advocates of "orthopedic" have as strong a case as you do. And our guidelines want the existing style for the article to stay. I strongly support the "rule of law"<b><big>*</big></b> on Wikipedia, with no exception for "mere" style guidelines. So I support retaining the original spelling here (repellent as it may appear); unless a case can be made from existing Wikipedia guidelines or policy for overturning it.
:[<b>*</b> ''No, I am not trying to elevate the status of MOS recommendations. They are guidelines, and as such they ought to be followed by all Wikipedians unless there is a compelling and specific reason to do otherwise.'']
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>[[User_talk:Noetica |Tea?]]</small></sup> 00:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


I am aware that the commaless and comma style may coexist (sometimes in the same article!), however the second and third styles should likely be decided upon. [[User:JnpoJuwan|Juwan]] ([[User talk:JnpoJuwan|talk]]) 01:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:: @NoeticaTea Thank you for your message. I would consider it a compromise to have the spelling decided by whomever has last written the article. If I spend a day transforming the limping dog of an article on orthopaedic surgery into a thorough-bred canine, using countless citations and research, maybe even making new articles as a branch to it, can I have it as 'orthopaedic'? You have to remember that in doing this research I am going to be sitting down and reading books that spell it 'orthopaedic'. Now, if an American who is better informed than me on the subject, and there are many in America who are, wishes to better the article then let he or she do so with the spelling 'orthopedic' [[User:Thedaveformula|Thedaveformula]] ([[User talk:Thedaveformula|talk]]) 00:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
*Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! I ''cannot wait'' for someone to say that ''Inc.'' is an "appositive", and therefore the commas have to come in pairs. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 01:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Is that the cool way of saying that you don't think it is one? [[User:Primergrey|Primergrey]] ([[User talk:Primergrey|talk]]) 06:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*There is a lengthy discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)#Use of comma and abbreviation of Incorporated]]. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1F98C; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 09:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Redrose64|Redrose64]] thank you so much for your link and oh dear it really is long. [[User:JnpoJuwan|Juwan]] ([[User talk:JnpoJuwan|talk]]) 13:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== An editing policy question ==
:::You want us to adopt a policy of switching from one English variety to another, depending on who last edited the article? Or would this be limited to instances in which an editor is "better informed" than those who edited it previously? (If so, how are we to determine this?)
:::How would this improve Wikipedia? —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 01:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


When I read Wiki policy and guidance pages, I sometimes find ''shall'' used instead of ''will'' to indicate what must be done ''—'' for example, in the [[Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry|Signs of Sockpuppetry]] article, we find: "The more signs that are present, the more likely sockpuppetry is occurring, though no accusations '''shall''' be made unless, beyond a reasonable doubt, one is really certain."
:"If I put in hours of work&nbsp;... I want to write it the language I use." So do Americans. That's why we have endless arguments like this one. And that's why we have a rule. It's one of the best-known rules on Wikipedia. If it ever changes, it will be after months of debate by hundreds of editors. And it won't depend on what happens to one article. English Wikipedia has {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles. [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 00:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


Granted that ''shall'' is often used this way in government and judicial documents, I think it sounds somewhat at odds with the more user-friendly ambience Wikipedia has tried to create for editors. Besides, ''shall'' is not consistently applied throughout the policy and guidance pages ''—'' for example, in the same [[Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry|Signs of Sockpuppetry]] article, we find: ''"''The closing administrator '''will''' be required to follow the consensus, even if they personally disagree.''"''
*'''Comment''' I think I know where this will ultimately end up, but if everyone with more knowledge about this just humor me for a bit, perhaps we can get at least a little bit of discussion going. Why can't we just split up the wiki.en, and have a separate American and separate British version? I mean really, this isn't the first time we have had these British vs American spelling debate. Or which title of Harry Potter we should use. I know its a small inconvenience to the various readers to have to have to be, how did TheDaveFormula put it, ''subjected to'' unfamiliar spellings, but its at least worth discussing. Isn't it? --[[User:Jojhutton|<font color="#A81933">JOJ</font>]] [[User talk:Jojhutton|<font color="#CC9900"><sup>Hutton</sup>]]</font> 00:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


— For the above reasons, wouldn't it be in Wikipedia's best interests to avoid using the conversationally archaic ''shall'' in these articles and replace it with ''will?''? I doubt that this would make editors with wrongdoing on their minds less likely to behave as desired.
::I believe that such a fork is prohibited under the Wikimedia Foundation's rules.
::Setting aside that issue, why stop with American and British versions? What about Australian English, Canadian English, Caribbean English, Hiberno-English, New Zealand English, South African English, and every other English variety in existence?
::The logistical difficulties of even a single split (assuming that it's desirable, with which I disagree) are insurmountable. Imagine the effort required to convert articles from one English variety to another. And then how would the separate versions be maintained? —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 01:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


— But if the decision is made to continue "shalling," then for the sake of consistency couldn't a search-and-replace be done throughout the policy and guidance articles to replace ''will'' with ''shall'' where the word needs to indicate what must be done? [[User:Augnablik|Augnablik]] ([[User talk:Augnablik|talk]]) 16:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
And it terms of 'subjected' to American English, well ... yes. Because I don't want to see British English or Australian English die out, and having American English as the main variation on a universal medical topic such as orthopaedic surgery, on a major, major site like this, is one sure fire way of heading towards American English for the whole world. Not a nuclear disaster, sure, but a real cultural shame. I don't want to see a break up into American v British English and that would never happen anyway and would be futile, I just want to write 'orthopaedic', that's it, and not be ashamed of it or have it corrected by someone in Ohio[[User:Thedaveformula|Thedaveformula]] ([[User talk:Thedaveformula|talk]]) 00:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


:It's fine, really. This is one of those things the MOS exists to obliquely neutralize—i.e. this is a pretty conjectural position and not worth getting into all-in or all-out discussions over. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 17:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm British, and I often write articles in "American" (or try to - I'm not perfectly bilingual) because the subject matter is American. It's no big deal. Whatever you write here will be rewritten by other people anyway - to me, spelling of words is one of the least important of issues here. I think you may be overestimating the amount of personal influence you may have over language change. [[User:Ghmyrtle|Ghmyrtle]] ([[User talk:Ghmyrtle|talk]]) 00:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
::“Obliquely neutralize” — there’s a new one for me! 😅
: @Thedaveformula. [[Orthopaedic]] is not the only word that may appear to be misspelled by the vast majority of <s>North Americans</s>Wikipedians within this encyclopaedia; consider for example how the [[Artifact_(archaeology)|artefact]] article deals with the matter. In actual fact, the [[OED]] gives the etymology as French: ''orthopédique'' dated 1711 in Robert ''Dict. Alphabétique et Analogique'' and the first English spelling as '''orthopedic''' in the ''Lancet'' on 30&nbsp;May 1829 --[[User:Senra|Senra]] ([[User Talk:Senra|Talk]]) 00:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
::I just thought it would help lighten the bureaucratic tone of these articles to dial down the legalese, as many editors feel increasingly on edge with all the rules and regulations they discover the more they wade into Wikipedia. [[User:Augnablik|Augnablik]] ([[User talk:Augnablik|talk]]) 17:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Genuinely, I apologize that I can't talk normal when the situation would benefit from it. Take that how you will. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 17:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Or shall. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 17:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::😂 [[User:Augnablik|Augnablik]] ([[User talk:Augnablik|talk]]) 07:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{small|Am losing the [[Shoulda Woulda Coulda|will to live]] here, mate. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 12:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}}


:::Just be aware that you’ve entered the purview of a global encyclopedia, and that means you will encounter forms of English that aren’t necessarily common locally to wherever you live. [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 17:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:See [[American and British English spelling differences]]. (I wish that I had linked to this article in my previous post.)
::::Is this one of those [[rfc:2119]] situations where we should stick to a limited number of [[modal verb]]s on a sliding scale (must > should > may)? --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1F98C; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 18:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:—[[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]] ([[User talk:Wavelength|talk]]) 00:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
::::@[[User:MapReader|MapReader]], Although I’m aware of different styles of English in different parts of the world, the ''shall/will'' issue I’ve raised here is more about how Wikipedia wants to show officially expected actions in particular situations.
::::Not like , “Today I shall go to the beach” … but like, “Administrators shall hold discussions on the matter for one week before reaching a decision.” [[User:Augnablik|Augnablik]] ([[User talk:Augnablik|talk]]) 12:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Nevertheless, ‘shall’ is still reasonably common usage in formal, official or legal written texts, in the UK, in a way that I don’t think you can say for the US (but willing to be corrected…), and is not considered particularly user-unfriendly. Your observation to the contrary above is therefore pitched from the perspective of a particular Engvar, which was my original point. [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 15:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:MapReader|MapReader]], you're probably right about "how official" ''shall'' sounds to UK and US readers of official documents. And frankly, that word is still used from time to time in official documents in the US, even though much more rarely these days''.'' Even so, here's a thought: if ''will'' would work equally well as ''shall'' in Wikipedia policy and guidance documents, why not use it consistently here so as to make "official stuff" sound a bit less bureaucratic but at the same time affirming of expected behavior?
::::::Though I'm American, I doubt that any of our UK cousins across the pond would feel affronted if Wikipedia consciously adopted ''will'' in its policy and guidelines. Wouldn't it simply be one more example of Wikipedia's intentions of providing as welcoming and user-friendly environment as possible in which to work, while in no way demeaning other varieties of writing?
::::::Alternatively, to avoid the whole ''shall/will'' issue, there are still other ways wording could be done. For example, instead of "Administrators shall hold discussions...,” we could say, "Administrators are to hold discussions ....” [[User:Augnablik|Augnablik]] ([[User talk:Augnablik|talk]]) 11:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::More rules about how rules should be written could be one step forward, two steps back. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Onbiously, you're free to edit how you want, but as a general rule, surely it isn't WP's object, nor that of the MoS, to try and enforce general language preferences on our editors? [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 11:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::: You state the onbious. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Well, @[[User:MapReader|MapReader]], I think it’s time for me to gracefully bow out of the discussion now. My only Intent in making my suggestion was far from an attempt to ''enforce,'' though I see how it might be interpreted that way''.''
::::::::Instead, I was trying to make a case for a slight change in wording that seemed to me could help Wikipedia accomplish its very positive goal of creating an open, light, friendly ambience — just as seniors helping in the Teahouse and elsewhere are asked to do with those who ask questions. I know that as some editors get involved with Wikipedia, they come to feel weighed down by many rules and regulations and even become fearful they might make a slip and face serious consequences.
::::::::It was this I hoped my suggestion might help prevent in the long run, with the flip-side benefit of editor retention. [[User:Augnablik|Augnablik]] ([[User talk:Augnablik|talk]]) 12:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


