Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 150

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 145

←

Archive 148

Archive 149

Archive 150

Archive 151

Archive 152

→

Archive 155

Which is correct for the first line of a lede?

1. Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen (Weeping, lamenting, worrying, fearing), BWV 12, is a ...
2. Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen (weeping, lamenting, worrying, fearing), BWV 12, is a ...
3. Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen (Weeping, Lamenting, Worrying, Fearing), BWV 12, is a ...
4. Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen (Weeping, Lamenting, Worrying, Fearing), BWV 12, is a ...

The cantata is best known by its name in German, so the article title should be in that language and should come first. It is useful to the reader to know what the German words mean so a translation should be provided. The question is whether the English translation is a title or just a translation. The same issues apply to foreign language novels, TV shows, etc. I can't find any guidance in the MoS. SchreiberBike talk 00:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines.—Wavelength (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I looked there, but didn't find an answer to my question. SchreiberBike talk 03:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

For an English gloss in parentheses (for a non-published translation), The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed., 11.6) specifies sentence-style without italics or quotation marks. An example makes it clear that the first letter of the title is uppercase. --Boson (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

{{Cite book}} has the translated title in square brackets and italics and gives no guidance on capitalization.

I looked up as many style guides as I could find and Boson's Chicago version is similar to APA style, but they use square brackets instead of parentheses. AP Stylebook gives no guidance. Smaller style guides and other sources give a wide variety of instructions including double quotes inside of parentheses, title case with italics, title case without italics and there are probably more out there.

My guess is that the most common in Wikipedia is title case with italics inside of parentheses, but I've done no exhaustive search. Should we set a standard in the MoS or live and let live? SchreiberBike talk 03:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this topic (forgot where) resulting in: if the translation of a title is used as a title in English (such as The Flying Dutchman) it gets treatment as a title, otherwise not. For Bach's 200+ cantatas, there always exist different translations, most of which are never used as titles, because the works are almost always performed and recorded in German. Even the German titles are mostly not a true title but simply the first line of the text, sometimes not making sense without the continuation. Therefore, #1 was chosen of the four possibilities given above. We might think differently about those cantatas that begin with a well-known hymn or Bible quotation. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

What Gerda wrote. Only recognised & sourced English titles should be treated as titles in their spelling (capitals) and ornamentation (italics); for Bach cantatas, that means overwhelmingly #1. Parentheses or square brackets don't seem to be invested with special meaning in Wikipedia articles, but I can't recall ever having seen square brackets being used for this purpose. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I propose that the text below be added to MOS:FOREIGN under the heading Titles of foreign works

Where a foreign language composition is known by an English title, give the English translation in parentheses following normal formatting for titles: Les Liaisons dangereuses (The Dangerous Liaisons). Where the work has not been published in English, give an English translation in sentence case, roman type, inside parentheses: Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen (Weeping, lamenting, worrying, fearing).

If anyone can improve the language above, or can think of a better place to put this, or thinks it is unnecessary, I'm completely open to new ideas. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 08:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if a different example would be better. The one used might suggest that roman is the norm although the styling is variable in the articles: here with roman and italics and here with italics. Modal Jig (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected the example above to put Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen in italics. SchreiberBike talk 20:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You presumably mean "an English translation" rather than the, in the second case? W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Change made. SchreiberBike talk 21:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to add the text in the box above to the MoS? I run into this issue at least a couple of times per week and if the proposal is the consensus, I've been doing it wrong for a long time. I think the MoS needs this. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 02:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Do song titles, etc. that appear in quotation marks need to be addressed as well? Modal Jig (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the question – that's exactly what this discussion is about. For exemplary usage, see Mein Ruf nach dir (except that the quotes there should not be bold) and Je t'aime... moi non plus. However, most Wikipedia articles get this wrong, and the proposed addition to the MoS should be made soon. However, instead of adding it to MOS:FOREIGN, I suggest a more suitable spot is WP:MOS#Titles of works; it should also be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Title. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is "Weeping" capitalized? A parenthetical in the middle of a sentence is not capitalized, even if it explains the first word of that sentence. — kwami (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The main thing is surely whether a work has an accepted English title, not whether it has been published in English. Some works are published in English but are normally known by their original titles (e.g. Così fan tutte). Some are known by a title which is not a translation (e.g. Betty Blue). And there are some where publication is not really relevant (e.g. Venus de Milo). Formerip (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you missed the point of this discussion. It's not about article title of sculptures, it's much more narrow about how the English translation of works published in a foreign language (article title in the foreign language) is treated, as a title (caps, italics, as example 4 above) or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think I missed the point, dear. The boxed proposal above focuses on the question of whether a work has been published, and on giving a translation in parenthesis. These are the wrong things to focus on, because it would give results such as:

• Così fan tutte (Thus Do All Women)
• 37°2 le matin (37.2 Degrees in the Morning)

Neither of which represent good style, because they imply that the text in brackets is an accepted title, rather than just a helpful translation. Formerip (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

(ecx2) Exactly -- the title of the work -- and we really shouldn't exclude sculpture. We may need either or both of "accepted English title" and helpful translation. Do we present these two different things in different ways (e.g bold for the accepted English title, but not for the helpful translation)? Should we? --Stfg (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I was aware that a narrow reading of SchreiberBike's proposal would indeed stumble across "published". It obviously meant "Where the title of a foreign language composition has been published intranslated into…" and similarly in the 2nd sentence. Does that formula satisfy FormerIP's concern? Regarding bolding: per MOS:BOLDTITLE, I think so. Why is "Weeping" above capitalised? I can't think of any reason other than it would look exceedingly odd otherwise. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be slightly better, but I think it would still be imprecise, since it could be taken to apply if sources can be found giving the English meaning of the title, which is not what is intended. I think the question is not whether the title has been translated, but whether (a) there is a generally accepted English language title for the work and (b) whether that title is a translation.

A further problem is that the proposal assumes that the original title will usually come first, with the English in brackets, but I think the reverse will often be appropriate. Surely:

• Swan Lake (Russian: Лебединое озеро / Lebedinoye ozero)

is correct and not:

• Лебединое озеро (Lebedinoye ozero, English: Swan Lake)

Formerip (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

We started talking only about original first, followed by translation, as in the Bach cantatas, where there typically is not one established translation but several, none of which is a true title. I would like to see a solution for that case (some 200 articles). If the standard can be used in a broader sense, even better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the main thing is: if it's not a title, don't style it as one. After that, unless there is some ambiguity in the language that needs to be set out for the reader, we shouldn't include more than one translation. Formerip (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"Weeping" was capitalized because that is the style recommended by Chicago Manual of Style and the APA Stylebook, but we can still debate that. Second perhaps we could substitute has been published in English with is known by an English title; that would make it clear that we are talking about a wider range of compositions rather than just things which can be published.

I've been thinking about this addition to the MoS as applying to works primarily known by their foreign title, but perhaps we should expand it to also cover foreign works best known in English by their English titles. Any ideas? SchreiberBike talk 17:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I've made the change to the boxed text above to reflect the is known by an English title change. There are many other issues about translations which could be addressed, but it seems to me that we've got consensus on this one. If there's no objection, I'll update the MoS in a couple of days.SchreiberBike talk 19:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Although I accept the proposed guideline itself, I very much prefer that it be added to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels, instead of the main page of the Manual of Style, which is already very large.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC) or 17:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the MoS is very large and hate to add more to it, but if we were to put it in subsections, it would have to be put into a lot of them. I think it makes more sense to put it in the main MoS. SchreiberBike talk 00:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps adding it to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles would be sufficient, if every other relevant subpage has a prominently visible link (not just one in an expandable navigation box) to that subpage.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That works for me. I saw Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles and thought Wikipedia:Article titles. Sorry you had to repeat yourself. SchreiberBike talk 06:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I propose that a small part of the proposed text be revised from "a foreign language composition" to "a foreign-language work" (two changes). The hyphenation clarifies that "foreign-language" is a compound adjective modifying the noun "work", and the noun "work" allows the same guideline to be applied to musical works, literary works, cinematographic works, and possibly other works. Other subpages are listed here. I propose that the guideline be added in a new section, "Translations", at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

At this moment, the guideline has not been added to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles (version of 22:58, 5 November 2013). Is that because we are awaiting consensus (here or at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles or in both places)? If so, where should consensus be reached?

—Wavelength (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been collecting style manuals, mostly to determine if square brackets or parentheses are most appropriate. I've borrowed a Chicago Manual of Style and should be able to study it tonight. After that, I'll try to integrate the comments below and post a new proposal. If there's a consensus that it is good enough, I'll go over to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles and propose it there referencing this discussion. Slow but fine grind the wheels of style. SchreiberBike talk 18:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have that other talk page on my watchlist, and I am looking forward to reading your new proposal.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Including the English equivalent seems good, but I query why in parentheses. In general editorial emendations (such as missing data, or expansion of an author's name) are done in square brackets: [ and ]. This also avoids conflicts where (in rare cases) parentheses are included in a title. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We're not dealing with emendations here, though, since we're the actual authors of the actual Wikipedia. Formerip (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

An advantage to square brackets is that that's the way that {{cite book}} and the other cite templates handle it now, and that's the way APA Stylebook does it. Would @Boson: or someone else who has access to the CMS please look to see if they prefer square brackets or parentheses. SchreiberBike talk 00:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

SchreiberBike, I think the first sentence of your proposal is now better, but the second sentence still makes reference to publication. This misses works that may not have been published in English even though they have an English title (e.g. a painting, a piano sonata) as well as works that have been published in English but not under a title which is a translation or under the original language title. How about:

Where a work originally produced under a non-English title is known by an English language title, give that title in parentheses following normal formatting for titles: Les Liaisons dangereuses (The Dangerous Liaisons). Where there is no English title in common use, or where the English title is not a translation, give a translation in sentence case, roman type, inside parentheses: Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen (Weeping, lamenting, worrying, fearing). Where it is appropriate to include both a translation and an English title, put the translation first and preface the title with the words "English title" and a colon.

