Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 210

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 205

←

Archive 208

→

Gender-neutral pronouns: guidance

A couple of IP users have recently edited at Ezra Miller, changing male pronouns to they/them/their. Apparently the subject of the article does not identify as any particular gender, and prefers to use pronouns interchangeably. I can't find any specific guidance about this in MOS, what is the current consensus on how to approach this? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 19:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

If the subject does not care which pronouns are used, then neither should Wikipedia. Perhaps we can follow what Miller does, and use them ALL ... interchangeably (if we explain that this is what the subject does early in the article, the reader will understand). Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You're looking for MOS:IDENTITY. RGloucester — ☎ 20:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

We discussed use of singular they last year; see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 198#Singular they. If we are to use it in our biography articles, I prefer to use it sparingly and instead use the surname as much as possible because singular they has confused our readers. But it's used in a few of our articles on genderqueer (non-binary) people. Like the aforementioned discussion notes, what we won't use are genderqueer pronouns such as "zie" and "s/him." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer22 Reborn, that's really helpful. I'll point them that way. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"because singular they has confused our readers"^{[citation needed]}—this is an extraordinary claim that is not backed up by anything in that discussion, and is contradicted by the singular they's universal usage by native speakers of all backgrounds in everyday speech. Where it becomes problematic is in the recent usage of it to refer to known subjects (such as Miller), which is a case that has not come into universal usage. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I watch and work on some LGBT articles. Yes, singular they usage has confused readers and has been subject to debate on Wikipedia. I'm not going to sit here and point to all of the cases, or all the talk pages, where I know its usage has been debated, such as at Talk:Emma Sulkowicz. As for the discussion I pointed to, we can see that not everyone agrees with using singular they, and that I'm not the only one who noted that its use can be confusing. And considering that singular they is still subject to debate among academics, as made clear in the Singular they Wikipedia article, it's not surprising that singular they is still not as widely supported as you would like. That its use is cautioned against by a number of reliable sources is made very clear in the Singular they Wikipedia article, which, yes, I know you've edited. That article is on my watchlist. I know that you support singular they, but the usage can clearly be a problem. An entire Wikipedia biography article using singular they, especially without specifying that the person prefers to use singular they for their gender identity? Yeah, that can be confusing for readers. Even today, with more transgender representation in the world than just a few years ago, MOS:GENDERID transgender cases such as Brandon Teena still confuse a number of our readers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"singular they is still subject to debate among academics, as made clear in the Singular they Wikipedia article"—the Singular they article "makes clear" no such thing. You also seem to have read only half my comment. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, we are reading a different Wikipedia article. The one that I'm reading, with all of the "avoid when possible" and "use cautiously" or similar talk, must be in an alternative universe. I did not read only half of your comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

No, we're reading the same article you're misquoting: "Garner's Modern American Usage (2003) recommends cautious use of singular they, and avoidance where possible because its use is stigmatized."—this recognizes that there are people ignorant and obnoxious to kick up a fuss (as there are with regards to the so-called "split" infinitive), and that one can avoid engaging with this nonsense by avoiding its use. This is not even remotely as it were "subject to debate among academics", which the article does not support (and in fact contradicts with studies—the source cited calls it ["https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=Lijcg3vt9yAC&pg=PA93&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false "almost universal in speech",] and backs it up with data and history, as does the article). Problematic use of singular they is restricted to its 21st-century use with known antecedents; in all other cases it goes unnoticed by almost the entire native population. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