==Discussion at [[:Talk:Archimedes#MOS:'S|Archimedes §&nbsp;MOS:'S]] (redux) ==
:1. This is a single article. If we accept your premise that the use of American English for "universal medical topics" contributes to the demise of British English (and similar varieties), what's the solution? To mandate the latter's use for all such subjects?
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Talk:Archimedes#MOS:'S|Archimedes §&nbsp;MOS:'S]]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 21:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->
:And if you're right, won't that contribute to the demise of ''American English''?
:2. Has it occurred to you that someone in Ohio might want to write "orthopedic" and not be ashamed of it or have it corrected by someone in the UK?
:The current rule is intended to prevent such "corrections" from occurring in ''any'' direction. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 01:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


==Discussion on [[American football]] bio leads==
::1. There is some precedent for things like this. Isn't "aluminium" always used in articles in the Chemistry Wikiproject?
See [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#%22player_who_was%22|here]]. [[User:WikiOriginal-9|<span style="color: blue">'''''~WikiOriginal-9~'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:WikiOriginal-9|<span style="color: blue">'''talk'''</span>]]) 19:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::2. But remember that Wikipedia is a ''general-readership'' publication. The articles are not written for orthopedic/orthopaedic professionals; they're written for ordinary readers. Please tell me how requiring the spelling "orthopaedic" would help these readers? Isn't the truth of the matter, as you put it, that this word ''has'' two accepted spellings? [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 02:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
::::As to your point (1), I think that's because ''aluminium'' is (unfortuntely, imho) the official IUPAC spelling, and (again unfortunately) Wikipedia tends to give a lot of weight to the pronouncements of these meddlesome standards bodies. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 02:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


== Usage of historical place names in infoboxes ==
:: The solution is that I write a very well researched article on 'orthopaedic surgery' and if someone from Ohio has a better one then he or she can edit it and label it 'orthopedic surgery'. [[User:Thedaveformula|Thedaveformula]] ([[User talk:Thedaveformula|talk]]) 02:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


Some feedback [[Template_talk:Infobox_person#%22at_the_time%22_vs._%22context_and_our_readership%22|here]] would be nice. Thanks --[[User:Flominator|Flominator]] ([[User talk:Flominator|talk]]) 19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::: And by the way, I'm talking about writing a really good page. A very in-depth page on orthopaedic surgery with excellent citations, biograpy of its early proponents, its micro-disciplines, case studies, and all I want, is to call it 'Orthopaedic surgery' [[User:Thedaveformula|Thedaveformula]] ([[User talk:Thedaveformula|talk]]) 02:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:16, 1 January 2025

Welcome to the MOS pit


    Style discussions elsewhere

    [edit]

    Add a link to new discussions at top of list and indicate what kind of discussion it is (move request, RfC, open discussion, deletion discussion, etc.). Follow the links to participate, if interested. Move to Concluded when decided, and summarize conclusion. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

    Current

    [edit]

    (newest on top)

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Capitalization-specific:

    This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Current.[edit]

    Move requests:

    Other discussions:

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Concluded

    [edit]
    Extended content
    This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Concluded.[edit]
    Capitalization-specific:
    2024
    2023
    2022
    2021

    Retain or remove citation indicators in quoted text?

    [edit]

    Is it acceptable to remove citation indicators – ¹ or (Gorgon, 1993) – that appear within quoted text (this would be to improve readability). I'm not referring to citing quoted material, but to citation marks within quoted material. Thanks! Tsavage (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. References to footnotes are usually silently omitted, as they are not a part of the text flow anyway. Gawaon (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Is this addressed in the MoS? I couldn't find mention MOS:QUOTE. This would seem a common situation when citing academic sources. Tsavage (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added it while doing some other cleanup. It's entirely normal to silently (not with "...") remove inline citations from quoted material, since WP isn't providing the source info, and to the reader it will be just be frustrating (they'll go looking for "Smith 1997" or whatever, and not find it). If our article is also citing the same source, then linking the quoted citation to our citation might be useful, but shouldn't be seen as manadatory. A general principle of quotation (inline or block) is to only quote what is pertinent, what is contextually necessary for our purposes; otherwise we're wandering into over-quotation which is both poor writing and apt to be a copyright issue unless the source is public-domain.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Your addition is helpful and doesn't seem to overcomplicate things. I realized the primary aim with quoted material is not to forensically reproduce it from the source (as I'd kinda been doing), it's to accurately represent the meaning as it appears in the full context of the source. Which makes minor silent adjustments for readability fine, provided meaning is strictly preserved – comprehension and judgement are of course required. Tsavage (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:NOTLATIN and the Americanist phonetic notation

    [edit]

    Hello, per the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Muthkwey, I thought it may be best to start a discussion here. We have come to a bit of a stand-still regarding the status of Americanist phonetic notation (NAPA). Per the discussion, several languages in the Pacific Northwest Coast use Americanist Phonetic Notation and as it stands, it is recognized as a non-Latin script in the system. The challenge is that there exists no recognized romanization system for NAPA, per NOTLATIN’s requirement for romanization of non-Latin scripts, nor is there an incentive to do so.

    In typical usage beyond Wikipedia, words in Northwest Coast languages rendered in NAPA are typically left as-is, with no romanization, or with a transliteration if there so exists a historical example. However, those transliterations are few and far between, and are often inconsistent as they differ author to author. It would not be a sustainable system, because those words only constitute a small portion of the lexicon.

    My question is whether NAPA should/would be recognized as a Latin script for the purposes of WP:NOTLATIN. NAPA derives heavily from Latin script, with the exception of a few Greek letters. Those letters represent various sounds, and each one serves a specific purpose. If it is not recognized as a Latin script, what would be the best course of action to allow various words to conform with WP:NOTLATIN, since there is no existing romanization system, and any generated romanization therefore would mostly be in violation of WP:OR. Any insight on this would be greatly appreciated. Ornithoptera (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds Latin enough to me. Gawaon (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. The concept of a "romanisation" of NAPA doesn't make sense to me. In fact, NAPA in some ways strikingly resembles romanisation schemes for Cyrillic, and Cyrillic variants that have been used to transcribe or write down previously unwritten languages, so much that in the past I've wondered if UPA and NAPA originally arose as romanisations of Cyrillic-based transcriptions. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale advice: slashes have been line-breaks since 2005 (Unicode 4.1.0)

    [edit]

    § Slashes (strokes) says "On the other hand, if two long words are connected by an unspaced slash, an {{wbr}} added after the slash will allow a linebreak at that point."

    I've recently tweaked a couple of articles doing this, and realized that my browser will allow breaks after slashes without any special markup. This is part of the current Unicode line-break algorithm. Looking into the archives, it was added to support breaking URLs between Unicode 4.0.1 (2004-03-30) and Unicode 4.1.0 (2005-08-29).

    It's been 19 years. Do we still need this advice? I ask because some parts of WP are aggressively backward-compatible: {{wbr}} still expands to <wbr/>&#8203; since apparently IE7 and earlier don't support <wbr/>. But I seriously doubt that WP is consistently backward-compatible; I'm sure there are lots of more recent edits where the editors didn't see a problem with long /-separated lists on their browsers and didn't do anything tricky. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Look at Good articles (or former Good articles) from years ago they read like they do now and it just shows that the Manual of Style will stay exactly the same as it has been for 18 years unfortunately. This0k (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Input needed on disagreement over where the lifespan goes in relation to a baronetcy or a peerage title

    [edit]

    Muéro and I disagree on where the lifespan goes in relation to a name that includes a baronetcy or a peerage title. It started with Muéro removing honorifics from the lead of several articles on peers (many of which I have on my watchlist), following the recently changed guidelines at WP:POSTNOM. This is not controversial, but in their edits, he also removed a comma unrelated to the honorifics, but called for by WP:COMMA ("Don't let other punctuation distract you from the need for a comma, especially when the comma collides with a bracket or parenthesis").

    I pointed this out to them, and they acknowledged the error, but then they instead started to leave another comma in place, a comma that was required by the now obsolete guideline. I can't find the guideline in the history of this article, but it went something like this:

    For people with a baronetcy or a peerage, the post-nominals should be separated from each other, and from the name, by a comma, for consistency's sake. (my underscore)

    That is the comma Muéro left in place, and the result was this: 

    John Doe, 1st Baron Doe, (1 January 1801 – 31 December 1881), was a Whig politician ...

    I pointed out to Muéro that this is also wrong, and that punctuation rarely – if ever – precedes a parenthetical expression. But they are adamant that it should be there.

    So here we are. I'd like input from the project, and I'm sure Muéro would like that too.

    The discussion originated on Muéro's talk page, but I'm copying it here, and closing it there, while notifying them.

    The discussion on Muéro's talk page

    [edit]

    Hello.

    Thank you for your contributions. Regarding your edit of Frederick Curzon, 7th Earl Howe, and similar edits removing postnoms per the new guidelines, please don't remove the comma after the parenthetical birth–death expression. It's supposed to be there per WP:COMMA: "Don't let other punctuation distract you from the need for a comma, especially when the comma collides with a bracket or parenthesis".

    Thank you. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, good catch. I can't wait for the day when nobility titles are also excluded entirely, which would make that comma unnecessary anyway. Muéro(talk/c) 15:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello again.
    Thank you for your understanding. Re: your latest edits, you're now leaving a comma in place that shouldn't be there.
    Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, (29 April 1936 – 26 February 2024),
                                  ^                     ^                                   ^
                                  A                     B                                   C
    Commas A and C are paired, comma B should be removed along with the postnoms that followed it. Commas rarely precede parentheses.
    Cheers.
    HandsomeFella (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that makes sense. If someone doesn't have a nobility/royalty title, there is no comma before or after the life span. When adding the nobility/royalty title, the pair of commas should go before and after the nobility/royalty title. Why, when adding the nobility/royalty title, would the life span get looped into the comma pair? Muéro(talk/c) 17:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Step by step

    [edit]

    I think it makes perfect sense. You don't put a parenthetical expression after punctuation, do you? Let me take this step by step. Normally, the first sentence would be something like this: 

    John Doe was a Whig politician ...

    Now let's add that he was a peer: 

    John Doe, 1st Baron Doe, was a Whig politician ...
        ^              ^
        A              B

    The commas A and B are paired, i.e. the "parenthetical" title is set off at both ends (unless when there is other punctuation, like at the end of sentence). Let's see what happens without the closing (second) comma: 

    John Doe, 1st Baron Doe was a Whig politician ...

    If the commas aren't paired, the sentence reads "1st Baron Doe was a Whig politician", and "John Doe" is left dangling at the start of the sentence.

    Now, let's add the life span. Where do we add it? Before punctuation. 