I also think this should be added at the beginning, for clarity:

For works originally produced under a title not in English, refer to WP:COMMONNAME to determine whether the original title or an English language title should be given priority.

Note: I've also copyedited out the word foreign, since the guidance would apply to languages which are not necessarily foreign in English-speaking countries (Welsh, for example).

Formerip (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

In most cases, for that particular example title, I think the corresponding English title does not include "The". See Dangerous Liaisons (disambiguation). It might be best to pick a different example in order to avoid that issue. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea, but a different example could be used if it is a problem. Formerip (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I've checked more style manuals and there is not a lot of clarity. In the exhaustive Chicago Manual of Style, it says parentheses in running text but square brackets in references.

The consensus seems to be that this content should be added to a new Translations section at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles. Since the discussion has been here so far, I'll propose the new language incorporating the changes suggested above here first.

For works originally named in languages other than English, use WP:COMMONNAME to determine whether the original title or an English language version should be used as the article title. For works best known by their title in a language other than English, an English translation of that title may be helpful. If the work is also well known by an English title, give the English translation in parentheses following normal formatting for titles: Les Liaisons dangereuses (Dangerous Liaisons). Where the work is not known by an English title, give the translation in parentheses without special formatting in sentence case: Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen (Weeping, lamenting, worrying, fearing). In references, square brackets are used: Il Giornale dell'Architettura [The journal of architecture].

How does that sound? Improvements are welcome. SchreiberBike talk 01:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have proposed the changes immediately above at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles#Translation of non-English titles. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 07:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As it was explained to me, mdashes in page ranges are allowed in the case that the page started with this format, but should otherwise be left in whatever format it was originally created in. Is that basically correct?

I've looked through the MoS and the talk pages going back some time in history. It appears the above statement is basically the lay of the land, but that I should expect "pendants" (interesting turn of phrase) who insist on mdashes being "correct".

It was also explained to me that, in the past perhaps, using hyphens instead of mdashes may work better with search engines, which may not correctly parse the text otherwise. Is this also correct, or now outdated? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Who 'explained' that? For quite some time now on Wikipedia the hyphen and em dash have not been allowed in page ranges. Only the en dash is appropriate.

Search engines are sophisticated enough to deal with hyphens, dashes, minus signs, etc.

Did you mean pedants? Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall whom, it was years ago. But the former question remains, is it correct that if the article uses hyphens, use hyphens? (and yes, "pedants", never used that term before) Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No. En dashes are correct. Use en dashes in page ranges, always. Never em dashes, and if encounter hyphens, feel free to fix them or leave them for a pedant to fix. Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I might believe "pedants". Em dashes would solve the problem of ranges when the page numbers themselves are hyphenated, e.g., pp. A-5 through A-7 could be given as pages=A-5—A-7; there are still the questions of whether to replace the hyphens with En Dashes and whether to put spaces around the En Dash, e.g., pages=A–5 — A–7. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That's absurd. Why not stick with hyphens where they belong, and en dashes where they belong, and write A-5–A-7? Where is this nonsense coming from? Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that whatever you do might cause problems with search engines, but IMHO it would be nice if the MOS gave explicit guidance. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It does. MOS:ENDASH:

In ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through

• pp. 211–19;   64–75%;   the 1939–45 war

—sroc 💬 10:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As an editor who edits almost exclusively in medical articles, I am surprised that it has just come to my attention that WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy is encouraging image galleries in Anatomy articles, resulting in articles with galleries at the end of the article like this. Apparently that text at MEDMOS has stood since 2008, and I cannot determine that it was initially added based on any consensus. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Update: I see this page is dead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Each user's Appearance Preferences includes an option labelled "Auto-number headings" which automatically numbers headings (1., 2., 3., etc.) and sub-headings (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc.) in each article. I have noticed in some cases headings are manually entered with numbering, which then disrupts reading the headings when auto-numbering is used. For example:

2. Main heading

This section is divided into two parts.

2.1. 1 The first sub-heading

This is the first part of the section.

2.2. 2 The second sub-heading

This is the text in the second part of the section.

I suggest that it would be helpful to add the following into the bullet list in MOS:HEAD:

• Avoid starting headings with numbers, as this can be confusing for readers with the "Auto-number headings" preference selected.

People who don't have the option selected probably don't realise that this happens, so this might help to call attention to it. —sroc 💬 10:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds eminently reasonable. Reify-tech (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There are often good reasons to start a heading with a number, such as years. - Ypnypn (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with years as headings, but four-digit years are readily distinguished from single-digit numbers anyway. It doesn't really make sense to number headings that are automatically numbered anyway, though, nor would you do this in any document that you were manually formatting. —sroc 💬 04:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Noting the above concern but seeing no other opposition, I have added the following point to MOS:HEAD:

• Avoid starting headings with numbers (other than years), as this can be confusing for readers with the "Auto-number headings" preference selected.

—sroc 💬 12:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

MOS:POSS says:

* Official names (of companies, organizations, or places) should not be altered. (St Thomas' Hospital should therefore not be rendered as St Thomas's Hospital, even for consistency.)

I feel that there is a degree of ambiguity about this, and that ambiguity is part of a current discussion at Talk:Mrs Macquarie's Chair#Requested move. Specifically:

• Is MOS:POSS limited to only "companies, organizations, or places"? If so, the brackets should probably be removed from that sentence. If not, it might be better to say so explicitly, for example: "Official names (e.g. of companies, organizations, or places) should not be altered."
• Is it limited only to moving existing apostrophes or appending "s" (as per the example) or does it apply to adding apostrophes where grammar requires them but they are not in an official name? (per Apostrophe#Possessives_in_geographic_names and subsequent sections. Example: Kings Park, Western Australia#History, 4th paragraph) If the intent is to prevent the addition of an apostrophe, an example might be appropriate.

Discussion of the general rule belongs here of course, but interested parties are invited to comment on the specific case at Talk:Mrs Macquarie's Chair#Requested move. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I would support the revision of "(e.g., companies, organizations, or places)" or "(companies, organizations, places, etc.)". I think it should naturally apply to geographical features such as Mrs Macquaries Chair and see no reason to treat it otherwise (which would only promote inconsistency). I do not think the application is limited to "moving existing apostrophes" and clearly also applies to adding apostrophes that are not in the official name: this is evident from the wording "should not be altered", which covers both scenarios. —sroc 💬 11:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

After much discussion at Talk:Mrs Macquarie's Chair#Requested move, it was generally agreed that MOS:POSS does not apply to Mrs Macquarie's Chair because that is a WP:COMMONNAME rather than an official name. However, given that discussion, and recent changes to MOS:POSS, I'd like to update the guideline thus:

Names

• When using an official name (e.g. of companies, organizations, or places) maintain the official punctuation, or lack thereof. (St Thomas' Hospital should therefore not be rendered as St Thomas's Hospital, even for consistency.)

An example of "or lack thereof" might be appropriate.

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Tim Hortons is one. Modal Jig (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You cannot have a rule that says "maintain the official punctuation" in a section that only relates to apostrophes! I think it should read:

Names

• Official names (e.g. of companies, organizations, places, etc.) should not be altered by adding, moving or omitting apostrophes. (St Thomas' Hospital should therefore not be rendered as St Thomas's Hospital, even for consistency.)
• When using a WP:COMMONNAME, follow the possessive punctuations that are used in sources.

As WP:COMMONNAME only applies to titles, I'm not convinced the second bullet (added by Blueboar) belongs here. If it is retained, should it be "reliable sources"? —sroc 💬 22:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about titles when I added it. Most titles are names... and names can contain a possessive. If the "name containing a possessive" is the COMMONNAME, then any possessive punctuation goes along with it. The placement of the apostrophe would be based on source usage... as part of the COMMONNAME determination.

that said, I am not convinced that WP:COMMONNAME only applies to titles. There is a trickle down effect to consider. If we have determined that an article should use a COMMONNAME in the title, we would not suddenly shift to calling the subject something different in the body of the text. So when a particular punctuation or styling is part of the COMMONNAME title... that styling carries on into the body of the text. Blueboar (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Well if you only had titles in mind, that wasn't clear from the line you added. Of course WP:COMMONNAME is in the Wikipedia:Article titles policy, so it only applies to titles. The extent of its reach is interesting, though. WP:COMMONNAME gives examples in broad strokes, not dealing in punctuation, but it is sometimes used in such cases (e.g., not to move Jay-Z to Jay Z upon an official announcement until widely accepted: see Talk:Jay-Z#Requested move) and of course it makes perfect sense to use the common name throughout the article, including consistent punctuation (excepting any special notes of variations). —sroc 💬 11:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to explicitly distinguish between:

• a COMMONNAME that is both the article title and (the same name) also occurs in the article text
• a COMMONNAME that appears in the text but is not the article title.