First, the link you provided me with shows nothing, on my end of the Internet anyway. And, yep, clearly reading a different Wikipedia article. No misquoting at all, since I was not quoting anything from the article. I was paraphrasing, and the paraphrase isn't inaccurate in the least. Regardless of how you interpret things about the use of singular they, we clearly have sources like the Associated Press's Stylebook, stating, "They/them/their is acceptable in limited cases as a singular and-or gender-neutral pronoun, when alternative wording is overly awkward or clumsy. However, rewording usually is possible and always is preferable." Use of singular they is criticized and cautioned against, especially in the United States. We note in the lead of the Singular they article that its use "has been the target of criticism since the late 19th century." So given that, and what the sources in the article state, I fail to see how stating that the use has been "subject to debate among academics" is inaccurate. A simple Google search shows that there is a singular they debate. So let's not act like it doesn't exist. You can call the criticism "ignorant and obnoxious" as much as you want to, but reliable sources disagree with you. That everyone uses singular they at some point is not in dispute. I use it at times. No one here stated that singular they is always problematic; what people have noted is that singular they can be problematic and confusing, which is a fact. Writing an entire Wikipedia biography article using singular they is an issue; it certainly requires care. So it's good that you at least noted "problematic use of singular they." I'm not going to keep debating you on this; I am well aware that you always get worked up any time someone notes that singular they can be problematic and/or confusing, is cautioned against, etc., and I know that you can keep a debate going. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources like this 2013 The Atlantic source is just one of the sources speaking on the debate, stating, in part, "Every time I see a singular they, my inner grammatical spirit aches. I have no issue with their used in its proper place, as a plural pronoun. That's completely fine, even necessary, and the usage is quite valuable. But why must we accept their as a singular? I say no. I say, use anything instead. Use he or she. Use one. Use a person's name. Or rewrite! Pluralize throughout, if you must, for consistency. [...] Note: I'm not ranting against use of they as a preferred gender pronoun, but instead, in (the more frequent) cases in which it's simply the easy way out, and, I think, indicative of sloppy writing. But as R.L.G. noted in the headline of his post, we all have our opinions on this issue." This author stating "use a person's name, or rewrite" is similar to what the Associated Press states. In addition to what the Associated Press stated above, it relays, "In stories about people who identify as neither male nor female or ask not to be referred to as he/she/him/her: Use the person's name in place of a pronoun, or otherwise reword the sentence, whenever possible. If they/them/their use is essential, explain in the text that the person prefers a gender-neutral pronoun. Be sure that the phrasing does not imply more than one person." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

"since I was not quoting anything from the article"—uh-huh, but you put these things in quotes, anyways.

"So it's good that you at least noted"—as I had from my first comment, which you insist you've read all the way through.

"the link you provided me with shows nothing"—you could put in some sort of effort. It's to Gerner, Jürgen (2000). "Singular and Plural Anaphors of Indefinite Plural Pronouns in Spoken British English", which is cited in the article and uses actual data and a survey of past studies and comes to the conclusion summed up in the article of its usage as "almost universal".

"but reliable sources disagree with you"—you mean the reliable sources such as Gerner's that are already in the article and that you're not interested in reading? Reliable sources such as Webster's that has been calling the singular they "common standard use" for a couple of generations now?

"it certainly requires care"—every article requires care—there is nothing special about normal usage of the singular they there, and you have yet to demonstrate an example of it causing actual confusion outside of gender-identity articles (where confusion remain even if singular they were to be abolished—so the root problem is not singular they). You're big on opinions and trying to turn the debate on me as a person, but you're not much interested in investigating the facts (nor even reading what I've written). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

So paraphrasing/summarizing never includes quotation marks? Got a reference for that? As for the rest of what you stated, like I noted, "Regardless of how you interpret things about the use of singular they, [we clearly have sources like the Associated Press disagreeing with you]." As for reading, it's clear you are only interested in reading sources that support use of singular they, etc. The debate exists. The sources are clear. Accept it. As for being big on opinions and "not much interested in investigating the facts..." LOL, yeah, there are a lot of Wikipedians who would disagree with you on that. On talk pages, I often argue with sources, just like I did above. The author in the The Atlantic material clearly feels differently than you do and is not just focused on preferred gender pronouns. It's you making these broad claims and focusing only on one aspect of the topic as though that takes away from the fact that singular they is criticized and can be problematic. As for Merriam-Webster, even it notes that people have an issue with singular they, stating,"One common bugbear of the grammatical nitpicker is the singular they. For those who haven’t kept up, the complaint is this: the use of they as a gender-neutral pronoun (as in, 'Ask each of the students what they want for lunch.') is ungrammatical because they is a plural pronoun." Yes, it also mentions "the traditional singular they" and states that "regardless of what detractors say, nearly everyone uses the singular they in casual conversation and often in formal writing.", but, again, I haven't disputed that. So I don't see why you keep arguing that angle. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Because:

you keep pointing to sources as if they "disagree" with the points I'e made, when they don't;
the AP is a prescriptive guide, not an example of "debate among academics", and even it reluctantly allows singular they. And you have the gall to accuse people of cherrypicking!
as I keep saying and you keep ignoring—you keep asserting it causes confusion, but have yet to provide evidence of that. So, where is it?

Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

They disagree with you in terms of you acting like singular they is no problem at all and/or that a singular they debate doesn't exist. That AP "prescriptive guide" exists because there is a debate, which, again, anyone can see from a simple Google search. Merriam-Webster states "one common bugbear of the grammatical nitpicker is the singular they," "the complaint is [...] the use of they as a gender-neutral pronoun [...] is ungrammatical because they is a plural pronoun," and "regardless of what detractors say" because there is a debate. That the AP "reluctantly allows singular they" is one of my points. If singular they were just A-okay, with no issues, the AP would not be stating "they/them/their is acceptable in limited cases as a singular and-or gender-neutral pronoun" and "rewording usually is possible and always is preferable." The debate is among grammarians. Not all. Some. They are academics. It's not like I'm speaking of the general public (although a number of them do not like, or have certain issues with, singular they also, which is why one can find all of these media articles online about accepting or being open to use of singular they). That "nearly everyone uses the singular they in casual conversation and often in formal writing" does not negate that a debate exists, no matter how much you claim otherwise. And now you state that I haven't provided evidence for "causes confusion," after I pointed to a Wikipedia article as an example and you conceded that it causes confusion at gender-identity articles. You are the one who stated "outside of gender-identity articles" above. Well, since this discussion started out as a discussion about gender identity (Ezra Miller), I still fail to see why you felt the need to chime in with your "its usage as almost universal" talk, other than you disliking any criticism of singular they.

Furthermore, the aforementioned The Atlantic source speaks of singular they in terms of confusion. If confusion were not an aspect of singular they, that source wouldn't be mentioning confusion at all. Neither would others that discuss singular they. This 2017 The Daily Beast source states, "The first time I heard someone use the word 'they as a singular pronoun, I was confused—for about five seconds." Well, five seconds of confusion is still confusion. The source goes on to note that "New York Times public editor Liz Spayd published a column about the 'confusion in the newsroom' that led to non-binary actor Asia Kate Dillon (from Showtime's Billions) being called 'she' in an op-ed, despite the fact that Dillon has been vocal about using the gender-neutral pronoun 'they.' Opinion editors, who generally follow the style and usage guidelines of the newsroom, were under the impression that 'they' could not be used as a singular pronoun,' Spayd explained. 'That's how they ended up calling Dillon 'she.' " Also reporting on that story, The New York Times stated, "Understandably, this isn't a simple issue for news organizations: Either confuse many of your readers with sentences like 'They is going to the theater' or risk falling behind shifting cultural norms." This 2015 American Psychological Association blog states, "The singular they is also commonly used to refer to a person whose gender is irrelevant or unknown [...]. However, most formal writing and style guides, including the APA Publication Manual, the Chicago Manual of Style, and the AP Stylebook, do not currently support this usage, deeming it too informal and/or ungrammatical. Instead, APA recommends several alternatives to the general singular they." To reiterate, this discussion (on this Wikipedia talk page) started because of a gender identity topic. I rightfully noted that singular they has confused our readers, and you jumped in challenging that obvious fact. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Not only does the Atlantic source not speak of singular they in "terms of confusion", it refutes the idea more than once: "unlikely to produce confusion about what is meant", "nearly literally impossible for singular they to be confusing in an actual conversation or in a longer piece of writing". Then it's followed with the eyerolling ramblings of a prescriptivist (we hear the same arguments from those who prescribe against "stranded" prepositions and "split" infinitives). We don't truck with that nonsense on Wikipedia. I don't know what you think this is supposed to be "evidence" of.

The Daily Beast article is specifically about the recent usage of singular they to refer to a known antecedent—the specific quote is "Avery was here last weekend and they wanted to go to the beach". You keep saying that you've read what I've written to you, but if this is your "evidence", then you're demonstrating that you have not. I'm speaking out against calls to ban or restrict use of singular they due to ignorance and spillover from barely-relevant GENDERID debates (where the real issues aren't even singular they). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