    John Doe, 1st Baron Doe (1 January 1801 – 31 December 1881), was a Whig politician ...
        ^                                                  ^
        A                                                  B

    The commas A and B are still paired. See?

    HandsomeFella (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The nobility title is a nonessential appositive. Commas go before and after a nonessential appositive. I'm assuming you don't consider the lifespan, which is never set off by commas in a Wikipedia article, to be a part of the same nonessential appositive somehow, right? If it's not included in the nobility title nonessential appositive, then it goes outside the commas. Muéro(talk/c) 00:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't. Sure, the lifespan parenthetical isn't part of the appositive, but neither are the commas, which is demonstrated by the fact that at, if the name and title occurred at the end of a sentence, there wouldn't be a comma; there would be a period/full stop:
    ... Joseph Smith bequeathed the manor to his nephew, John Doe, 1st Baron Doe (1801–1881).
    You wouldn't place the parenthetical outside the sentence like this, would you?
    ... Joseph Smith bequeathed the manor to his nephew, John Doe, 1st Baron Doe. (1801–1881)
    Ergo: normal rules apply, which is that punctuation doesn't precede a parenthetical. (The exception being when there is a complete sentence inside the parentheses, in which case punctuation occurs both at the end of the preceding sentence, i.e. before the parenthetical, and before the closing parenthetical, as shown here.)
    Commas go before and after an appositive (unless there is other punctuation), but that does not necessarily mean immediately after.
    HandsomeFella (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Punctuation doesn't precede a parenthetical" is not a rule at all. It's just something you made up.
    If the parenthetical were being applied to the nobility title, then the parenthetical should go within the commas that set off the nobility title. But the parenthetical is being applied to the actual name of the person, which came before the nonessential appositive that is set off by commas.
    If you dislike the placement of the nobility title between the name and the lifespan parenthetical, I wouldn't disagree. I'd happily remove the nobility title entirely from the lead sentence (or heck, the whole article). Or put the lifespan parenthetical first, and then the nobility title. But wherever the nobility appositive is being stuck, it gets set off by commas. That's the rule. Muéro(talk/c) 13:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This one is simple: a comma is never placed immediately before other punctuation. Instead it's placed after them or, in case or semicolons and periods, omitted altogether. While MOS:COMMA doesn't say so quite explicitly (supposedly treating it as one of these common sense things that everybody already knows?), it gives an example of how to do it correctly: "Burke and Wills, fed by locals (on beans, fish, and ngardu), survived for a few months." (With the second parenthetical comma after the closing bracket.) So, by analogy, "John Doe, 1st Baron Doe (1 January 1801 – 31 December 1881), was a Whig politician" is indeed correct. Gawaon (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with the OP and with Gawaon on the typographical point; we don't use a comma right before a round-bracketed parenthetical, nor does much of anyone else in the world. One might make an argument that "logically", in the way a computer program would approach logic, there should or could be one there, and this is the direction Muéro has been going, but human language does not operate on such a basis, being a matter of convention combined with expediency, not a matter of a JSON-like syntax in which a comma that really should not be needed to parse the material must be present anyway or the operation will fail.

    That said, we do have several interrelating issues in play in this titles and post-noms sector that are worth cataloguing and considering in some detail:

    1. Something like "Xerxes Youill Zounds, Grand Poobah of Elbonia–Brobdingnag (3 May 1571 – 24 July 1644), was ..." is always indicating the life-span dates. If there is a need to specify the duration of a peerage, including a change in titles, that should be done in plain English in the article body, and is not going to be lead-sentence or even lead-section material. It's body material, like "Upon the death of his father, Zounds became 3rd poobah of Elbonia on 12 December 1629. He was elevated to 1st grand poobah of Elbonia–Brobdingnag on 20 June 1639 by High King Korki IX of Kerblachistan. Zounds was also the bishop of Lilliput from ca. 1630 to 14 February 1633, when he was defrocked by the archbishop of Elbonia."
    2. As an anti-classist myself, I still have to observe/concede that "don't include any titles or post-noms because they are classist" is not a viable position. WP is not a socio-political activism tool, and when any such title or honor (whether earned or hereditary or otherwise) is pertinent to a notable article subject, it should be covered, more prominently the more important it is within the context of their notability. (See below for an idea toward suppressing lead inclusion when not related to notability at all but a late-coming add-on to the pile of someone's life aachievements.)
    3. There's a been a very long-standing de facto consensus to always include peerage titles and important post-nominals (but not academic or professional titles or post nominals like "Dr[.]" or "PhD", or guild/union stuff like "ASC", "PGA") in the lead sentence. Virtually every applicable article has been written this way.
    4. A recent-ish RfC (I seem to have lost the link to it – help me out?) with probably much too low a turnout upended part of this, and now has us remove the post-nominals from the lead sentence. This has not sat well, and actually introduces some writing problems that the RfC participants did not anticipate. For example, WP does not, except in an article on the subject being abbreviated, introduce an acronym/initialism unless it is going to be re-used later in the same article. But if our bio subject's investiture as a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath is covered in the body only, the point at which this is done has no need to a "KCB" appearing at that point, since "KCB" is used as a post-nominal not otherwise and would not be re-used later in the article; the result is that the "KCB" that applies to this person has no logical place to go in the article any longer, since it was actually only pertinent in the lead sentence, attached to the person's name. We could do something very awkward like state that this knighthood entitles/entitled this person to use "Sir" or "Dame" and the post-nominal "KCB", but this sort of blather would have to be repeated throughout many thousands of articles, and was already very concisely conveyed by the original lead sentence without having to spell it out and micro-WP:COATRACK the bio article with detailia about how a particular order's nomenclatural rules operate. Simply showing rather than telling was better.

      So, this really should be re-RfCed, at a higher-profile venue like WP:VPPOL so we are certain that the community at large really wants to impose this lead rule change and its problems all in the name of shaving a few characters off the lead sentence. "The postnoms will be in the infobox anyway" isn't the (or an) answer, since not all bios have infoboxes, and there is staunch resistance to adding them in many cases. A potential compromise might be to not include postnoms in lead sentence but in an infobox when one is present and has a parameter for it.

    5. Even without revisiting that with a better RfC, the present wording at MOS:POSTNOM is daft: "post-nominal letters may be included in the main body of the article, but not in the lead sentence of the article". This has already lead to dispute about whether it means post-noms are banned from the entire lead or only the literal lead sentence, because it only addresses the lead sentence and the post-lead-section article body. The correct answer (if you look at the RfC discussion and the alleged consensus arising from it) is that this should instead read something like "post-nominal letters may be included, but not in the lead sentence of the article"; there was no consenus to ban them from the entire lead section. However, this runs into the problem above: Because post-nominal letters are used directly with full names, and generally only upon first introduction, there effectively is no practical place for them, in the lead section or in the article body, other than the lead sentence (except arguably in an infobox if it's there and has a place for this information).
    6. Next, there's a misapprehension here (evidenced in the beginning of this thread) that this anti-postnom RfC result somehow also means to remove peerage and nobility titles from the lead. It does not. They are a different category of thing and were not addressed in that RfC. It is possible that a consensus might be reached to remove peerage titles when they are not pertinent to the subject's notability (e.g. that would have been the case with Christopher Guest had he remained an actor/director/producer only and not taken a seat in the House of Lords). There are also many life baronetcies created late in the life of the recipients and to little public awareness; a case can be made to exclude them from the lead sentence and probably from the entire lead section. But this is something for a consensus discussion on an article-by-article basis, or for a new RfC if we wanted a categoric rule of some kind about it.
    7. A side issue is that some parties from the nobility and peerage wikiprojects have, by WP:FAITACCOMPLI behavior, programmatically usurped the |name= parameter of {{infobox person}} and its offshoots, abusing it to hold the peerage title, when that really belongs in |postnom= since it is in fact post-nominal (it's just not a post-nominal abbreviation). See Margaret Thatcher for the typical absurd result. Because this has been done to thousands and thousands of articles and involves yet another "wikiproject rebellion" against the norms of the entire rest of the project, I suspect this is probably best addressed with another WP:VPPOL RfC so there can be no doubt about the community consensus level of the result (which will obviously be to stop having our infobox blatantly lie to our readers that Margaret Thatcher's name is "The Baroness Thatcher". For the Thatcher case, the obvious solution is: |name=Margaret Hilda Thatcher|honorific_suffix=Baroness Thatcher<br />{{Post-nominals|country=GBR|size=100%|LG|OM|DStJ|PC|FRS|HonFRSC}} , and this is what agrees with the lead of the article. (Note lack of "The" before "Baroness".)

      These infoboxes are also failing MOS:HONORIFIC by including honorific salutation phrases like "The Right Honorourable" that are not part of the name in any sense, but used when writing a letter to such a person or when introducing them as speaker, and so on; that sort of information does not belong in a bio article (much less thousands of them robotically) but in an article on forms-of-address etiquette and probably again in the article on the title (baronet or whatever the case may be).

    There are probably other issues to address, but this is a lot already.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Any objections to extending MOS:TIES to all nations and regions?

    [edit]

    Currently MOS:TIES qualifies itself to English-speaking nations. However, in an increasingly multicultural world with English emerging as the lingua franca, at minimum in the Western world, why qualify this part of the MoS like that, ESPECIALLY when it also impacts on MOS:UNIT? For example, the European Union has 24 official languages, including English, and multilingualism is one of its founding principles.

    Would it not make sense to extend MOS:TIES to nations (and regions) irrespective of whether they traditionally speak English or not? Because I can see how saying to someone that embraces multilingualism and values Europe's rich linguistic diversity wishing to contribute to an article on a topic with strong ties to their nation or region in the EU, where English is an official language, that in this case that tie doesn’t count (and someone else gets to decide) might be perceived as ... well ... rude and arrogant, which isn't just unnecessary but also unproductive. Would the article not benefit from including anyone with a strong tie to it?