Talk:Mrs_Macquarie's_Chair#Mrs Macquaries Point, Mrs Macquaries Road discusses an example of the latter. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with sroc that the rule in a section about apostrophes should refer to apostrophes rather than "punctuation". Likewise, I agree that sroc's proposed wording re official names (this edit) is better. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that the main issue is with what an "official name" is. In the case of geographic features there are certainly offices that use names for these, but I don't think they can be considered "official" in the sense that they dictate what the names of these features are. It seems to me that the only time we should be considering this is when there is a name that is specifically given, as opposed to transmitting a "preferred" version. So for instance governmental agencies assign names to facilities which the build, but they are only sources for names which other people have given something, not absolute authorities. In the case of a corporation likewise its name is self-determined and it can be taken as an absolute authority for that name. Perhaps we can alleviate the problem here by coming up with a better word than "official"? Mangoe (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It does not really matter whether the name is official or common... The real problem here is that we are dealing with NAMES (in this case names that happen to contain a possessive apostrophe). Names are different from other nouns. It is not our job to "correct" a name - even when we think that the name contains incorrect styling. For example: if sources indicate that the name of a place is Jones's Point, Wikipedia should not "correct" that name to Jones' Point (or vise versa). The placement of the apostrophe within the name isn't our decision ... it is a decision that has already been made for us. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"Names" would include personal names, but we seem to be referring to all other kinds of names. Don't confuse "official" with "common", however, as these have converse meanings. In fact, MOS:POSS (use the official name) is effectively at odds with WP:COMMONNAME (use the commonly used name) to the extent that they both refer to apostrophes. In practical terms, I think the methodology ought to behave as follows:

• For article titles, use the WP:COMMONNAME:
  • If the "common name" is also the "official" name adopted by the person/company/organisation/place, preserve their placement of apostrophes per MOS:POSS
  • If the "common name" is not an "official" name, follow the placement of apostrophes in accordance with most reliable sources
  • Use the same "common name" throughout the article, following the same apostrophe placement as in the title, but noting any notable variations (e.g., in the lead or an "Other names" or "Terminology" section if appropriate)
• For other names used within the body of an article, other than article titles:
  • In the case of an "official" name, preserve the "official" placement of apostrophes per MOS:POSS
  • In other cases, follow the placement of apostrophes in accordance with most reliable sources or standard punctuation per MOS

This also crosses over with MOS:FOLLOW which provides that we ignore most kinds of formatting in trade marks, with some exceptions (e.g., initial lowercase letter on eBay and iPod). Apostrophes are another exception to the general rule to follow common usage rather than official names. —sroc 💬 15:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Some further food for thought. I mentioned above that WP:COMMONNAME was used as justification to oppose the move Jay-Z → Jay Z on the basis that the common name had not changed. But if he'd announced changing his name to Jay'Z or Jay Z's, would MOS:POSS then require that we honour the official name? —sroc 💬 15:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we are making this overly complex... and missing the point. It does not matter whether a name is "Official" or "COMMON"... what is important is that it is a NAME, and we should not "correct" a name. I think we can cut through the confusion by simply saying:

Names

• Names (e.g. of companies, organizations, places, etc.) that contain a possessive word as part of the name should not be altered by adding, moving or omitting apostrophes. (St Thomas' Hospital should therefore not be rendered as St Thomas's Hospital, even for consistency.)

Do we really need to say anything else? Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Can I suggest referring to "proper names" though? How about this?

Names

• Proper names (e.g. of companies, organizations, places, etc.) that contain a possessive word as part of the name should not be altered by adding, moving or omitting apostrophes (e.g., St Thomas' Hospital should not be rendered as St Thomas's Hospital), even if this leads to inconsistency.

—sroc 💬 16:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that works... but I don't really see the need to make a distinction. Can you explain why you think we should specify proper names? Can you give an example of a "name that contains a possessive word as part of the name" where you think it is appropriate to alter the apostrophe's placement? Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a good example but I can't think of one. Either way, I won't make a fuss. —sroc 💬 09:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither will I... I was just curious to find out why you were hesitant about my suggested language.

What do others think... does my suggested language take us in the right direction? If so, is it OK as is... or should it specify Proper names? Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Not only do I agree with BB, but I say that to speak of a "proper name" is an error. A "proper noun" certainly, but what is an "improper name"? One that includes disrespectful words? JonRichfield (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Having reviewed proper name, I retract my suggested revision of "names" to "proper names". I made some other changes in my revision, stylistic in nature, but feel free to disregard. —sroc 💬 13:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The main trouble here is the assumption that each such name has an obviously "correct" version that we should not change. Most often, I think that's not the case. Look at the RM on Mrs Macquarie's Chair for example. Most reputable publishers are going to exercise some editorial discretion in deciding whether to include the period in "Mrs." and the apostrophe in "Macquarie's"; some will follow what's carved in stone, some will follow what's in the park brochures, and some will follow common usage of other good sources. Many will consider their own style guidelines in the process. Is this a problem? Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't a problem... at least it isn't if we apply the concept behind WP:COMMONNAME to names in general (and not limit the concept to article titles). Things can have multiple names... To choose between them, first see if one choice stands out as being significantly more prevalent. If so, use that. If not, the next step is to assess the choices based on source quality and assign them WP:Due weight. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The point is... we may have to look to sources to decide which name to use... but once that is decided, we should not "correct" it. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Um... As you know well, Blueboar, the issue of what is to be treated as "style" rather than "substance" in a name is a contentious one. In many cases (e.g. hyphens vs. en-dashes, capitalization of English names of species), it has been agreed repeatedly that Wikipedia should "correct" style to conform to the general rules of the MoS in the same way that (as Dicklyon pointed out) publishers apply their house rules to issues such as the full stop in "Mrs.", regardless of the "official" name. Why are apostrophes different? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... I do know that there is a debate over "style" vs "substance". When it comes to names... I come down solidly on the side of "substance" ... especially when talking about names of people and organizations.

To those who come down on the side of "style", I would say: OK... but our house style needs to conform to Wikipedia's polices, and be in harmony with our other guidelines... and at the moment it consistently bumps up against and conflicts with several. So our house style needs to change.

I don't think apostrophes in names are different than full stops or hyphens ... I would apply the exact same criteria consistently... if sources indicate that a name does not include a full stop, or includes a hyphen instead of a dash (or whatever), Wikipedia should not "correct" it. Period. Our house "style" should be: Follow source usage, and don't correct source usage... if source usage is mixed, choose which sources to follow (that is accepted per concepts such as ENGVAR, COMMONNAME and Due weight), but follow the sources nevertheless. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Descriptions of the storylines of long-running TV series, especially those that have now that have ceased airing, are best written in the past tense. The strain of trying to sustain the present tense over perhaps years of a show's internal chronology is exhausting for editors and readers alike. 86.151.119.39 (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

So fix it. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The style guide for writing about fiction states to use present tense when discussing the plot of the work, unless specifically discussing events in the series' in-universe past. This is most natural for such works, leaving the article timeless regardless of when the actual show/episode aired, when the article was written, and when the reader actually reads it. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I have just spent some time trying to do this on the Malcolm X article, but it doesn't seem to work. If this situation is a peculiarity of WP software and not just my screen, perhaps the Bulleting section should mention it? Rumiton (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Left-indenting is broken with left-floating images. Apparently, this is quite a fundamental problem; see Template talk:Quote#Not visible when wrapped around a left-aligned image. This problem appears with blockquotes, indents, and lists. It's mentioned at WP:BULLET. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like the problem was identified at least 3 years ago, but still hasn't been resolved. I worked around it in Malcolm X by shifting the image to another section, where it was just as happy, but I can see serious annoyance stemming from this glitch. Rumiton (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

In numerous episode list articles under the "Written by" column the terms "Story by" and "Teleplay by" are set in italics. Is this correct? Examples:

• List of The X-Files episodes
• List of The Sopranos episodes
• List of Dallas (1978 TV series) episodes

— Whisternefet (t · c) 05:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Put it this way: it's not incorrect. The MOS may be nit-picky, but it is not quite that nit-picky. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty then. — Whisternefet (t · c) 20:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually MOS has quite a lot of detail about when one should use italics: MOS:ITALIC, MOS:ITAL. These list the places where you should/may use italics; by implication, one ought not use them elsewhere. I suggest that the above mentioned use is "incorrect" because it does not match any of the cases in MOS, and that the articles would be better without the italics. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking that too, since no convention exists that calls for the terms to be italicized, nor does it really require emphasis. Pretty minor. I guess it just fell into tradition through copying within Wikipedia. — Whisternefet (t · c) 05:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Mitch Ames. Wikipedia avoids ornamentation; the MOS is nit-picky and italics should only be used where prescribed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

And italic face is harder to read than roman face, which is why italics are typically used for short patches of text, not long continuous sections. Tony (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Italics should only be used when special emphasis or distinction from normal running text is needed. Overuse dissipates that effect, and just makes the article harder to read. Reify-tech (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

A change was made this past summer to the documentation of that template to encourage/allow what was before nonstandard use. The accompanying WP:SS page was not changed however. I've opened a RfC on that issue and the more general structure and relationship between various SS templates at Template talk:Main#RfC. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to revive this archived discussion from six months ago: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_140#En_dashes_and_suffixes I would agree with User:DocWatson42 that the MoS should at least allow—and preferably recommend—the use of en dashes rather than hyphens in both prefixed and suffixed compounded compound modifiers. The current MoS recommendation to use en dashes for prefixes, and hyphens for suffixes, is confusing, inconsistent, and seemingly unfounded. It also conflicts with the explanation at Dash#Attributive_compounds. Thanks! Startswithj (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I still support my previous position, and agree with Startswithj.—DocWatson42 (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

To encourage editors to read Wikipedia's Manual of Style (WP:MOS), I have been considering the option of composing a MOS reading schedule (similar to a Bible reading schedule—http://www.dmoz.org/search?q=bible+reading+schedule&cat=all&all=no). (See also Wikipedia:Tip of the day.) It could be on a subpage of MOS (for example, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Reading schedule). MOS could be apportioned by the day, by the week, or by the month, so that it could be read in its entirety in one year. Of course, some editors may have enough self-motivation to read all of it without using a schedule. Alternatively, some may prefer to set for themselves the easier goal of reading Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style.
—Wavelength (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC) and 05:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