So the Atlantic source speaking of confusion with regard to singular they by stating "unlikely to produce confusion about what is meant" is the Atlantic source not speaking of singular they in terms of confusion? What? Why would the Atlantic source even need to speak of confusion by quoting people who argue against the idea that singular they causes confusion...if no confusion exists with regard to the usage? That was my point on that, as should have been clear by me stating "If confusion were not an aspect of singular they, that source wouldn't be mentioning confusion at all." And either way, we can see that the author of that Atlantic source very clearly sees an issue with singular they. You state that "we don't truck with that nonsense on Wikipedia." And yet we do because a number of our editors or readers have debated use of singular they at different Wikipedia articles and/or have chosen not to use singular they because of what style guides like the AP states or confusion it may cause. My argument has been that singular they is criticized and has caused confusion; my evidence above indeed supports that. Not only has the usage been criticized on a grammatical basis (as even noted by Merriam-Webster), but also in terms of people who identify as neither male nor female or ask not to be referred to as he/she/him/her, which is why the AP states, "Use the person's name in place of a pronoun, or otherwise reword the sentence, whenever possible." For the last time, this discussion specifically began as a discussion about the gender identity aspect. So your "its usage as almost universal" and "I've not read what you've written to me" talk is what broadened the discussion. No one was calling to ban or restrict use of singular they. I did note that "I prefer to use it sparingly and instead use the surname as much as possible because singular they has confused our readers.", but that is because of what I argued above. I was referring to biography articles, and using singular they in our biography article is my main "I'm cautious of it" concern when it comes to singular they. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

"So the Atlantic source speaking of confusion with regard to singular they by stating "unlikely to produce confusion about what is meant" is the Atlantic source not speaking of singular they in terms of confusion?"—I have no idea what game you're playing here, but this statement is one big ball of gibberish. It doesn't feel like an argument made in good faith.

There is no concern when using singular they in "biography articles" unless you are using it to refer to known antecedents. It very rarely is. A person should always be cautious when using grammatical forms in unfamiliar ways. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no game here on my part. I asked that question, and in the way that I did, because of your "Not only does the Atlantic source not speak of singular they in 'terms of confusion'" statement makes not a bit of sense to me since the article very clearly speaks of it in terms of confusion. That it has quotes challenging that singular they is confusing does not at all negate the fact that the source addresses singular they in terms of confusion. Obviously. Good grief. I've been clear and so are the sources I've cited. Your "there is no concern when using singular they in 'biography articles'" argument is blatantly false when it comes to articles like Ezra Miller and Emma Sulkowicz. Yeah, I know that you stated "unless you are using it to refer to known antecedents." Except for when making clarifications like that, the only one who hasn't been clear and arguing with "a big ball of gibberish" in this discussion is you, with your heated "ignorance" opinions and off-topic commentary. You made this discussion about something it is not. Simple. This discussion started with a focus on using singular they for Ezra Miller. You broadened the discussion because you took offense to me stating that singular they can be confusing at biography articles like Ezra Miller. Nowhere in that statement did I state that singular they is always confusing. That statement is focused on gender identity aspects. The AP states, "Clarity is a top priority; gender-neutral use of a singular they is unfamiliar to many readers." And that was all that I was stating in my initial paragraph in this section, with a focus on the gender identity aspect. And regarding the gender identity aspect, just like I prefer that we use the person's name as much as possible in our biography articles when it comes to singular they usage, the AP states, "Use the person's name in place of a pronoun, or otherwise reword the sentence, whenever possible." I expect more of the same from you any time singular they is brought up on this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Jesus Christ—you're now clearly either not reading a word I've read, or you're doing this deliberately to get under my skin—neither the Miller nor Sulkowicz articles have nothing to do with standard use of singular they. We've gone in circles enough now that you can't claim I haven't addressed this—I'll no longer be assuming good faith with your responses. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

You stated, "Jesus Christ—you're now clearly either not reading a word I've read, or you're doing this deliberately to get under my skin." That is how I feel about you. Do you not see how this discussion started and that it was about Miller's gender identity and using singular they because of Miller's gender identity? I couldn't care less that you'll "no longer be assuming good faith with [my] responses." You've completely missed the mark either way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

You've achieved nothing aside from displaying your bad faith on the record. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly what can be stated about you in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

If I may attempt to break the circle: The key bit here is the quote: "The first time I heard someone use the word 'they' as a singular pronoun, I was confused—for about five seconds." Even if we assume that's literally true (it reads like a joke), this must have been decades ago. There's no reader of en.wp who is not familiar with the usage, since it's everyday spoken English now in every major dialect. In written English, singular they dates to the 14th c., and commonly (though often excoriated) in writing by the 18th, when prescriptive grammarians began venting about it, to little actual effect but getting it labeled informal. (See tidy OED article on this.) The informality perception is the main reason we and various off-WP style guides suggest avoiding it in most cases, but it clearly does have very limited circumstantial utility (when writing around it would be tedious and annoy the shit out the reader). So people just need to deal with it and stop letting their heads asplode about it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish: the "I was confused for five seconds" quote is no joke—it refers explicitly to the use of the singular they to refer to known antecedents. I've already called out Flyer22 Reborn for quoting it out of context (the context is the sentence "Avery was here last weekend and they wanted to go to the beach", they referring to Avery. Yes, that would confuse almost all of us, as that usage has yet to become a standard part of the language—it is a prescription).