    I must note I would prefer if there was an established international variant, but I also find it practical not to have to waste time and effort trying to work out whether in a given article its meter or metre, organise or organize, or SI first and then imperial, or imperial first and then SI. Because getting it wrong just causes unnecessary consternation, especially if the article is inhabited by one or more "Shelobs". Elrondil (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not in favor of this idea. TIES is an exceptional case that should be used only when it's very clear; the main rule is RETAIN.
    In practice I think this proposal comes down to "don't use American English in articles about Europe". I don't agree with that. --Trovatore (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trovatore: The proposal doesn’t suggest it no longer needs to be clear, nor that that main rule is no longer retain. It simply proposes that MORE voices are heard.
    As for the “don’t use American English in Europe” bit ... that would then only happen if most voices then want that. The solution surely isn’t “but I don’t like that, so let’s exclude them from the set of voices allowed to speak”. Fear not, they may choose American, who knows. Elrondil (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also not in favor for the reasons cited by Trovatore. Doremo (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do object to this.
    Moreover, from what I understand it's a perennial suggestion, so I recommend perusing the last major flare-up of it from June, wherein I happen to embark on a journey from the exact wrong position all the way to the right one, filling your heart with hope for a better future as you follow my progress. Remsense ‥ 论 07:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it keeps coming up, perhaps there is something there.
    However, you do highlight its more complex than I originally thought, so back to the drawing board 🤔. Elrondil (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a chance. The purpose of MOS:TIES is entirely, only, solely about English-language dialects that exist at a more or less national level and in a formal register suitable for encyclopedia writing. Under no circumstances would we accept an English pidgin/creole or some vaguely identifiable informal habits of English-as-a-second-language users in some country or region as a "variety of English" to accept for encyclopedia writing. If you encounter "Franglais", "Spanglish", "Deutchlish", etc., in any of our articles it should be normalized on the spot to whichever form of standardized English suits the subject best if there are strong MOS:TIES, or to the form that the article already most closely matches (British, American, Canadian, or some other dialect of a country with majority or official and large minority English usage in a formal register). Another way of looking at this: There is no strong tie between Finland and any form of English. Even the "Well, it at least shouldn't be American, but British, because the UK is part of Europe and the US is not" sort of argument fails, because there's more than one national dialect of English in Europe (Irish, for now, and probably Scottish if they have another independence referendum). If there's not a particular encyclopedia-appropriate variety/dialect of English in widespread use in a country, then that country by definition has no strong tie to any such particular variety.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: Thank you for stating very clearly and firmly that the purpose of MOS:TIES is entirely, only, solely about English-language dialects, because THAT means my primary concern of how it relates to MOS:UNIT is a non-issue!
    For the record, I did not, and still don’t, propose that “Franglais” and so on become accepted English variants. Because that would be insane, pointless and not useful. Elrondil (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is something to do with promotion of crore and lakh in articles that pertain to India, there's already a big thread about that at WT:MOSNUM (again), and last I looked the consensus wasn't really changing: they're permissible as secondary units, but always need to be converted because they don't mean anything to anyone outside India and parts of its immediate neighbors (and of course among first-gen Indic diaspora). Maybe the tide has shifted in that discussion; I last looked at it about a week ago.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I wasn’t aware of that thread. Elrondil (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The thread to which you refer is “RfC Indian numbering conventions”? Elrondil (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think there is any real overlap with the “RfC Indian numbering conventions” thread.
    I also think MOS:TIES is a dog’s breakfast, but happy to leave it alone at this time.
    Are there any objections then to apply the direction from SMcCandlish that the purpose of MOS:TIES is entirely, only, solely about English-language dialects to MOS:UNITS and decouple "respect the principle of 'strong national ties'" from MOS:TIES? For example, change it to "respect the underlying principle of strong national ties as also used in MOS:TIES but in a different context”, and then also qualify the following with only?
    • In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States only, the …
    • In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom only, the …
    • In all other articles, the …
    Elrondil (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you're been so vague about why you are asking these things, what rationale you could have for making up a new rule or changing any existing one, without any reference to an ongoing and important on-site problem, that all one has been left with is guesswork based on encounters with extant or recent discussions that seem like they could be pertinent. [shrug] "Are there any objections"?: Yes., I can think of a number:
    1. There is no clear rationale for what you're proposing, much less a consensus to do it. Substantive changes to policies and guidelines (WP:P&G) need consensus or they will not be accepted (unless they, rarely, hit upon something that needed to adjusted and no one else noticed until now, which isn't the case here).
    2. There are strong rationales against it, most obviously:
      A. Your implicit notion that units of measure have no connection to dialect (or "variety" as WP likes to say) is not correct.
      B. Even if it were, it'd be immaterial. The next implicit idea in your proposal (quite central to it really) is that if P&G page X reiterates a general principle from another, Y, and cites the latter for the explanation, such that X applies that principle to X's circumstances because they are reasonably analogous to Y's, that this somehow creates a bureaucratic rules-chain dependency in which every aspect of the context of the cited origin of the principle in Y must also be applicable to the citing circumstances of X. Nothing on Wikipedia works that way at all. Cf. WP:WIKILAWYER: it's a mistake to try to interpret our P&G as essentially a legal system (or as something like a procedural programming language, or a chain of dependencies in building software from source code; more than one analogy works).
      C. Because of point B, and because of the guideline's current "where applicable" wording (which is there for a reason and meaningful), your first rewrite idea, of tacking on a bunch of "respect the underlying principle of strong national ties as also used in MOS:TIES but in a different context" verbiage it entirely superfluous. The two versions convey the same meaning, because it is already understood that the principle (not the detail-by-detail contextual specifics) of TIES is being applied at UNITS. This is the way our entire P&G system operates. It wouldn't really be possible for it to be any other way. If UNITS was literally just restating TIES, down to the specifics of exactly what TIES covers, then UNITS would be redundant (in this regard) with TIES, and its wording about this issue would've been deleted long ago and replaced with a simple cross-reference to TIES without further comment. The kind of exemplary and contextual more-than-crossreferencing done at UNITS is entirely normal. And important: an editor looking for "what to do about units" is unlikely to instead stumble upon "what to do about national-level usage disputes", and so would be unlikely to find the TIES principles and then be certain how to contextually apply them (if at all) to units, without being basically an expert in our style guide the way some Tolkien fans learn Elvish.
      D. The next bit of suggested rewriting is to inject "only" into two line items, but this change would have a nonsensical and undesirable result in two ways: It would make those items applicable under no circumstances to anywhere but the US and the UK, respectively (even to former UK colonies with English- and units-usage norms virtually indistinguishable from British in an encyclopedic register); and it would necessitate (to fix that new problem) expanding that into a long list of every country with anything that WP would consider a "national variety of English" with pertinent unit-usage norms. The purpose of those two examples is as examples (not as an exhaustive list) of how to approach these matters. The examples were chosen because they settled previously recurrent disputes. So, what long-term, recurrent, serious problem can you point to that you think your changes would resolve? The examples are not there to serve as the beginning of an ever-growing rulebook to address every imaginable case with a new micro-topical line item to thump. The purpose of giving a general principle and providing some prominent examples is to obviate the need to have a pile of micro-rules. (MOS:NUM is already too detailed as it is.)
    3. The long-term stability of these guidelines is very important, because even small but meaningful/operative changes to them can affect many thousands up to potentially millions of articles, for reasons that almost always resolve to trivial and subjective peccadilloes. That cascading-wave-of-unneeded-changes problem (and all the fighting the endless trivial tweaks would generate) is never more of a danger than when a national-level and frequent usage matter is at issue (and literally millions of our articles do have measures with units in them). See also WP:MOSBLOAT: If MoS, after 20-odd years, doesn't already have a rule about something, then it needs to not have a rule about it, because it is not necessary for the project to do what it does successfully, and MoS is already way too long.
    4. Your "I also think MOS:TIES is a dog's breakfast, but happy to leave it alone at this time" approach does not bode well. Our policies and guidelines don't exist as hills to die on. The purpose of these style guidelines is (aside from the main one of producing intelligible and consistent content for our readers) dissuading style-warring behavior. Arriving with the idea that the rules are broken and that at some forthcoming time you're going to fix them is antithetical to their purpose and to the needs of the community. It largely doesn't matter what any particular line-item in MoS sets out (except when there is objectively a reader-clarity improvement offered by one option over another), only that it sets out, and long-term retains, something that addresses a recurrent dispute pattern and brings it mostly (hopefully entirely) to an end, and/or that it produces better content for our readers – even if that "something" is arbitrary or is a compromise that can't please everyone. Just as a word to the wise, MOS:ENGVAR (including TIES) is pretty much the hardest-fought consensus compromise reached in MoS's history, and is also one of the oldest and most stable, so if you think you're going to make serious changes to it, you are very mistaken. It's like going to Canada and declaring your mission is to undo the country's approach to French and English as official languages.
    This might all come off as harsh, but WP:Policy writing is hard, and the vast majority of proposals to change any P&G are off the mark. There are many devils in many details (thus the length of this), with a lot of nuanced interrelations between different rules (or advice or best practices or whatever you want to call them). Most of the real kinks were worked out long ago. Those that remain are subject to long-term dispute that hasn't produced a workable compromise. There is no such dispute about the material you want to change. And there are sometimes severe costs for making changes that are not vital to make.PS: I've tried hard to find a "yes" to put into this pile of "no", and there is one! Namely, your version is correct that the "scare quotes" around strong national ties shouldn't be there. I just went and removed them, so thanks for that. Otherwise, no element of your draft appears to be clearly an improvement. Here's the original wording: The choice of primary units depends on the circumstances, and should respect the principle of strong national ties, where applicable. Here's yours (presumably also keeping the original's first 10 words and the link): respect the underlying principle of strong national ties as also used in MOS:TIES but in a different context. Mentioning the other guideline by name is redundant with linking to it, and all our P&G pages are fairly (not entirely) consistent in, when practical, using plain English with links around pertinent terms rather than injecting page names. Mentioning it by shortcut in particular is "newbie-unfriendly" and wrongly presumes memorization of our shortcut strings. "Underlying" is a puff word and doesn't serve a concrete purpose in the sentence. (And underlying what? It has no clear downstream referent.) "As also used in" is more redundancy; if we're linking to TIES as the locus of the principle, it's already automatically understood that the principle is applied at the place we're linking to. "But in a different context" is a combination of redundancy with the implication of the link again, and quite odd wording: Why is there a "but" in this? (What it is contrasting against?) "Different" from what? Different in what way? And "context" is conceptually misused in this construction, in that the general principle at TIES is a meta-context, of all usage/style disputes pertaining to national-level English dialects, while use of units is a subset of that, a sub-context, not a conflicting/alternative context. Finally, unit usage is only sometimes a subset of the usage in a national variety of English, thus the original's "where applicable" – a key point that your version drops, despite it seeming to be central to the bee in your bonnet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Introducing Scottish as an additional form of English would cause mayhem - or at least a shedload of future editing - here. We’ve already had a nationalist-driven push towards replacing ‘British’ with ‘English’ or ‘Scottish’ in bio articles, usually uncited and based purely on supposition or the subject’s birthplace. Fortunately, Scottish Independence appears to be receding as a prospect, at least in the short to medium term. MapReader (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree (and we had a real template at {{Use Scottish English}} in 2013, with an attempt to re-create it in 2016). Several years ago, I tried to get rid of all the "Use Foo English", and related, templates declaring "national varieties" that, in reality, are completely indistinguishable from general British English in an encyclopedic register, and could all collectively be covered by a "Use Commonwealth English" template. ENGVAR only applies to national (not subnational) varieties, and only those dialects that exist in distinct forms and with a formal register (by definition: if you can't write encyclopedia-appropriate material in a dialect, then it doesn't belong in our articles for any reason, so ENGVAR cannot be used to "protect" it from edits). But nationalistic sentiments won out in the end, and we still have all that claptrap, with ridiculous results like articles being tagged with {{Use Jamaican English}}, {{Use Singaporean English}}, etc. (Likewise we have no use of American-splitoff variants, either, like "Use Guam English", etc.) Too many editors who should know better and should think just a tiny bit harder have utterly mistaken the purpose of these as something like "national pride" flags to put on articles, in a verging-on-WP:OWN manner. These tags absolutely do not resolve to "write an article about Nigeria using colloquialisms and grammatical oddities found only in the informal speech and writing of English in Nigeria, which will be confusing to everyone else in the world". If someone tries that crap in response to such a template, rewrite the material per MOS:COMMONALITY and MOS:TONE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:NOTGALLERY

    [edit]

    At another talk page, I was writing an explanation of why articles should not be swamped in a plethora of images, planning to cite MOS:NOTGALLERY. Fortunately for once I checked first and found that it is just an alias for WP:NOTDB, not a statement that article spaces should not be mirrors of Commons.