So rationing by temporal portion. Sounds like a daily dose of nasty medicine! But I appreciate the stimulus for this technique, which is the sheer amount of information editors are faced with. What I'd prefer, however, is a rationed-down version of the complete guidelines, with the full level of detail accessible for a section by simply clicking to open it up. Much less daunting. Tony (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Reading schedule is ready for use.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Should a blank line be used between {{disambiguation}} and DEFAULTSORT? (See this article) (t) Josve05a (c) 12:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Brunei English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Malaysian English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There has been contention over whether to add Infoboxes or remove them. Can editors please give their views here ? Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a logical flaw with the statement "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article" - "headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated". In a non-paper encyclopedia with hyper-linking (Wikipedia) it can not be assumed the reader even knows what the subject of an article is. If a reader follows a link to a subsection of another article he/she actually has not read any other part of that target article. The Section heading may be the readers only clue as to why he/she is even there. For example: Currently in Telescope, if a reader clicks a the link link catadioptric telescope, they are taken to a sub-section of Catadioptric system titled "Catadioptric telescopes". If we follow the logic of this guideline the reader at the article "Telescope" clicks that link and is taken to an article section titled "Telescopes". This is not very helpful to the reader and sets up a bit of a WP:ASTONISH, of "huh, why am I here"? I saw there was discussion re: "Sirius A" and "Sirius B" [4] and proper names (discussion seemed to reach no real conclusion) - we may have something like that here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thread retitled from "Quick check".

I thought we had a fairly solid consensus here back in October for the changes I made here. These changes are important, not in themselves, but because they impact on a lot of articles. Our goals in drafting a project-wide MoS are to promote consistency and clarity. I see my changes have now been reverted. Does anyone here wish to seriously quibble with the consensus we reached? Should this be a matter for WP:AN, or do we need to seek wider input? --John (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As the reverter, I have examined again the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 147#Paris' or Paris's (October 2013), and I do not find a consensus there. Also, the spatially last comment there (without a timestamp) says "Unfortunately, there's no consensus on the pronunciation." Like so many other discussions about the Manual of Style, that one shows a collection of comments about how to pronounce and spell possessives, but no clear consensus. Incidentally, I find the example with "Paris" to be equivalent to the example with "Vilnius".

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 112#Proposal to defer discussion of dashes (December 2009), where Noetica posed the question "How are we to define consensus, for the crucial work that MOS performs within the Project?" and three related questions. Please see also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 108#Recent changes to the "Possessives" section (August 2009), and the four questions posed by Noetica at 06:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

—Wavelength (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the cited archive discussions, I have to agree with Wavelength... I see no consensus to narrow the options to two. If anything I see the opposite... agreement that there are multiple options, and that we should allow them all. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You see that from the previous discussion from four years ago or the one I was talking about? --John (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I am revising the heading of this section from Quick check to Quick check: consensus on possessives, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents, and it facilitates maintenance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The entire discussion of pronunciation needs to rethought and possibly eliminated. As it stands it is quite incomprehensible to at least one speaker of RP Oxford-style English (me), making apparent distinctions between homophones such as "James's house" and "James' house". Nor by the way does a following initial s make any difference in the usage I am accustomed to: in St. James's Square the three consecutive s/z sounds are all pronounced. If the possessive s were not pronounced, I would expect the orthography to be "St. James Square". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems somewhat confusing that we have two different sections of the MoS that have the name "Common mathematical symbols" (even though their content is generally consistent with each other). Specifically, we have Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Common mathematical symbols and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Common mathematical symbols. Can we rename or remove one of those? For example, I was thinking of creating shortcuts called MOS:COMMONMATH and WP:COMMONMATH to refer to that information, but discovered that there are two possible candidates for the destination of such shortcuts, so it is not clear which destination the shortcut should refer to. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"MOS:COMMONMATH" can be a shortcut to "Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Common mathematical symbols" and

"WP:COMMONMATH" can be a shortcut to "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Common mathematical symbols".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Really, since "common mathematical symbols" is not about dates or numbers, I don't see why we have that section in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. I think it would be better to merge that content into Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Common mathematical symbols and just remove the other section (while perhaps retaining a reference to it or to the more extensive treatment at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Because "common mathematical symbols" are especially associated with numbers, it is appropriate that they be discussed in a section of "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers". Because they are also involved in general matters of style, it is appropriate that they be discussed in a section of "Wikipedia:Manual of Style". In each case, an editor consulting the guidelines is able to examine them together on one webpage. Also, redundancy is not a problem.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know how best to punctuate in biographies when a postnominal is added to the name in the first sentence? There are three ways of doing it, none of which look right:

1. John Smith, FRS (born 1 January 1940), is a ...
2. John Smith, FRS (born 1 January 1940) is a ...
3. John Smith FRS (born 1 January 1940) is a ...

The second option, with one comma, seems to be the most common on WP, but using just one comma is surely wrong. WP:POSTNOM offers no guidance on this point. Any advice gratefully received. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the single comma is surely wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The second looks right to me. Commas and parentheses are both used to separate clauses, one "softer", one "harder". A comma after the parentheses containing the birthdate is extraneous. No need to close off the postnominal, but if there was, it'd be done with a comma between it and the parenthesis. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean: John Smith, FRS, (born 1 January 1940) is a ... ? That doesn't look right either. I wonder whether the best thing, when adding a postnominal, is not to use brackets around the dates. So:

4. John Smith, FRS, born 1 January 1940, is a ...

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

If there was a need for a closing comma after the postnomial, it would go before instead of after the brackets. But there isn't. We could use commas instead of brackets for the date, but we don't in other Wiki bios. For consistency and grammar's sake, #2 works best. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

On closer inspection of List of Fellows of the Royal Society, there really isn't as much consistency as I'd thought, as far as the commas go. One, two or none. But the parentheses are the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It comes back to the question of whether or not the postnominals are parenthetic. If the postnominals are an "aside" to the main point of the sentence, then they are parenthetic and should be ,FRS, or (FRS). The presence of the dates and how you punctuate them isn't really relevant as they are a separate "aside". However, in the opening sentence of a Wikipedia article, where we are attempting to establish notability, I am not sure that postnominals are an aside. They are part of the notability claim and we can omit the commas completely (whereas the dates of birth/death are not part of the claim of notability and should remain parenthetic). That's my "old world answer". Kerry (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

However, if we look at the general principle of punctuation, which is visual elements that enables the accurate parsing of the sentence to correctly convey the intent of the writer, we have to bear in mind that the old rules of punctuation were devised for typed paper document and where paper was more expensive than it is today. In our digital world, we have more visual elements available to enable accurate parsing. For example, we have white space used vertically to separate things, we have indentation of bullet lists, we have an endless palette of special characters and symbols, colour and clickable links. In which case the question about postnominals is whether there is any likelihood that readers will confuse the postnominals as part of the name (is the surname FRS?) or confuse it as part whatever comes next "(1800-1850)" or "was an Icelandic scientist who bred tropical fruit". Since our postnominals are normally links, they are visually quite distinct (colour and clickability) from the name and whatever follows. It's hard to see that people would be confused, and any confusion would surely be resolved by clicking the link. So my "digital world answer" is that we can omit punctuation in the form of commas or parentheses as we have "digital punctuation" to do the same job. Kerry (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Omitting the commas altogether might be an OK invention, but following conservatively the conventional English typography might be more in the tradition of WP. Like this one, commas on both sides of FRS. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is that we are trying to convey too much information in one single sentence... suggest breaking it up into two sentences...

• "John Smith, FRS, is a notable English scientist. Born on January 1 1940, he ..."

Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

So to recap, we have:

1. John Smith, FRS (born 1 January 1940), is a ...
2. John Smith, FRS (born 1 January 1940) is a ...
3. John Smith FRS (born 1 January 1940) is a ...
4. John Smith, FRS, (born 1 January 1940) is a ...
5. John Smith, FRS, born 1 January 1940, is a ...
6. John Smith (FRS, born 1 January 1940), is a ...
7. John Smith, FRS, is a ... Born on 1 January 1940, he ...

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

2 and 3 (no commas at all or commas between the name and every set of postnoms, but not afterwards) are both completely correct and commonly used. The others are not. However, the postnoms should not be in small caps, as discussed elsewhere. That is not commonly used anywhere. Basically, there is no need to change the advice already appearing in WP:POSTNOM and WP:CREDENTIAL. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

#1 is correct. If you have a comma before the post-nominal initials, you need a matching one afterwards; it cannot be omitted, per #2. If it is interrupted by parentheses, the comma is still needed and comes after the parentheses, as per #1. This is the same principle as dates (e.g., John Smith was born on October 29, 1929 (the day of the Black Tuesday stockmarket crash), and became a prominent economist) and geographical references (John Smith was born in Tampa, Florida (where his father was mayor), in 1940. The comma should not come before the parentheses, thus #4 is wrong. Removing the parentheses, per #5 or #7, would resolve the issue but introduce inconsistency with the usual formal for biographical articles, which is undesirable. #6 is wrong as no style guide places post-nominals in parentheses (AFAIK). —sroc 💬 11:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that #1 is the clearest and most readable form. Reify-tech (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This edit, reverting the removal of a comma after i.e., popped up on my watchlist. I poked a bit just now and didn't see guidance on the point in the MoS (or in the talk archives). Both of the editors seem to have discussed it out on their talk pages (User:NebY and User:SHCarter), but I'm wondering if it should be raised as a question here for other input. --Izno (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