Flyer22 Reborn is familiar with the singular they' history and normal usage—this is all a game, though to what end I cannot fathom. The fact remains that Flyer22 Reborn has provided no example of anyone being "confused" by standard use of the singular they, and none will be forthcoming. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

You haven't called anything out. As for facts remaining, the fact remains that you continue to go on about "standard use of the singular they" when this discussion specifically began with regard to use of singular they for Miller and similar cases, which are obviously cases that are confusing to readers per what I stated and cited above. But keep trying to get the last word, I guess. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"You haven't called anything out."—except where I cited the quote from the Daily Beast article you cited out of context? Not that that's the only example—you've made a habit of misrepresenting sources. I made what I was talking about clear in my first comment, which you've repeatedly stated you've read to the end. You have no excuses left—assuming good faith with you is not even an option. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Your commentary in this discussion has been ridiculous. And everyone knows why: The discussion began as a discussion about a person's gender identity. My initial comment is obviously specifically about that, considering that I stated, "If we are to use [singular they] in our biography articles, I prefer to use it sparingly and instead use the surname as much as possible because singular they has confused our readers.", and "what we won't use are genderqueer pronouns such as 'zie' and 's/him.' ", and the fact that I cited the AP stating "Use the person's name in place of a pronoun, or otherwise reword the sentence, whenever possible." You came to the discussion trying to challenge the confusion aspect, as if my initial post was at all focused on "standard use of the singular they." You then dragged me into a debate about whether or not the standard use is subject to debate among academics, when, as SMcCandlish noted above, the "it's informal" argument exists. The OED source states, in part, "Not everyone is down with singular they. The well-respected Chicago Manual of Style still rejects singular they for formal writing."  SMcCandlish stated that "various off-WP style guides suggest avoiding it in most cases." I mentioned style guides as well, but you kept going on. You were looking for a useless debate, as you often do. Well, you got it. And let me be very clear that I do not care what you think about me in the least. So your "no excuses left—assuming good faith with [me]" commentary matters not one bit. No one is going to agree with you that I've been playing some game or that I am anywhere close to being some disruptive editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Jesus Christ—you can't even quote yourself accurately. Your claim is that the singular they—in and of itself—"has confused our readers", and go on to talk about genderqueer issues until after that. Then you misquote, misrepresent, and otherwise play mind games ad nauseam—such us bringing up Miller and Sulkoqwicz when asked for examples of how standard use of singular they have "confused" people (and I don't believe for a second you've done this mistakenly). You still have no examples, and will never present one.

"No one is going to ... blah blah blah ..."—I sure don't see anyone flying off to your rescue! How about you stop pretending to speak for everyone else? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

So now you are to tell me what I meant by "has confused our readers"? I know what I meant. And what I meant is clear to anyone with actual reading comprehension. Considering that I quoted the entire sentence, I quoted myself accurately. You state that I've failed to provide examples about how singular they has confused readers, when the Miller and Sulkowicz cases are prime examples, and when you yourself stated that "they" referring to "Avery" would "confuse almost all of us, as that usage has yet to become a standard part of the language—it is a prescription)." Do you hear yourself? What in the world are you going on about? This discussion was never about "standard use of singular they" until you made it about that! If anyone here is playing mind games, it's you. As for rescue, I'm no damsel in distress, but SMcCandlish has affirmed things I've stated -- your precious singular they is advised against, and not just for gender identity cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"anyone with actual reading comprehension"—resorting to WP:PAs? You've demonstrating your lack of comprehension of what I've written far too many times in this discussion to whip this one out. Every time I've asked for an example of the standard use of singluar they causing confusion you've either ignored it or responded with a GENDERID example, which I made clear in my first comment was the singular exception. You know, that comment you've claimed numerous times to have read through to the end and—*ahem*—comprehended. So ... did you actually miscomprehend, or are you lying? There is no third option. ... Well, there's digging in your heels, which is obviously what you'll do once you've started resorting to ironic PAs. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:10, 23 November 2018 (