    Given that the majority of visitors do so on mobile phones, is there a case for an explicit policy that says that curation is essential, less is more?

    Or would it be enough to change the target of NOTGALLERY to MOS:IMAGEREL (which might need a little expansion because right now it just says Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting. At least a reference to WP:ARTICLESIZE? (which is expressed in terms of word count, not megabytes, so would also need work). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think IMAGEREL would be a better redirect target. I want this to point to guidance that images should be included selectively rather than overwhelming articles with images. NOTDB instead seems to be guidance that images should be relevant and accompanied by text, which is not enough to prevent big indiscriminate galleries. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had second thoughts about this one. It is probably not wise to make NOTGALLERY an exception to the general rule that WP:NOTaaaaaaaa shortcuts all redirect to WP:Wikipedia is not. So the better plan is to add a short sentence to the current target to say that Wikipedia is not a database of images or a catalogue raisonné; those are among the functions of Wikimedia Commons. Image use in Wikipedia articles must comply with MOS:IMAGEREL. I will do that now.
    IMAGEREL needs some work too, to make it even more explicit that to bury an article in a mass of images is sure way to ensure that nobody reads it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While some types of "galleries" should be avoided, articles on certain visual topics do benefit from many visual examples. I also do not think we should explicitly outlaw the catalogue raisonné model while allowing many other bibliographic lists. One size does not fit all, and such a change would need to be debated with the folks curating WP:NOT and those who work on visual topics. —Kusma (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pending further discussion, I have removed the reference to catalogue raisonné from my amendment (so that it now reads simply Wikipedia articles are not a repository of images: image use in Wikipedia articles must comply with MOS:IMAGEREL. to item 4, "Photographs or media files".
    I agree certainly that, in an article about an artist or an artistic movement, it is essential to illustrate the phases of their artistic development. That to me is clearly in keeping with IMAGEREL and wp:localconsensus can determine relevancy. But to include an image of every work in an artist's oeuvre? How is that a valid exception to NOTDB? (and likely a COPYVIO too). And why not show every putter manufactured by ACME Golf Inc? every locomotive made by ACME Rail Inc? every postage stamp (including all misprints) produced by the Austro-Hungarian empire? We have articles so swamped in pointless images that they have become essentially unusable to visitors on mobile. How does that make any sense? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would definitely oppose including every work in an artist's oeuvre in an article on the artist, but I want to make sure we do not outlaw List of paintings by Edvard Munch, where the images are perfectly encyclopaedic and just as relevant for identification as the images in List of members of the 19th Bundestag. Tables in such long lists are often not great for small screens, but that is a separate issue from the number of images. Generally, lists are not the same as other articles in their use of images, so the rules should reflect that. —Kusma (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a problem with that. Clearly the application of IMAGEREL should (and would) be different between a list article v a fairly broad concept article. To take your example, it would be entirely reasonable to include every image we have in the list article, provided that we use small thumbnails (upright=0.2); conversely (IMO) the bio article about Munch should be curated so that it has just one carefully chosen image to illustrate each phase of the development of his style [or at least his age, if we don't have a suitable RS], with maybe one or two especially notable examples that he did . Surely we don't want to replicate Commons? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, let's not compromise the full extent of the encyclopedia by limiting what has always been one of its main features. Images and galleries define and describe just as much as text. That many choose to "read" Wikipedia on tinier gadgets should not dictate the coverage and image-styling of encyclopedic content articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem we have at the moment with some articles is what David Eppstein describes above as "big indiscriminate galleries" and rote copying of everything in Commons for no evident informative purpose, a form of visual clutter. As IMAGEREL begins, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding". Without curation, the information gets buried in the woodpile.
    I am not proposing a principle that we must minimise the number of images, period. My proposal is that we provide a policy basis that editors can use to say "that point is already adequately illustrated, another image adds nothing new" or "this article had become so bogged down in images that it no longer navigable". I am talking about edge cases here, in most articles it is not an issue. But some have become swamped in an uncritical replica of Commons. This is not to enable wikilawyering, it just makes it easier to explain the rationale. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As an example of the sort of burying articles in galleries that I would object to, see hexagonal prism, where (at least in its current version) four of its six sections are entirely image galleries (in some cases hidden in collapsed templates, with much of their content peripheral to the main article topic).
    We do need wording that distinguishes this case from List of paintings by Edvard Munch, where the galleries are entirely appropriate, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But as far as I can see, the List of paintings by Edvard Munch (and similar lists by artists) already complies with IMAGEREL, because the use of images in that article is proportionate and entirely relevant to that context. Conversely, to put all those paintings in the Munch bio article as a giant gallery would not be proportionate (IMO).
    So to focus this discussion, can anyone suggest another sentence we can use to amplify the point made in the opening sentence of IMAGEREL? ("Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding".) How about

    Consequently, each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose: for guidance, see less is more.

    AFAICS, that responds to and respects both the Munch examples above. (FWIW, very few if any of the visual arts articles suffer from this swamping problem. The issue affects high profile articles like Swastika.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is entirely enough that we have the MOS:IMAGEREL shortcut. A proposal to retarget WP:NOTGALLERY to that would almost certainly fail, because it's part of a very long-standing set of policy (not guideline) WP:NOTFOO shortcuts to sections of WP:NOT, and such a change would both confuse editors today and render archived discussions of policy misleading. "Ain't broke; don't fix it."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Audio video guidance

    [edit]

    Hi there, I'm noting a lack of guidance for Audio video content, I've mentioned this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images. It seems people just edit MOS rather than run through large discussions, but I'm reluctant to start plunging in before getting some help. Here is what i think is needed:

    • Something explaining that the guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images applies to Audio-video content in most cases, eg regarding relevance, image quality, textual information, offensive images, placement, size, location, availability. Nearly all of the page is relevant, in fact.
    • The download advice might need to be different. Do videos or audio need a warning that they are large files? This is not assumed, it seems.

    There is a case for some separate AV guidance, regarding:

    • Length: should inline videos be shorter where possible? Does this apply to audio clips?
    • Language: if audio or video is original language, should subtitled content be preferred rather than recording originals? Should songs be subtitled where possible? What are the requirements for validating translations (what are the relevant WP policies on translation of original source material that apply?)
    • Rendition: historical accents and historical musical performances might be very rare. Should we say that modern standards are fine, in the absence of authentic reconstructions?
    • Public domain renditions: if audio or video is a rendition of a public domain source, for example a work by Mozart, or a speech by Caesar, what are the requirements for source validation (these should reference WP's general guidelines, but these are mostly focused on secondary sources).

    Jim Killock (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Elsewhere, someone asked whether an RfC would be needed to add guidance on this topic. I think not -- while discussion will be needed on details, I can't see anyone objecting to clarifying that multimedia beyond everyday images should follow similar guidelines to those for image. The question is where to say that. We don't want to duplicate guidance on contextual significance etc., because that creates two things that need to be kept in sync. Probably the best thing is to expand MOS/Images to explicitly cover other multimedia. See BTW Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music_samples, which has a contextual significance section. EEng 20:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks very much (and yes that was me!) I agree that MOS:Images would be best, especially to get this started.
      The contextual significance contains much about in-copyright works. That is in general very helpful. In-copyright video samples feels like something rather complex that might need an RFC, and might be best parked until there is a little more in place. Jim Killock (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @EEng Would it be helpful if I draft up something on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images and ask for feedback? Jim Killock (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I suggest you wait a while so that the experienced editors gathered here can lend their thoughts. After that, you might take the conversation back to Talk:MOS/Images, but since that page has 1/5 watchers of this one, and you've already put a pointer there to this thread here, it might be better to continue here as you begin to draft. There's no hurry to this, so the slower you take it, and the greater the extent to which others can get their thoughts in, the smoother it will go. (I'm afraid I'm really tied up IRL so the time I myslf can contribute is limited.) EEng 21:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Happy to wait. I made a stab at below, but I can wait for further thoughts / feedback here. What I've provided relates to historical source content, as most of the AV I've been dealing with falls into this category; I have guessed at some other considerations but it is currently narrower than it should be. Jim Killock (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Audiovisual content can also be used for illustrative purposes. Most of the guidance on images above applies to audio visual content. Additionally, consider:

    • Length: inline videos or audio that is shorter will be easier for users to watch. Consider clipping long form content, and linking to the original on Commons, or elsewhere. Longer videos (eg, over 10 minutes) may be more suitable for links than inline video, unless they are highly relevant to the page's subject.
    • Rendition: historical accents and historical musical performances of content may be very rare. Modern renditions are fine, where authentic reconstructions are not available, and may be preferred, where there is uncertainty about the original performances.
    • Musical, poetic and literary content: aesthetic considerations are higher for these kinds of content. Where possible, the performances should be considered good by other editors. Where editors find performances are poor, content should generally not be included.
    • Language: where audio or video is in the original language, subtitles should generally be preferred rather than translated versions, as this reflects the original more closely and text files are easier to correct than mistakes in audio-visual content. Where possible, songs should be subtitled. Original language versions should be made available where where possible for artistic content.
    • Translations of subtitles should be verifiable, but as with other Wikipedia content, competent editors can create them. While academic translations are preferred, where subtitle translations are longer than 10-20 words, use of academic translations is likely to constitute copyright infringement. Here, a Wikipedian's translation should ideally be verifiable against an academic translation. (See Non-English sources for further guidance.)
    • Public domain renditions: if audio or video is a rendition of a public domain source, for example a work by Mozart, or a speech by Caesar, the original sources must be valid. The performance should be comparable and follow the original. Where possible, include links on media file pages so that editors can make checks.
    • Sourcing: as with images, sourcing of audio-visual content needs to be copyright compliant. Sources of CC video and audio can include Youtube, Flickr and CC search tools. Care should be taken to ensure the licensing claims appear to be valid.
    • See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples

    Jim Killock (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The "Language" point is a bit unclear to me. Is it asking for subtitles to be in English or the original language? If the phrase "rather than translated versions" is referring to the spoken or written material, that seems to contradict the phrase "where audio or video is in the original language". Which is also a weird way to say it because the "original language" could be English. Given that this is English Wikipedia, an English version should be provided whether or not there is a non-English version.
    Subtitles should be provided for all videos with an audio track, to make them accessible for readers who cannot hear or find it difficult. There are additional guidelines at MOS:ANIMATION.
    Not sure the "Sourcing" point needs to be made, as this is explained in detail for images generally.
    The "Length" point should probably link to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples and point out the copyright issue when displaying here under fair use. It should say "video" not "videos" to be grammatical.
    I would drop the "Translations of subtitles" point and just link to WP:NONENG for guidance on translations.
    The "Public domain renditions" point does not make any sense to me, and I would just drop it.
    I'm not sure whether the "Rendition" point needs to be made, but if it does, it's confusing. I think it's supposed to be recommending that historically accurate renditions of older works are preferred, if available. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't, depending on what the purpose of inclusion in the article is. Might be better just to leave this point off; I don't see any similar guidance for audio samples of music. Page editors can decide which samples are best out of those available.
    Another point probably worth making is that a video should be considered an optional part of an article. In other words, any content vital to reader understanding should be included in the text and not be omitted on the assumption that reader will watch the video. Many readers will not be able to view video due to technical limitations, such as using a web browser that is not configured with a video player, or reading an article in another medium such as an app, paper printout, or text-to-speech system (including those who cannot see or find it difficult to read text). There is more specific guidance against putting text in images at MOS:TEXTASIMAGES.
    It's fine for a video to re-explain something that's already explained in the text if having a moving image clarifies substantially, but it seems wasteful for embedded videos to effectively repeat or rephrase the text.
    -- Beland (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much!
    • Regarding language, this was meant to be about non-English content, think Bach or Mozart in German or Latin; or Goethe's poetry.
    • On Sourcing, the section on images does not include YT, which is significant for CC video.
    • On translation, the situation for subtitles is a bit different, as usually you cannot use academic in-copyright translations, so this mention is retained.
    • On public domain renditions, this was the subject of a long and unclear discussion recently. Does that help? Take a file such as File:Queen Elizabeth I's Reprimand of an Insolent Polish Ambassador..webm. There is some need for verification, even tho it is not being used as a citation? I've edited it for clarity.
    • On style of renditions, this has come up a few times in discussion, including at the link above, where a user claimed only a Catholic priest could do a Latin audio recording; also at a parallel discussion on LA Wikipedia about accents and delivery, preferring a modern standard over historical guesses. I figured the same principle might apply to say reading Shakespeare, or using 16th century instruments; it simply shouldn't be a consideration, but sometimes editors think it should be.
    • I've added the points on (1) text as images, (2) subtitles for EN content, (3) optionality of AV content
    VERSION 0.2
    Audiovisual content can also be used for illustrative purposes. Most of the guidance on images above applies to audio visual content. Importantly, audio-visual content should not be an essential part of a page, which is necessary to understand the whole. This is because not all readers will be able to download or access the content, for example because of technical limitations or relying on text to speech tools. With audio and video just as with any content, relevance is paramount; consult WP:DUE for further context. There must be a clear reason for including the content on the page.
    Additionally, consider:
    • Length: inline videos or audio that is shorter will be easier for users to watch. Consider clipping long form content, and linking to the original on Commons, or elsewhere. Longer videos (eg, over 10 minutes) may be more suitable for links than inline video, unless they are highly relevant to the page's subject.
    • Rendition: historical accents and historical musical performances are not required. Modern renditions of audio are acceptable. For example, there is no need to read Shakespeare with an Elizabethan pronunciation.
    • Musical, poetic and literary content: aesthetic considerations are higher for these kinds of content. Where possible, the performances should be considered good by other editors. Where editors find performances are poor, content should generally not be included.
    • Subtitles for comprehension: In English language videos, an English language subtitle track should always be provided for accessibility. See MOS:ANIMATION for more details.
    • Subtitles for translation: where audio or video is originally in a non-English language, for example a Goethe poem, subtitles should generally be preferred over than translated audio, as this reflects the original more closely and text files are easier to correct than mistakes in audio-visual content. Where possible, songs should be subtitled. Original language versions should be made available where where possible for artistic content.
    • Translations of subtitles See Non-English sources for guidance. Note that longer subtitle sequences may need to be translated by Wikipedians rather than obtained from academic sources to avoid copyright infringement.
    • Embedding text: As with images, rendered text should be avoided in video content. See MOS:TEXTASIMAGES for more information.
    • Public domain renditions: if audio or video is a rendition of a public domain source, for example a work by Mozart, or a speech by Caesar, it must be possible to check the original scores or texts. An editor should be able to compare the performance with the original. Where possible, include links on media file pages so that editors can make checks.
    • Sourcing: as with images, sourcing of audio-visual content needs to be copyright compliant. Sources of CC video and audio can include Youtube, Flickr and CC search tools. Care should be taken to ensure the licensing claims appear to be valid.
    • See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples
    Jim Killock (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be related to situations such as Talk:Niccolò_Machiavelli#RFC_on_video_inclusion, where a video consisting of a person reading a letter aloud was included in an article, one example of a series of such edits. It is not clear to me that we need a bunch of guidelines about the best form for this sort of application because it is not clear that it is desirable to include such videos in the first place - the cart is being put before the horse. MrOllie (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I certainly would like to clear up some of the misapprehensions that regretfully appeared in that discussion. It's a discussion I will deeply regret getting involved in for some time.
    I'll be clear about the other discussions and examples of this content for context:
    @MrOllie I hope you can at least see that normally I try to be as collaborative as I can be. there's not much point going further into why that discussion became hard for me. However, policy is the place where we make guidelines to avoid disputes and lack of clarity.
    What meets WP:DUE overrides any other consideration, to my mind so I have added that to the draft text. (With audio and video just as with any content, relevance is paramount; consult WP:DUE for further context. There must be a clear reason for including the content on the page.) Jim Killock (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As regards the other articles where there was no discussion, just because there was no dissent at the moment doesn't mean there wont be in the future. What happened at the Machiavelli article could just as easily happen in the other ones
    I am also asking you kindly to please stop making the issues with that RfC bigger than what they are. Plasticwonder (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can take this discussion in two ways:
    • We can either construtively discuss the principles behind what video content should be allowable; or
    • We can decide that emotions are too high for it and pause it
    I do need this guidance, because there are divergences of opinion on some of the points, and it's important to me to be able to resolve them. But my guess is that if the three of us are just going to rehash the RFC discussion, then that would a terrible use of other people's time and energy. A break off would make sense, in my view. Jim Killock (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one's emotions are high but yours, judging by your rather relentless snipes against my character and the fact that you have so much as admitted it in the RfC. You have also stated that the RfC "needed to die" (quite strong words) when I gave you a chance to change your mind, and now you want to pause now that the discussion is nearing a close?
    I do not get what you are trying to accomplish here, to be fair. Plasticwonder (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not needed to rehash the RFC here, but I did feel that fresh eyes on this talk page should have enough context to understand what the proposal is about. MrOllie (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I appreciate that as a valid concern. Does the change regarding WP:DUE help, or do you feel more is needed? For context, other points raised in the RFC such as regarding the need to be able to validate translation is also included. Jim Killock (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dropped the video from Henry VIII; it seemed like excessive detail. It's already on Defence of the Seven Sacraments where it's a bit more appropriate. But even there, it seems like it violates the video equivalent of MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. Same for Martin Luther and On the Bondage of the Will.
    I also posted that the video for Elizabeth I should probably just be kept on Commons; there's already a general link to the topic there.
    I agree it's not clear that videos of performances of works should generally be included, so I would also be hesitant about specifying anything in particular about those. Uploaded videos cover a broad variety of subjects, including scientific phenomena, buildings, and specific events. -- Beland (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to understand MOS:TEXTASIMAGES a bit more, especially regarding accessibility in particular, as this is certainly an overriding concern. What makes the text subtitle files inaccessible and not regarded as text? Jim Killock (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Subtitles are, of course, text. They are less accessible than the text in an article because some readers will have technical or logistical difficulty watching video and thus reading subtitles or listening to audio narration. For readers that do watch a video (which presumably has an animation or something which illustrates the subject of the article in a way a still image cannot), it increases accessibility by allowing people who cannot hear or find it difficult to know what is being said or what sounds are happening in the video. -- Beland (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Image use policy already says that for user-created diagrams, etc., a source for the underlying data must be included. To me, this applies straightforwardly to videos that are presenting public-domain content. A citation to the original work is kind of implied, but a reference to a specific version or even better an online copy, should suffice. YouTube videos that we're importing into Wikipedia as on-article videos are no different than diagrams or maps or explanatory videos uploaded by random Wikipedia or Commons users, assuming an appropriate copyright license. The reliability of YouTube is not really in question, any more than the reliability of any given Wikipedia editor is, when they are just repackaging information from a different underlying source in a more digestible way. That's different than citing a YouTube video as a reliable source for the information itself.
    I'm not sure I have enough examples to make a guideline about video length. Ten minutes seems way too long for download on a mobile phone, and most videos I would expect to be under a minute. Perhaps there are exceptions, but I'd want to survey how videos are being used now. In the meantime, I would trim the 0.2 version down to reduce scope and reduce overlap with other pages and rephrase and retitle:
    ----
    Video content (v. 0.3)
    • The guidelines on this page also generally apply to videos.
    • Many readers will not be able to play videos, because of technical limitations of their web browser, because they are seeing article content on a different web site or app, or because they are using a different medium, such as paper or text-to-speech system. Some readers cannot see or find it difficult. Videos should be used as a supplement to article material, to concisely illustrate the subject in a way that a still image or text cannot do. Videos should not replace article text, and articles should remain coherent and comprehensive when video playback is not available.
    • Similar to MOS:TEXTASIMAGES, for accessibility and file size reasons:
      • Videos that simply show text should be replaced with text.
      • Videos that simply show a sequence of still pictures should be replaced with an image gallery.
      • Videos of text being read aloud should be replaced with text, or if the sound of words is being demonstrated, audio files (with the text being read in the file caption or in closed captioning).
      • Videos of text and narration with should be converted to article text.
    • The copyright and other guidelines on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples also apply to video samples.
    • The policies on Wikipedia:Image use policy also generally apply to videos.
    • Accessibility guidelines at MOS:ANIMATION apply.
    ----
    -- Beland (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Videos has additional suggestions; not sure if it's appropriate to link there from here. -- Beland (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With your commentary, this makes a lot of sense. I would point out that there was a lot of heat generated over YT reliability in the aforementioned RFC, so it would be good to point that it can be used. YT is not mentioned as a source for images in the images section above; an alternative would be to add it there in the list of common sources, but that also seems odd. I know one can point to the archive discussion, but that is not generally available knowledge for anyone looking at the guidance in future. Jim Killock (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a clarifying note at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for YouTube; hopefully this will not be controversial. -- Beland (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately that has been reverted as "unnecessary". It might make more sense here, because this is about video as illustration, and there is parallel advice for images above about CC content sources. Perhaps it should be parallel advice to this, eg mentioning that YT has a search facility for CC content (and there isn't anything else AFAIK). Jim Killock (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Imported YouTube videos. -- Beland (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - quick observation that we have lost that the guidance for illustrative audio content would also generally derive from the images guidance. The music samples page linked is wholly focused on samples from copyrighted material; there is a lot of PD / CC music material on WP, especially for classical music. Sometimes this could do with subtitling, etc, care in positioning, checks for relevance, etc. Jim Killock (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, what are you suggesting? -- Beland (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think, where appropriate, add audio, eg "The guidelines on this page also generally apply to videos and audio files"; maybe "where appropriate, for instance non-English language audio files should include subtitles". I'm not sure there is much else. Jim Killock (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And where would you find that addition to be appropriate? -- Beland (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would amend the title to "Video and Audio content"; I would amend bullet one to "The guidelines on this page also generally apply to videos and audio files". Under "Similar to MOS:TEXTASIMAGES, for accessibility and file size reasons:" I would add "where appropriate, for instance non-English language audio files should include subtitles". The accessibility guidelines could move to be bullet two, in order that audio and video advice is at the top. Jim Killock (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks to me like hardly anything on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images applies to audio files, and it seems like the wrong place to go looking for style advice about them. -- Beland (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For example:
    These seem pretty substantially helpful guidance to me, and pretty similar level of relevance as to video files. Jim Killock (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, most of the material in those sections is not relevant to audio. I'd say if you feel strongly that guidance is needed for audio generally and not just music samples, we should create a new page. Editors shouldn't have to read through a whole page about images just to pick out the occasional tidbit on audio files, if they're only interested in the latter. -- Beland (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've posted the 0.3 draft for now, since that wouldn't be changed by adding an audio page somewhere else. -- Beland (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for posting the v 0.3. On audio, I would think about this from a few user perspectives:
    • There is currently no MOS advice at all on audio files and approaching general layout, pertinence, etc. What would the user do? Currently, MOS offers them nothing, so they must either guess or work off examples on other pages.
    • If a user asks for advice, where would they be pointed? (my guess: MOS:Images as closest match.
    IMO, it would be better to offer them something, even apologetically ("There is currently no detailed advice on MOS regarding use of audio files, but the basic principles of WP:DUE and some considerations at MOS:Images may be helpful.") This could be placed at a page relevant to other audio usage files, for example. Jim Killock (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to propose a draft if you like. It's also possible no particular guidance is needed, if people are able to figure this stuff out using common sense and regular editorial judgement, and if disputes arise, turn to the various policy and guideline pages on topics like due weight. -- Beland (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the small amount of material to include about this, and the redundancy that would be required with MOS:IMAGES if "MOS:VIDEOS" were its own page, and given the short nature of the audio samples MoS page, I think the most sensible approach is to merge all of this into a WP:Manual_of_Style/Images_and_multimedia page with a top MOS:MEDIA shortcut (which I'm surprised doesn't already exist as an internal disambiguation page), then MOS:IMAGES, etc., going to sections. We have too many separate MoS pages as it is, and this is an ideal merge of two of them and a proposed third.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, that's a reasonable alternate approach. I think it would work if we put the things that apply across all three at the top, and then make it clear with section headers which those interested in a specific media type should look at without having to read inapplicable guidelines. -- Beland (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 to both of these observations. Jim Killock (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeps. If we hammer out a videos-related section, I'll be happy to do the work (most MoS merges and the like are done by me because I kind of have a database in my head of all the rules and how they interrelate, and 19 years of observing how misinterpretations, lawyering, and other problems can be avoided by careful wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what we could agree on for videos has been added. -- Beland (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    misleading text in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes

    [edit]

    The text on keyboard entry of dashes in Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Dashes is misleading. The text or on a Windows keyboard implies a technique specific to windows when in fact it is valid for any OS. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    True. What it should say: "on a Windows keyboard enter them manually as Alt+0 150 (on the numeric keypad) for en dash, and Alt+0 151 for em dash." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong on two counts:
    1. No. It should not say anything at all, per WP:NOTHOWTO.
    2. And even if it does, those alt codes are only valid for code page 1252 and related. They don't work if the user has a different default code page installed.
    Delete it completely. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt that NOTHOWTO is meant to apply to the MOS. It's surely helpful for editors and hence should stay, reworded if needed. Gawaon (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaewon is correct: NOTHOWTO applies to articles only. MOS is littered with how-to stuff, as is should where the ratio (editor confusion and time saved)/(WP:MOSBLOAT) seems sufficiently high. However, if this starts getting into weeds of code pages and such, it may be best to relegate the whole thing to WP:How to make dashes, with a pointer to that from MOS. EEng 20:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So why not simply recommend {{mdash}}, {{ndash}} and {{snd}} rather than advise keyboard callisthenics? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have always advocated symbolic representations (templates such as you list, or html escapes such as &mdash;) of the various dashes (and in some cases, even hyphens), rather than having them appear literally in the wikisource, so that editors can see at a glance that the right character is present. But even though EEng is pretty much always right, I can't seem to get people on board with this. EEng 20:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy typing the dashes on my Apple keyboards but also happy with recommending the templates rather than giving keyboard-specific advice. What I would like to avoid is warring bands of gnomes going around changing unicode dashes to templated dashes and vice versa. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit conflict: yes, different route to the same answer. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JMF's policy understanding is mistaken above. WP:NOTHOWTO only applies to article content (and other reader-facing content, like portals and the front page features). If it applied to internal documentation, then we would have to delete the entire "Help:" namespace and about 95% what is in "Wikipedia:" namespace. However, the technical point JMF raised is entirely correct, and we should not be telling editors to use keyboard codes that will do the wrong thing (or nothing) if they don't happen to be using the "right" code page. To simply recommend {{mdash}}, {{ndash}} and {{snd}} is the sensible approach.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's just direct people to Wikipedia:How to make dashes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a MOS guidance that applies to changing between common terms based on the name of the Wiki article?

    [edit]

    Do we have a guideline for dealing with different name, common names for the same thing (Inline-four engine vs Straight-four engine)? The target article, Straight-four engine, has used both names (changed in 2009 and 2022). Sources use both terms but I think the shorted "I4" is used more often in sources. I presume we would follow something like the MOS:ENGVAR where if there is no source preference we go with what the editors used first. Recently an editor, Kumboloi, made a number of good faith changes in linking articles from "inline-four" to "straight-four" to align external article text with the target article name. Is there a guide on this? How should this be handled? Springee (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a policy, our naming conventions policy, which largely doubles as our policy on article titles. Generally, for a given thing there's no reason to use a different name in the prose of any other article than one would use in the article about the thing itself, if that makes sense.Remsense ‥ 论 14:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure where the naming convention says we should change article text in a case like this. The article in question indicates both names are common (A straight-four engine (also referred to as an inline-four engine)). This is also reflected in the two name changes over the years. I don't see where the naming convention says we should favor the target article name vs what the individual article sources are using. Consider a hypothetical, I'm created a Wiki article about the new "CarX". My RS source that says, "CarX uses an inline four engine". Why would I not follow the source vs use the title of our straight four article? This is especially true if if the hyperlink is added later by a different editor. Also, until 2022 the title of the article was "inline". A consensus of 3 editors changed the article name. That's fine but the result is many changes to other articles. If a new consensus of 5 editors reverses the change do we flop back? I think it's less disruptive (makes articles more stable) if we avoid article text changes in cases like this. However, I am interested in knowing what guidance might apply here. Springee (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm interested in understanding this. My motivation in making the edits came down to a suspicion that there was some type of penalty incurred by linking through a redirect page, or that the redirects imposed a maintenance overhead. I hadn't read the naming convention, but if there's no real reason to reduce the number of redirected links, and recognizing that the target page could just as easily be renamed again in the future, I'll stop doing these edits. (Personally, I prefer "inline" to "straight", but I can see how the renaming would help organize the associated pages.) Thanks. Kumboloi (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My reasoning is WP:NC stresses how we are required to name things, as we are un all editorial decisions, based on WP:V and WP:NPOV (in many cases this boils down to the result of WP:COMMONNAME). It has provisions specific to the article title and not the body, but much of it is expressing how to apply V and NPOV in deciding what to call things.
    If we take alternative names as such—e.g. that, all else being equal, we do take inline four and straight four to be synonyms, truly referring to the same thing for our purposes—it makes very little sense to "wall off" which names are used in a particular article, as there are no clear limits on how strictly this would have to be observed. Am I allowed to use any synonymous nouns, verbs, or adjectives in my synthesis that don't happen to appear in my three best sources? On the other hand, naming according to a generalized scope is surely more coherent for a hyperlinked encyclopedia providing tertiary analysis instead of merely refactoring and reshuffling the specific language of our secondary sources.
    Of course exceptions abound, much of the time alternative names and redirects should be freely used according to syntactical and contextual concerns—but I believe this to be correct mindset to assume by default. I don't think any given article that uses First World War needs to be changed. However, in cases like these, I feel it pays dividends to use terminology consistently between pages. If readers are encountering technical or domain specific language for the first time, we create the most helpful and coherent tertiary analysis for them if we zoom out a bit. It makes no sense to prefer Sassanid to Sasanian just because the book we're citing prefers the former—e.g., in an article about a specific battle, or a broad conceptual article not specific to the Sasanians—our deliberately preferring Sassanid simply does not aid the reader in becoming familiar with whatever additional context they're going to go to Sasanian Empire for in order to better understand our other article.
    If I wake up and find this totally incoherent, I apologize. It's hard to speak clearly about naming and reference, though it's one of my favorite things to think about. Remsense ‥ 论 16:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTBROKEN clearly says: "Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]." So if a link already leads to the correct article, but using an alternative name that redirects, that's absolutely fine and nothing more needs to be done. I realize that you're probably not talking about piping, but about changing the link text and link target together – but that too is unnecessary if the existing link target works fine (by redirecting). Gawaon (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kumboloi, thanks for that explanation. It reaffirms my believe that you were acting in good faith (I hope you took my revert that way as well). Springee (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there needs to be a good reason to not use the article title in text (and they do exist), and that can be discussed on a per-case basis at the relevant article (or other) talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Remsense ‥ 论 17:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so long as it is realized that THERE RATHER OFTEN IS A GOOD REASON! National language preferences for one thing. Busywork drive-by changes should be strongly discouraged. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Goes without saying! Remsense ‥ 论 19:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just thought I'd drive by and agree with that. EEng 22:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer the the OP's question is "More or less yes", in the form of MOS:STYLEVAR. Remesense's idea above that article titles policy and its dependent naming-conventions guidelines and essays (which actually defer to MoS on style questions) somehow dictate in-article content. They absolutely do not, or we would simply merge them. However, agreement with the page title can actually qualify as a good reason for a text change under STYLEVAR a lot of time, such as when a old page title (and our mirroring of it in the text) was a misnomer, unhelpfully ambiguous, obsolete, or obscurantist. When such problems don't apply, then having more than one way to refer to the subject is a boon to editors and readers, since it allows us to write less repetitively. But the lead should almost always agree with the title, and start with the term/name in the title and secondarily provide any noteworthy alternative(s). Some exceptions of course apply, such as when a term/name in the title is a colloquialism and used for WP:COMMONNAME purposes in the title but is not the best way to introduce the first sentence (this is especially common at biographical articles, in which we often give the full "Elizabeth" or "Robert" name of someone more commonly called "Liz" or "Bobby" and given that way in the page title).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they must dictate in-article content to a degree at least—it would make no sense to use a particular name in the title and initial definition (I've been assuming congruence throughout, e.g. no disambiguators considered) and then never again. Remsense ‥ 论 03:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a correlation/causation mix-up. What you're talking about is just WP:Common sense (to the point of "Don't be intentionally perverse as if with a goal of confusing readers as much as possible") and a matter of MOS:BETTER. It's not an element of title policy or of naming conventions, which do not address article content (except a few of the worst-written NC pages have a statement or two in them about body content that needs to move out of those pages; I've been cleaning those up as I run across them).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been racking my brain trying to articulate exactly what I mean here, but I do not think it is merely correlative. Hopefully that is a useful thought inasmuch beyond just the trivial truth that the language one is exposed to affects the language they go on to use and think in terms of. Remsense ‥ 论 19:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Legibility of thumbnails at default size