As the two editors discovered, different authorities favor and oppose the comma after "i.e." I think it's too small for us to quibble about, especially given that we don't even take a stand on American vs. British English except to be consistent within one article. Since many people today, even educated people, don't know what "i.e." and "e.g." stand for, and often get them confused, a good rule of thumb is to write out "that is" or "for example". When I worked as a technical writer in the 1990s, we followed that rule; even then, it was clear that the meanings of "i.e." and "e.g." had fallen out of common knowledge. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose one could add a note to the punctuation section of Comparison of American and British English#Writing as WP:ENGVAR points to that article. But that wouldn't have stopped my too-confident revert of a comma; I simply "knew" what was right. I agree: delightful as it is to see i.e. used correctly, let alone properly punctuated, it's probably better to avoid it and e.g. too. NebY (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if they were common knowledge, I'd still avoid them, just because they are abbreviations. In article text (as opposed to, say, infoboxes or captions of illustrations) I think we generally want to spell things out, as better befits the formal tone of encyclopedic writing. One could make an argument that we should say something about what to do in the unusual case that one of these is the best choice for an infobox or a photo caption, but in my view the MoS is already heavily overloaded with minutiae, so I wouldn't actually be in favor of that. --Trovatore (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point about avoiding abbreviations altogether! Within reason, of course—which is why I concur about not adding a guideline about it. But I'll definitely keep this in mind in future writing. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, just replace by "that is," and make it more accessible and understandable and maintainable for readers and editors of all levels. Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes the abbreviations are useful—in space-constrained settings such as tables and captions; and in a sequence of parentheticals where each is an "e.g.". I do believe whether the comma is included should be optional, as long as article-consistent. Tony (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tony on both points. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I was pretty sure "no change" and "avoid use entirely" was going to be the result. Thanks for the discussion. --Izno (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal:_MOS_should_apply_to_portals. Evad37 [talk] 01:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hm, MOS:HYPHEN seems to be a bit confusing when exemplifying the use of en dash in article titles. A clear question is why should en dash be used in "Eye–hand span" (as specified in Dashes section), when it's earlier described that in fact hyphens indicate such conjunctions (as specified in Hyphens section)? Well, it is because of the independent status of these linked elements, but that should be additionally clarified within the Dashes section, where "Eye–hand span" is used as an example; currently it's quite confusing.

Thoughts? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! — Dsimic (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

MOS:HYPHEN illustrates the principle of independent status with the example of diode–transistor logic. A hyphen in Eye-hand span would suggest that eye somehow modifies hand, as if there were a special kind of hand called an eye-hand, and the article was about its span. That said, style authorities are not unanimous about this, but this is the traditional typographical distinction. I'll think about how to reword MOS:DASH to make the example a little clearer. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! This just confirmed the way I understood MOS:HYPHEN while reading it all the way down, but should we include this additional explanation into the Dashes section, right where "Eye–hand span" is used as an example? That way it would be clear immediately to anyone reading that section just to see how articles should be named. — Dsimic (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This whole distinction, unsurprisingly, generates a lot of confusion and discussion in the context of specific cases. There's a lengthy thread above, for example, about compounded names, which has highlighted the need for some clarification on that point, albeit without much in the way of a conclusion. N-HH talk/edits 22:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The whole thing is quite amazing; having just a look at "McGraw-Hill", Hindi-Urdu language and Hindi–Urdu controversy makes it clear that even historical knowledge is required for deciding whether a hyphen or en dash is appropriate. To me, that's amazing. — Dsimic (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I just added a parenthetical comment in MOS:DASH. Hopefully it clarifies the principle without being too wordy. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, I started typing my reply before you edited your response, and it committed just fine. :) Thank you for the improvement in MOS:DASH, it looks fine to me; I've just cleaned it up a bit. — Dsimic (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful. While you were doing that, I tried clarifying the paragraph in MOS:HYPHEN. Would you care to review and clean that one up, too? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that edit looks good to me, making it much more clear; one small cleanup gilded the lily. :) Looking at my edit, should the italic typeface include a trailing comma (like in ''here,'' this) or not (like in ''there'', that)? That's typography, but however is quite interesting, if you agree. Is there maybe already a rule or guideline for that? — Dsimic (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

About italicizing the comma at the end of a word in italics: I started doing that a long time ago when I noticed that my browser put an icky space at the transition from roman to italic text instead of kerning. Today's browser's don't foul that up so badly, but I see that Safari still adds spurious space at some of those transitions. I've never read anything about this, but I've noticed in books that typographers italicize the trailing comma. I figure that's because a roman comma looks wonky at the end of an italic word. (When typography is done right, you don't notice it.)

Actually, Wikipedia favors the "modern practice" of using fewer commas when they're optional, so in this case we could probably do without the comma entirely.

About "independent status" vs. "independent statuses", I favor the singular here, though probably there is still better wording. The reason is, the independence in question is of each word in relation to the other. "Statuses" suggests that the independence of each word is, er, independent of its, er, relationship, um… Ecch, this looks like the sort of thing that led people like Frege to turn away from natural language. If I get inspired, I'll try making another edit.

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I just found that MOS:ITAL says not to italicize the surrounding punctuation. I'm not sure this is such a good idea. The example of a roman question mark after an italic word can look so bad that someone might actually notice it.—Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the recommendation not to italicize it. I'm not as concerned with how it looks as I am with the underlying logical structure. The italicization is meant to emphasize (or otherwise demarcate) a part of the sentence element set off by the comma; the comma itself is not part of that element. It's the same principle as logical quotation. --Trovatore (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@BenKovitz: Just as you described, it's about the fonts and built-in kerning information... It also makes more sense to me to italicize the trailing punctuation, just to prevent any possible ugliness. A good (and current) example are libraries doing rendering of TTFs on Linux, as they tend to produce much less pleasant on-screen results, due to various patent issues with kerning and anti-aliasing technologies. Good find, for the MOS:ITAL!

Hehe, you're right about "status" vs. "statuses" – the plural form does take away some of the intended meaning. How about this instead, maybe: When the elements are linked independently (as in diode–transistor logic) they require an en dash, not a hyphen; sounds better?

— Dsimic (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@Trovatore: It totally makes sense when judged from that side, and with your note I'm starting to recall such trailing question marks from various textbooks – they really aren't italicized, if I'm recalling correctly. You actually might get me converted to the way described in MOS:ITAL. :)

Though, another thing I never liked is mandatory putting of trailing punctuation marks inside a pair of quotation marks, like in ... and "this." – for example. Doing that makes sense to me only if the punctuation is also quoted, but not in the opposite case; with that, I'm actually leaning towards something similar to the italicizing rules in MOS:ITAL.

Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I sympathize with the principle of logical quotation, but I don't think it applies to italics nearly as often, because italics usually emphasize rather than delimit, and the comma doesn't introduce ambiguity. For example, at the start of this sentence, is the comma part of the emphasized phrase or not? There's really no meaningful answer, so I think visual aesthetics should prevail. Even when indicating a single word to mention rather than use it, like this, the context usually indicates that what is being talked about is a word, so there is no danger that a reader would think that the comma is part of what's being talked about. In cases where there is genuine ambiguity, then sure, romanize the comma and tolerate the clash. But in most such cases, the sentence is better with quotation marks or reworded. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it as really being about ambiguity, and for that matter I think the ambiguity argument is overemphasized in the LQ debate (the TQ supporters are correct that it's not, in practice, really much of a problem). As I said, it's about the logical structure. Grammatical utterances naturally generate a parse tree (the traditional grammatical term is "diagramming"), and the comma is at a different level from the text being emphasized or "mentioned" (in the case of italics used to indicate words-as-words). --Trovatore (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:Logical quotation on Wikipedia provides a very good overview, what pretty much boils down to using logical quotation (LQ) on Wikipedia, and it's inline with my original thinking that punctuation marks should be within quotation marks only if they're part of the quoted content. Thank you for pointing into that guideline, that's one of those I wasn't aware of... yet. :)

Regarding the italicization, I agree that italics is there for emphasizing; the true solution would be making sure that such trailing punctuation marks are displayed correctly even when not italicized, in which case I'd undoubtfully support ''this'', that format. Though, as I already mentioned, there are some patenting or licensing issues preventing kerning and anti-aliasing to be used out-of-the-box in various Linux distributions – what's just an example that we're far away from the ideal technical solution to this dilemma. — Dsimic (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I've never heard this line of thought before. I have to think about it. Thinking aloud through keyboard… Punctuation is indeed different than words. Punctuation indicates things like intonation, phrasing, breathing, and rhythm. In speech, those things come out as modifications to how words are pronounced. In writing, they are represented by appending something to a word (and other ways not relevant here). Punctuation's different level is already indicated by its being punctuation. What is the reason for indicating that again by a change of font, separating it from the word it attaches to? On this theory, when would you ever italicize punctuation? If never except inside a distinguished phrase, like the characters' thoughts in Frank Herbert novels, what is the gain that offsets the aesthetic loss? Could you point me to some further reading? (I just looked at WP:LQUOTE and only found a bit of invective about this.) BTW, the example parse trees at Parse tree stick the sentence's closing period onto a noun, with the understanding that the reader knows that the punctuation isn't part of the noun. Is that a travesty or common practice among professional sentence-diagrammers? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I just took another crack at clarifying the difference in meaning between a hyphen and an en dash. Have at it, grammarians. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking good; at first it sounded a bit weird, but that was only the result of looking at the previous "independent" version for some time. :) Also, the placement is now better, it flows more logically with the rest of guidelines. The only thing I changed is a small cleanup, please check it out. — Dsimic (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

We might just have a winner here, with the crowning touch by Dicklyon. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thumbs up for Dicklyon, we've missed that while looking at the whole thing more than once. :) Though, this rewording was reverted, and reverted again; I'd appreciate if Tony1 and Peter coxhead could join this discsussion, so we either end up with a better rewording that isn't "messy" through a broader consensus, or conclude that no changes were required in the first place. I agree that discussing for three days might be not enough, but then let's discuss it further, following the WP:BRD principle. — Dsimic (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I somehow missed the discussion below, what's probably an example of sensory gating. — Dsimic (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:STABLE redirects to the introduction of this page. It is being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 1. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There are several discussions in the archive about whether the guideline MOS:IDENTITY conflicts with the policy WP:VERIFIABLE. However I cannot find any guidance about conflicts between the guideline MOS:IDENTITY and the policies WP:STAGENAME and WP:COMMONNAME . Please can an experienced editor explain whether or not the guideline MOS:IDENTITY trumps WP:STAGENAME and WP:COMMONNAME ? Please can these three policies/guidelines be updated to reflect the outcome of any archived decision? If this has already been resolved, apologies for my inability to find the right archive, please can you point me to it? Thanks. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. Definitely not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME and WP:STAGENAME are both part of naming conventions for Wikipedia:Article titles. MOS:IDENTITY has an explicit mention and guidance to look to Wikipedia:Article titles for when a term is used in the title of an article. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree... MOS:IDENTITY certainly does not "trump" WP:COMMONNAME ... That said, the goal is to have policies and guidelines that work together... in harmony. To have policies and guidelines that support each other in a way that makes asking which "trumps" the other irrelevant. So... If two policy/guideline pages seem to conflict, then we need to have a centralized discussion and discuss how to resolve the apparent conflict. It would help to have some specific examples of how and where the conflict occurs. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Should nbsp be used in between e.g. 12 and km. (12 km) if it is in a header, e.g == The football field (12 m) ==? (t) Josve05a (c) 12:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hardly long enough to break into another line, so I wouldn't bother. Tony (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Chhatra_Sangram. Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Context? Tony (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Tony1, we need some context. In general, if "Comrade" were part of an actual quote like X said "if we were to obey Comrade Stalin..."[231], etc., it would likely be allowable. But if we were to write a general fact, like in a biography, as Comrade Stalin was born... it would be wrong and horribly POV.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "Comrade" should be considered an honorific at all (if anything, it is more of an anti-honorific). That does not mean it can never be used, but it's use is limited. It should only be used for people who are routinely referred to as "Comrade X" by reliable sources ... similar to how some French Revolutionaries are routinely referred to as "Citizen/Citizene X" by reliable sources (example: Citizen Genêt). Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The linked article on Indian Communist journal Chhatra_Sangram referred to its founders and editors as "comrade X", "comrade y". One of them was also apparently a "Martyr Comrade Sudipto Gupto". I've removed the honorifics. Paul B (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently bringing the article A Song for Simeon through FAC and the question came up about italicising the title when referring to its publication as a two-page one-poem pamphlet in 1928.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) indicates that the MOS prefers poem names to be italicised like book titles. MOS:QUOTEMARKS says otherwise. Most style guides say "quotations", including notably MLA, Chicago, APA, and AP. A lot of commentary delineates a bright line difference between long poem, like Paradise Lost, which should be italicised since it is book-length, and shorter poems, which should only have quotations around unitalicised titles. I took a cursory look at about 50-60 articles on well-known poems by Eliot, Auden, Wordsworth, Blake, Keats, Whitman, etc., (many of which were originally published as one-poem pamphlets), most of them are not italicised anywhere in the article. Further, almost all of the reliable sources used in those articles do not italicise shorter poem names.

• Should WP:NCBOOKS be modified to bring it in-line with MOS:QUOTEMARKS and into line with academia, MLA, Chicago, APA, and AP regarding quotations marks and shorter poem titles?
• Does a two-page, one-poem pamphlet need to have its title italicised?
• Do we really have to revise potentially hundreds or thousands of poem articles currently unitalicised to italicise titles?

Looking forward to the comments here (please ping me when you comment...since this page isn't on my watchlist and I might not check back more than once a day)--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't need to be changed, but that naming convention does. (NCs are not part of the MOS, btw.) Imzadi 1979 → 15:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If an NC gives guidance that conflicts with the MOS guidance... then a centralized discussion needs to take place to bring the two pages into sync. I think we can take it as a given that the local consensus here at the MOS will be to change the NC... and we can probably take it as a given that the local consensus at the NC will be to change the MOS. So... it is likely that we will need more than a local consensus to resolve the conflict... we need to involve the broader community (especially those who are not regular contributors to either guideline). I would suggest a community wide RFC. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If the proposal is put forward at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books) to change the rules for poems, and if usage in CMOS, etc., can be demonstrated, I don't think it would meet with much resistance. The relevant section seems poorly considered and could use expansion - I don't think it's been changed since its inception. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Our MoS is pretty clear on this. It says:

Quotation marks should be used for the following names and titles:

...

• Poems (long or epic poems italicized)

I think usage within Wikipedia generally follows that. @ColonelHenry:, perhaps you could propose a change at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books) to bring that naming convention into line with the MoS. I don't think there will be much objection.SchreiberBike talk 19:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

There is already a pointer to this discussion at that page, so it is covered. As for the question at hand, it should be quote marks, not just because various style guides call for it, but because it keeps the large-form/short-form dichotomy intact. For analogy, in music the title of an album is italicized, while an individual song is in quotes. This applies even if the song was released as a standalone single, as it remains a short-form work. Same should apply to short-form poems; being published in a standalone pamphlet doesn't make it a long-form work, as an italicized title would indicate. If it is a long-form work that happens to be written in poetic verse, then it should be italicized as a long-form work. But short vs long is the determination, not standalone vs part of a collection. oknazevad (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I am surprised the MOS is mute on the subject of writing, if at all possible, in the active voice style rather than the passive voice (except in specific, minor circumstances). Another editor and I have been discussing the matter and this person is not convinced of the power of the active voice—simply because the MOS doesn't mention it. (It was once touched on fairly inadequately in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Clarity but no longer.) To me, it is obvious that "Writers love Wikipedia" is better than "Wikipedia is loved by writers". Thanks very much for your reply. Prhartcom (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You do know what you've done in that parenthetical sentence, don't you? Kevin McE (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

There used to be a template about it, but it got deleted, maybe for the same reasons the passive voice is not discouraged on MOS (actually, it's encouraged in one place): the passive voice is really a matter of emphasis, which simply has to be chosen judiciously in each case. Especially bad writers overuse it, and I've seen some people act as if there was a rule against it even when it's appropriate. Some thoughts that might clarify whether or what to add to MOS: I don't think "Writers love Wikipedia" is better than "Wikipedia is loved by writers". The former slightly emphasizes Wikipedia; the latter slightly emphasizes writers; only the former would be appropriate as a slogan. The reversed wording of the passive voice is sometimes unclear or awkward, but the main objection to the passive voice is the obscurity that often results from total omission of the subject. For example, "He heard a bird flush, and he turned and pulled the trigger and saw his friend get wounded." That's George W. Bush's description of Dick Cheney shooting Harry Whittington, using the passive voice to obscure the main fact of the sentence. Another typical bad passive is in rules and specifications like "The bill of materials will be approved by the start of phase one." You probably want to write that so the person responsible knows they're on the hook, and the best way to do that is by mentioning that person explicitly. But passive constructions like "Charles Manson was tried and convicted" or "Harry Whittington was treated for buckshot wounds at a hospital" are fine, because mentioning the subject would only distract from the main fact. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

See Confusion over avoiding the passive.

—Wavelength (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

As Ben says, whether to use the active or passive depends on context and what you're emphasizing. See Strunk and White, rule 11 (writing from memory). That's why there's no mention of it here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Good writers prefer the active voice, as readers find it easier to read. A lot of very poor writers like the passive voice, as they think it makes their writing sound more "grown up". Nevertheless, this is not really a MoS matter. I do agree there should be some concrete guidance about it and I am surprised if there is not. --John (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that's way oversimplified. The passive voice should be used in situations that call for the passive voice; good writers can figure out which ones those are. Writers who stick stubbornly to the active voice, in situations where the passive would be more effective, are poor writers. --Trovatore (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really. The passive voice is way over-used in general and on Wikipedia articles in particular. But as it is not a MoS issue there isn't a lot of point in having a long discussion here about it. --John (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Deliberately ironic use of the passive? Kevin McE (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly over-used, either in general or on Wikipedia. There certainly are writers who over-use it, yes, but I don't see it as a general problem. As Ben explains above, the passive is correctly used to put the emphasis on something other than the agent. In scientific articles especially, there are situations where it's almost mandatory, because otherwise the sentence would have to take as its subject (say) an experimenter, who is almost totally irrelevant to the information being conveyed. --Trovatore (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

With so many amateur writers, I would have expected to see more abuse of the passive voice. But I've seen very little on Wikipedia. Perhaps what the passive voice was to a previous generation (a lame way to sound formal/precise/objective), in-text attribution is to the current generation. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Where's the bloody "like" button on this thing? --Trovatore (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Like -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Active and passive voice. --Boson (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

y'all apparently do not spend any time editing Bollywood actor articles that are all overflowing with "She was seen in X and will be seen in the upcoming Y." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you; I learned something from this discussion and from the links above (another good link: [5]). I agree it should at least be mentioned in the MOS. I think we are saying we should:

Another ironic passive? Kevin McE (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Use active voice (subject receives the action) by default, as it usually improves the sentence.
• Use passive voice (object receives the action) instead if you are quite aware of what you are doing and know that it improves the sentence.