    [edit]
    Moved from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images § Legibility of thumbnails at default size
    Noisy haze at 220px
    Noisy haze at 165px

    I am surprised there is no direct statement along the lines of If possible, the selection, placement, and sizing of images should allow readers to fully decipher what they are intended to illustrate; thumbnails should be legible with the default base size of 220px without requiring readers to expand them. It seems like much of the guidance has this as an unstated goal, but there are cases where it is slightly less intuitive that this is a principle that editors should heed. My one worry is hypothetical quibbling over what any given image is intended to illustrate—is the specific text written on a street sign important for illustrative purposes?—but I feel like that's totally explicable in each instance via editor discussion. It's clear that some appropriate images cannot be legible at thumbnail size in context, either because they are visually intricate or the placement context simply won't allow it, but it seems helpful to state that editors should make an attempt when it is possible. Remsense ‥ 论 16:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Remsense: Can you give an example? Magnolia677 (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clicked around until I found one: at Crony capitalism#In sections of an economy, it's not really possible for me to discern the field of figures as men sitting at desks rather than just noise. This image should be displayed at a slightly larger size, and maybe cropped a bit.
    Another class of examples is insignia and coats of arms, where arguably key details that would be legible in the original contexts are illegible at thumbnail sizes in infoboxes, especially in cases where there are especially elaborate versions that editors sometimes opt for out of a misplaced sense of completeness (I guess). Remsense ‥ 论 17:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're everywhere. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is something that gives me pause: this seems like a common-sense guideline to me, but either it's so obvious that it shouldn't be a guideline (?) or it's not nearly as obvious to others. Remsense ‥ 论 21:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've always found it odd that we don't have a minimum size recommendation. Can't tell you how many times I see collages or galleries that have teeny mini images that lack accessibility for all. Moxy🍁 03:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do to print articles out (or otherwise have them in a format where the thumbnails are all you get), also. Remsense ‥ 论 03:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do worry my criterion above is too loosey-goosey to be a good guideline; I don't think there's a problem with speaking in terms of minimum size as such, maybe it's better getting the intended point across? Remsense ‥ 论 03:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely better getting the intended point across. If we try to impose a numeric min. size, people are going to argue about it until the end of fargin' time, based on the behavior of their preferred devices and browsers, and so on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC); rev'd. 13:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think about the potential phrasing first presented—i.e. if at all possible, what images are being used to illustrate should be fully legible when scaled according to the default base size Remsense ‥ 论 03:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of unnecessary words. When possible, images with text should be legible when ... I'm not sure what "according to" the default base size means. Is it really the default base size? Are more than handful of editors reading this going to understand what "base size" means? I thinking there must be a clearer way to get the point across, but the goal seems right. (Speaking of "getting the intended point across": ironically, my previous message had an extraneous word, "than", in it – in a position that reversed or at least badly confused my meaning, so I've removed it.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how to phrase it. It's not just images with text either, it's all images that are added but cannot actually be deciphered without expansion. Remsense ‥ 论 04:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Commas around incorporated businesses' names

    [edit]

    from looking at MOS:COMMA, there isn't any guidance on how to deal with names with Inc.. multiple articles do any of the following, either with no comma, a comma only before and a comma around the word.

    1. Mumumu Inc. is a company ...
    2. Mumumu, Inc. is a company ...
    3. Mumumu, Inc., is a company ...

    I am aware that the commaless and comma style may coexist (sometimes in the same article!), however the second and third styles should likely be decided upon. Juwan (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    An editing policy question

    [edit]

    When I read Wiki policy and guidance pages, I sometimes find shall used instead of will to indicate what must be done — for example, in the Signs of Sockpuppetry article, we find: "The more signs that are present, the more likely sockpuppetry is occurring, though no accusations shall be made unless, beyond a reasonable doubt, one is really certain."

    Granted that shall is often used this way in government and judicial documents, I think it sounds somewhat at odds with the more user-friendly ambience Wikipedia has tried to create for editors. Besides, shall is not consistently applied throughout the policy and guidance pages — for example, in the same Signs of Sockpuppetry article, we find: "The closing administrator will be required to follow the consensus, even if they personally disagree."

    — For the above reasons, wouldn't it be in Wikipedia's best interests to avoid using the conversationally archaic shall in these articles and replace it with will?? I doubt that this would make editors with wrongdoing on their minds less likely to behave as desired.

    — But if the decision is made to continue "shalling," then for the sake of consistency couldn't a search-and-replace be done throughout the policy and guidance articles to replace will with shall where the word needs to indicate what must be done? Augnablik (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's fine, really. This is one of those things the MOS exists to obliquely neutralize—i.e. this is a pretty conjectural position and not worth getting into all-in or all-out discussions over. Remsense ‥ 论 17:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “Obliquely neutralize” — there’s a new one for me! 😅
    I just thought it would help lighten the bureaucratic tone of these articles to dial down the legalese, as many editors feel increasingly on edge with all the rules and regulations they discover the more they wade into Wikipedia. Augnablik (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Genuinely, I apologize that I can't talk normal when the situation would benefit from it. Take that how you will. Remsense ‥ 论 17:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or shall. EEng 17:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    😂 Augnablik (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Am losing the will to live here, mate. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just be aware that you’ve entered the purview of a global encyclopedia, and that means you will encounter forms of English that aren’t necessarily common locally to wherever you live. MapReader (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this one of those rfc:2119 situations where we should stick to a limited number of modal verbs on a sliding scale (must > should > may)? --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MapReader, Although I’m aware of different styles of English in different parts of the world, the shall/will issue I’ve raised here is more about how Wikipedia wants to show officially expected actions in particular situations.
    Not like , “Today I shall go to the beach” … but like, “Administrators shall hold discussions on the matter for one week before reaching a decision.” Augnablik (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevertheless, ‘shall’ is still reasonably common usage in formal, official or legal written texts, in the UK, in a way that I don’t think you can say for the US (but willing to be corrected…), and is not considered particularly user-unfriendly. Your observation to the contrary above is therefore pitched from the perspective of a particular Engvar, which was my original point. MapReader (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MapReader, you're probably right about "how official" shall sounds to UK and US readers of official documents. And frankly, that word is still used from time to time in official documents in the US, even though much more rarely these days. Even so, here's a thought: if will would work equally well as shall in Wikipedia policy and guidance documents, why not use it consistently here so as to make "official stuff" sound a bit less bureaucratic but at the same time affirming of expected behavior?
    Though I'm American, I doubt that any of our UK cousins across the pond would feel affronted if Wikipedia consciously adopted will in its policy and guidelines. Wouldn't it simply be one more example of Wikipedia's intentions of providing as welcoming and user-friendly environment as possible in which to work, while in no way demeaning other varieties of writing?
    Alternatively, to avoid the whole shall/will issue, there are still other ways wording could be done. For example, instead of "Administrators shall hold discussions...,” we could say, "Administrators are to hold discussions ....” Augnablik (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More rules about how rules should be written could be one step forward, two steps back. EEng 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Onbiously, you're free to edit how you want, but as a general rule, surely it isn't WP's object, nor that of the MoS, to try and enforce general language preferences on our editors? MapReader (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You state the onbious. EEng 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, @MapReader, I think it’s time for me to gracefully bow out of the discussion now. My only Intent in making my suggestion was far from an attempt to enforce, though I see how it might be interpreted that way.
    Instead, I was trying to make a case for a slight change in wording that seemed to me could help Wikipedia accomplish its very positive goal of creating an open, light, friendly ambience — just as seniors helping in the Teahouse and elsewhere are asked to do with those who ask questions. I know that as some editors get involved with Wikipedia, they come to feel weighed down by many rules and regulations and even become fearful they might make a slip and face serious consequences.
    It was this I hoped my suggestion might help prevent in the long run, with the flip-side benefit of editor retention. Augnablik (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Archimedes § MOS:'S (redux)

    [edit]

     You are invited to join the discussion at Archimedes § MOS:'S. Remsense ‥ 论 21:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion on American football bio leads

    [edit]

    See here. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Usage of historical place names in infoboxes

    [edit]

    Some feedback here would be nice. Thanks --Flominator (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=1266723292"