We should not:

• Write without being aware of the difference. Prhartcom (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think singling out passive constructions for general guidance is useful here. Any article is going to have perfectly grammatical and understood statements in the passive voice. If you want to remind people to show the agency of important actions, then say that. We only seem to consider it a problem when people use the passive voice to avoid mentioning notable things (which is the issue that is more important to building an encyclopedia). Editors can insert vagueness and omission of agency in both the active and passive voices. When people use the passive voice in other contexts, such as The passive voice is way over-used..., we understand without issue. If agency's important to understanding an action, or if a particular sentence is unclear, then editors should re-work them, but on those grounds. I agree it is a matter of emphasis and contextual judgement. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

As John pointed out above, this is a matter of good vs. bad writing, not a stylistic choice that should be consistent throughout Wikipedia, so it doesn't belong in the MOS. You could write an essay, though. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles are good too! English passive voice#Style advice. NebY (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a matter of good vs. bad writing, and that specifically is the issue I originally brought up: Editors have claimed their unawareness of the active voice is justified by observing the topic is absent from the MOS. Prhartcom (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's "unawareness". The passive voice is sometimes the better choice. Where the subject of an article is about a book, for instance, editors will naturally tend to put more emphasis on the subject of the article. Here we are more likely to write, This book was published by Lalala in 1888. In the article about the publisher, we might phrase it as Lalala published this book in 1888. There's no stylistic or grammatical reason to re-word it the same way for both articles, or to generally recommend re-wording all instances to one standard of emphasis on principle. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What's more, the constraints of writing Wikipedia articles sometimes require us to use the passive voice. Suppose our source says "Mackay was fired in January 2014". How can we convert that into the active voice? We don't know if his line manager fired him, or the chief executive did, or the chairman of the board did, or a plenary session of the council did. We mustn't try to work it out from his position and the organisation's rules and procedures; that would be WP:OR. We're not going to write "An unknown person fired Mackay in January 2014", suggesting a mystery. We'll just echo our source and use the passive voice. NebY (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to ensure I am communicating the exact issue here, I will restate it explicitly: I have found myself in discussion with editors who essentially said they were allowed to go on being blissfully unaware of the existence of a style called "active voice", and that they could go on scattering their poor writing in the form of passive voice into every third sentence, even those sentences that would have benefited from active voice, because the MOS doesn't teach anyone of its existence. This exact situation has come up during reviews. For all we know, there are other GA and FA reviews taking place in which this often occurs. For that reason, perhaps the MOS could introduce editors to the definition of active voice. Prhartcom (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I do sympathise with this and have encountered it before. It's a problem of education and of learning good writing, but I do not think we can use the MoS to enforce it. As others have said, there are times where the passive voice is essential. --John (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur with John. On a collaborative encyclopedia that any fool with Internet access can edit, there are going to be some poor writers and some poor writing. Since skilled writers can't pull rank on poor writers, sometimes you end up having to educate them on the relevant talk page. And sometimes this doesn't go well: a big part of what makes a poor writer a poor writer is obliviousness to subtleties of language and meaning. That said, there is something authoritative you can point to: the second paragraph of MOS: says "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best; avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." Bad passives are usually vague or unnecessarily complex wording. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• If there must be mention of the active–passive issue in MOS, we'd first need to sort out the situations in which each is preferred. Even then, any guideline on the matter should be expressed in advisory rather than prescriptive terms (I say this because I suspect those situations are pretty complex to enumerate). Tony (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hard to set a solid rule. I had to use active and passive for a current event today. "A sniper kills a man and six people are wounded in clashes..." Sometimes the sources just don't (can't or won't) attribute these actions to anyone. "...and clashes wound six people" doesn't seem right. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This may be one of those times when fewer rules lead to better effects. Sometimes the passive voice is the better choice, as when the agent is not known or not important ("Soap was invented thousands of years ago."). The passive voice is preferred in a lot of scientific writing because the community likes to treat the results of experiments as more important than the people performing them.

That being said, if you think a specific sentence can be improved by changing it to the active voice, go ahead and do it. You don't need permission. It's not forbidden to improve article text even if you can't point to a rule that it is breaking as-is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well yes. Is it a particular problem on en.WP, overuse of passive? Tony (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

My perception is that it is one of the problems we face in trying to upgrade the writing level in articles. I also notice that bad writers tend to be bad across the board; the same writer who carelessly uses passive when active would be better, is also likely to overuse "however", to say things were "critcally acclaimed" (and the like), and to use ambiguous contructions. There is a serious issue (though not especially a MoS one) around how we educate people to be good writers. Very few of our editors are. --John (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well said, John. Tony1, that was the reason I opened this topic. I see what all the other good writers above are saying: the MoS should not set a rule about preferring the active voice, as they may need to use the passive may voice intentionally. But we're not talking about the good writers. The completely different point is that the MoS should educate the not-so-good writers about the existence of active voice because these writers learn how to write by reading the MoS. With no mention of it, they are using passive voice unintentionally every third sentence, and they don't believe us when we explain active voice to them because there is nothing we can point them to. The lack of mention gives them justification to reply to us that they intend to go on ignoring its existence. Prhartcom (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Teaching people how to write better is not the job of the MOS. Style guides define a consistent style and format. As for education, User:Tony1 has copyediting tutorials on his user page, and WP:ESSAYs can be good for that. It seems to me that one of the main causes of bad writing is too much dependence on rules and appeals to authority rather than writing to communicate. Trying to legislate the active voice in the MOS would likely make that situation even worse. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, a couple of us have not found that abuse of the passive voice is especially common on Wikipedia. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Passive vs active is just the tip of the iceberg; and please remember that many scientists have been trained to maximise their use of passive voice, a dreadful habit that is slow to recede. How far do you want to take this in MOS? If you're really keen to mention it, a short statement that "active voice is often preferable to passive voice" with a couple of examples might do the trick.

But more generally, do editors who need to improve their writing actually read MOS, and if they do, is it the right context for that type of improvement? (There's a kerfuffle going on right this moment about one established editor who steadfastly refuses to engage with concerned fellow editors about improving his/her writing.) What about the aspects of style that are on the boundary between prescription and personal preference? Should it be aimed at both natives and non-natives?

My own feeling is that a distinction somehow has to be drawn between a style guide and a how-to-improve-your-writing resource (as it largely has been). MOS is already pretty long. Perhaps there's a better place for this type of good-writing advice? Or perhaps exercises should be the focal point (but my own exercises are mostly not on specific themes).

If we're looking to put energy into improving MOS, my inclination would be not to write piecemeal expansions but to completely restructure it (on a sandbox page until ready) into a hierarchy for each section, so that readers first encounter summary points in each section—very rationed—and can click at a number of points for further levels of information. That would remove the daunting aspect and make the guidance more accessible. In many cases we need to convey the important points as readily as possible, while still retaining the fine-grained advice for those who want it. This might also be a way of integrating some of the sub-pages of MOS into the one resource (clickable). But it would be a big task ... possibly taking a team of us six months. Tony (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I personally have learned a lot from the MOS and your exercises, and I'm sure others have too; I like the MOS the way it currently is. I was just hoping for exactly what you mentioned above: a short section in it stating that "active voice is often preferable to passive voice" with a couple of examples. Then I suppose it should disclaim that there are other times when the passive works better, as every point above stating so is valid. But the point of the new section would be to raise awareness to avoid unintentional use of passive in those cases when active would be better. Prhartcom (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd go with an explanation that the MoS doesn't prefer active or passive voice, but does prefer the correct voice, with the illustrative examples with the object receiving the focus vs. the subject receiving the focus. Avoid "default" or "often" in the description. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't want to dispute this with anybody here, as we are talking stylistics rather than style but I think any simplistic, top-level Wikipedia recommendation should be to avoid it where possible. It is usually quite a few characters more data to read, with no additional meaning in an encyclopaedia, to say "The cake was baked by Alice" than to say "Alice baked the cake", and that is reason enough to avoid it unless there is pressing reason to use it, and of course, as others have said, there often can be. But this isn't the place for this; where might we continue to talk about active v passive? --John (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language and the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Grammar.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the MoS is not to help poor writers become good ones. It is to tell Wikipedia editors what is correct and incorrect and, when English offers multiple correct options, which one Wikipedia requires of them. That is why it should be based on reliable sources and not on whims and personal preferences. I'm hearing a lot more hate for the passive voice than it merits.

To help iffy writers become better, why not write an essay on the subject? Many of the contributors to this talk page believe that new editors find the MoS intimidating because of its size (I don't share that belief, but still). Maybe an essay tailored to new editors' needs would help.

As for restructuring the MoS, I wouldn't be too good to look at a mockup, but one big page is usually easier to search than a lot of little pages. One or two CTRL-Fs and I'm done. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind, everyone, that active vs. passive is generally taught at the college level. There's a strong chance that many of our writers have never heard of the concept. Active voice is better for technical writing; passive is more acceptable for opinion pieces / essays. Since an encyclopedia should feature technical writing, we should be encouraging its use AND explaining the concept to the uninformed. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

What, are you serious? Anyone who gets through high school without knowing the difference should sue. I don't agree with your distinction, either — scientific writing has frequent requirements for passive voice. --Trovatore (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's different here in the land of igloos, but I never learned about it in high school.. or if I did it was brief and slipped my mind long ago. And what I've been taught, at least in my engineering technical report class, is to always use the active voice when it doesn't muck up the flow of the writing. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I also heard of the passive voice long before college. We're seeing a difference in the estimation of when passive voice is better. Floydian, do you have any sources that you think are clear enough for beginners that specify when the passive should be used vs. avoided? Style guides? Essays by writers or linguists? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The material for the course was a book called Introduction to Technical Writing. I'll see if I can find a few passages that can be quoted/paraphrased that would be an ideal explanation. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

In England, the national curriculum calls for understanding of the passive voice from the age of 9. Is the OP aware that (s)he has used the passive voice in denigrating use of the passive voice? We don't need a MoS policy statement on it any more than we do on correct spelling or punctuation; contributors should write to the best of their ability and in the manner most suited to the purpose. Kevin McE (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, they are in good company. One style guide for technical writers quoted in Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage" states:

"Emphasis is often achieved by use of verbs rather than nouns formed from them, and by use of verbs in the active rather than in the passive voice"—S.J. Reisman, ed. A Style Manual for Technical Writers and Editors.

I'll give Orwell (in his essay on Politics and the English Language) the benefit of the doubt and assume he was deliberately using more passives than most to show how badly he could write. --Boson (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think advice on the use of the passive voice has any place in the MoS, but if we were to provide advice elsewhere, it should, perhaps, be based on the recommendations of Joseph M. Williams, included in his books on style, such as Style: The Basics of Clarity and Grace, where he writes,

". . . the passive is often the better choice".

When choosing between the active and passive voice, he advises, one should answer three questions:

1. "Must your readers know who is responsible for the action?"
2. "Would the active or passive verb help your readers move more smoothly from one sentence to the next?"
3. "Would the active or passive give readers a more consistent and appropriate point of view?"

Even if the reader should be told who is responsible for an action, we do not need to insist on a particular syntactic mechanism for conveying that information, and we don't need to put all the information in one sentence. --Boson (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for telling us the data point about your high-school education, Floydian. That is indeed interesting. I think you missed out on some basic English grammar of the sort that's often covered even before high school. The form of a conjugated English verb simultaneously indicates person, number, tense, aspect, mood, and voice. The latter four usually involve an auxiliary verb. You can look this up in almost any guide to English grammar. Of course, this hasn't prevented a lot of misunderstanding about the passive voice, as indicated at the link posted by Wavelength, above. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strunk and White—whom User:Hoary calls "those two old farts" [tick that]—give only three points and ignore the surface mechanics. For example, if there's already passive voice in the vicinity, you're more likely to avoid repeating that grammar (since it's grammatically "marked", not "unmarked"). And if the use of the passive strands the guts of the message out at the end of a longish sentence, that's a good reason to turn it into the active. Tony (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Tony, you pulled my chain? [pause while I skim read the section] Hey, I give you all a passive: "is located" + PP. This is an illustration of what I've taken to doing with these. Though it now occurs to me that I might get religion and instead retain this otherwise redundant verb, adding an agent, namely the Big Guy Upstairs: One of Grand Cayman's main attractions is Seven Mile Beach, on which a number of the island's hotels and resorts are located by God. Named one of the Ultimate Beaches by Caribbean Travel and Life, Seven Mile Beach is located by God on the western shore of Grand Cayman Island. Etc etc. -- Hoary (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

In those sentences, "is located" is not passive. See the link posted by Wavelength above. I certainly agree with you, though, that saying "located" is usually clumsy and should be deleted entirely, just as you did before you got religion. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Good catch! It's what's called an "adjectival passive", as can be deduced from the grammaticality (despite stylistic dubiousness) of, say, ... where hotels remain located despite risks from the nearby volcano: with a genuine passive, you can't replace BE [or GET] with a verb such as REMAIN. (And "retain this otherwise redundant verb" is careless for "usefully convert this otherwise redundant adjective".) ¶ Actually the excellent article to which Wavelength posted a link isn't of much direct help here. It does, however, have a splendid list of links to more or less relevant Language Log posts. Among these:

• "The passive in English": Our grumbling about how [many pundits who choose to pontificate on the matter] don't know their passive from a hole in the ground has inspired many people to send us [at Language Log] email asking for a clear and simple explanation of what a passive clause is. In this post I respond to those many requests. Very highly recommended.
• Pullum provides a far superior alternative to "two old farts": What a shameless, pontificating, ignorant, hypocritical, incompetent, authoritarian pair of old weasels they were.
• Of local interest: "Rewriting Wikipedia in the passive?"

If anyone's interested, there's quite a literature on the "adjectival passive". Here's something substantial; and if you're really keen, here. ¶ But anyway, we seem to agree on the main point: "located" (as it's most commonly deployed) sucks. -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Fear and Loathing of the English Passive by Pullum might also be of interest. --Boson (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll second the recommendation. -- Hoary (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thirded. It's excellent. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't buy this "adjectival passive" thing. "X is located" is passive, period. And the verb be is often passive without our realising it. I'm showing someone the company photograph: Charles is the secretary; or the secretary is Charles—which one is active, which one passive? Another example, with the "test": I am the prince (e.g. I play the prince on stage, active) versus the prince is me (the prince is [played by] me, passive).

  Actually, active vs. passive brings a whole range of choices in the English clause for construing marked–unmarked, theme–rheme (also known as topic–comment), and the given and the new. It is very complex and should not be dismissed. Native speakers are geniuses at unknowingly using the passive to these ends. Tony (talk)

  • Let's put the "adjectival passive" aside. Even if the context makes it clear that "The prince is me" means "The role of the prince is played by me", and even though the latter is passive, the former is active, and has no passive version. Charles is the secretary (unlike Charles is a student) can be inverted as you say (thanks to "specifying BE"); neither way around is it passive. (If "The prince is me" were indeed some syntactic derivative of "The role of the prince is played by me", then why not *"A spear-carrier is me"?) You're right to refer to the given versus the new, and to complexities; note that CGEL discusses passives at some length, under the rubric of "information packaging" (or similar; I don't have my copy in front of me right now). -- Hoary (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    • It would be in answer to a question such as: "Which one are you in the photo". The answer would need to start with "the", of course. Tony (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
      • "I'm this one" / "This one's me" / "I'm the one on the far left" / "The one on the far left's me": none is passive in any way that I can think of. For a passive you need a transitive verb; whereas BE only takes a predicative complement (same referent as that of the subject). Thus the ungrammatical *"The secretary is been by Charles", *"Charles is been by the secretary". -- Hoary (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

From the main article: "Use italics within quotations if they are already in the source material. When adding italics on Wikipedia, add an editorial note [emphasis added] after the quotation. 'Now cracks a noble heart. Good night sweet prince: And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest' [emphasis added]. If the source has used italics (or some other styling) for emphasis and this is not otherwise evident, the editorial note [emphasis in original] should appear after the quotation." SUGGESTIONS: I won't make these changes, but if anyone else agrees/wants to, how about we delete "on Wikipedia". Then, consider changing "should appear" to "may appear" since otherwise the whole thing would seem like a redundancy with "emphasis added", if it were ALWAYS necessary to indicate when it was not added. It seems that "emphasis in original" is a somewhat subjective editorial decision based on, whether explicit or not, what the context calls for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobEnyart (talk • contribs) 17:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I wasn't sure what should be done with the large (overlarge?) quote on this page; given that the Telegraph reference (which I possess from the paper) gives a detailed account, would I be justified in removing the quote from the article? Thanks, Matty.007 12:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest going to List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F) or one of the similar articles and looking at some of the other individuals who have won the Victoria Cross. Then duplicate a format that seems standard for those articles. There might be more specific advice, and real experts in this issue, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike talk 22:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean the VC citation from the London Gazette? Yes, it should absolutely be retained. It's the entire basis for his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Necrothesp, I know, but is it better to rephrase it from the Telegraph source, or keep in the long quote? Thanks, Matty.007 18:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say keep the original citation. No problem with that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

More a comment than anything, I have been trawling through all the 'MOS:' shortcuts, and found that only the following are not linked to either 'Manual of Style' pages, or pages that are essentially part of the MOS (like naming convention policies):

• Wikipedia:Trinidad and Tobago Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide (MOS:TT)
• Wikipedia:Film project (MOS:FILMPROJECT)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards (MOS:APO)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Manual of Style (MOS:JEW, MOS:JESUS)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style (MOS:CODE, MOS:CODESAMPLE , MOS:SOURCECODE , MOS:ALGO, MOS:ALGORITHM, MOS:ALGORITHMS, MOS:PSEUDO, MOS:PSEUDOCODE, MOS:SOURCE, MOS:SYNTAX, MOS:CODESAMPLES, MOS:CS & MOS:COMPSCI)

They all have 'WP:' shortcut equivalents (e.g. WP:PSEUDOCODE, however WP:PSEUDO is not aligned with MOS:PSEUDO), and most of those guides list those WP: shortcuts instead of the MOS: shortcuts. I think the Comp Sci MOS might have a few too many MOS: shortcuts, and the idea of 'JESUS' redirecting to the MOS defined by WikiProject Judaism is interesting. Has any of these WikiProject MOS topics been covered in the 'real'/centralised MOS? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Styletips provides editing advice in conveniently small portions. (I am mentioning it here to increase awareness.)
—Wavelength (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments are invited at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Proposed change. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the WikiProject Cycling about when to use country subdivisions (states, provinces, regions etc.) and when not, when listing a cyclist's birth place in an infobox. Example:

• Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands or Amsterdam, Netherlands
• Silver Spring, Maryland, U.S. or Silver Spring, U.S.

We seem to agree that in some cases this is appropriate (the Silver Spring case) and in some cases it is not (the Amsterdam case). I have tried to look for something in the MoS or in the discussion archives, but I was unable to find anything. Is there some agreement within Wikipedia on for which countries the subdivisional entity should be mentioned and for which it should be avoided? Or is there a rule that says always use subvision or never use subdivision that I am unable to find?--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

2013 in film is 332,397 bytes (without images). Please discuss whether or not to sub-divide it, at Talk:2013 in film#Length. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There is currently an RFC on a proposal to update MOS to explicitly state that it covers Portals - Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 112#Proposal: MOS should apply to portals. Editors are invited to contribute to the discussion there. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)