You simply can't admit that this discussion was never about "standard use of singular they" until you made it about that. It was always about cases like "they" referring to "Avery." I pointed to such cases causing confusion. You conceded that such cases cause confusion. And when you made it about "singular they hasn't been subject to debate," you were wrong. And now you are complaining about personal attacks when you've engaged in personal attacks plenty above. The personal attacks domain is your area of expertise, as many know. You went looking for a fight, like you often do, and ended up losing. Admit and move on. You won't, of course, since you love getting the last word. Because you love the last word so much, I'm not inclined to let you have it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"You simply can't admit ... blah blah blah"—you simply can't admit that I addressed this explicitly in my first comment, which you've repeatedly repeated you've read through to the end. If it was "always about cases like "they" referring to "Avery."", then there'd never have been any disagreement, as, again, I addressed that in my first comment. As we've agree about such usage from the first word, that's obviously not what you're continuing to fight about—and is why it's obvious your next comment will also be another slew of PAs. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

See? Can't let it go, despite what the evidence above shows. It made no sense at all for you to challenge my statement that "singular they has confused our readers" when the discussion was about singular they confusing readers in cases such as Miller's case and when you conceded that such uses cause confusion. My commentary was clearly focused on such cases, before you even stated "Where it becomes problematic is in the recent usage of it to refer to 'known' subjects (such as Miller), which is a case that has 'not' come into universal usage." Even my second comment is focused on such cases, which is why it points to the Emma Sulkowicz case and includes me stating, "An entire Wikipedia biography article using singular they, especially without specifying that the person prefers to use singular they for their gender identity? Yeah, that can be confusing for readers." This debate started because, for whatever silly reason (seemingly, per below, your fear that editors would add something to the guideline discouraging "singular they's traditional usage"), you acted like I was talking about "standard use of singular they". You then wrongly challenged the fact that the standard use of singular they has been subject to debate. You then started with personal attacks about how I'm playing games and other such nonsense you've claimed. Now you are complaining about me repeating myself when you've repeated yourself just as much. Move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This marched relentlessly towards unproductivity, so it's hard to decide where exactly to hat this; I could arguably have started hatting earlier. But everything inside here is definitely not worth anyone's time reading. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What a fucking joke—all because you can't bring yourself to admit you misread my first comment. Keep digging that hole, and don't forget to leave another slew of PAs. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

All of what you just stated is exactly how I feel about you. Move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Get over yourself—nobody gives two shits what you "feel" about me (or singular they). All that matters in this forum is the substance of the discussion. My first comment stands, and if you don't have an actual rebuttal to that other than PAs, then "move on" and all that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

First you talk about me speaking for everyone, and now you do it. Why am I not surprised. As you so often say in a childish way, "blah blah blah." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

As predicted: all PAs, no substance. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Says the editor who began with personal attacks, is an expert on them, and is desperate to get the last word. Yes, it's entertaining watching you try to get that last word. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:Hounding now too. See you at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Closed without a single editor supporting that there was any hounding. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

And yet the close was clear that you were being problematic, and that if you continue to do what you were doing, you can expect a block. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Do we have to turn the hose on you two? E Eng 05:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

LOL! 'Fraid so, EEng. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back on earth ...

Seems like a rare, reasonable case for a singular they, perhaps with a footnote at first occurrence. Another of these is Genesis P-Orridge. Someone keeps slow-editwarring that subject's made-up construction back into the article. I fix it about once a year, but wish more people would watchlist it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Singular they was good enough for Shakespeare and Jane Austen. If anyone takes issue with that, could they say so now? Tony (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Tony1: They do—they want to revive the battle against singular they to get at genderqueer folk, who have begun using it to refer to known antecedents (which indeed has not yet become a common, natural part of the language—I'm talking about sentences in the vein of "Kelly said they'd call back tomorrow", where they refers to Kelley; this usage is both not universally familiar and potentially confusing, as even those familiar with it can assume they, whether singular or plural, refers to a third person or persons). Voices against the traditional singular they have become particularly shrill and numerous in the past several years in reaction to the rise of this new usage. Whatever Wikipedia decides about the new usage, such arguments should be kept clearly separate from discussion about singular they's traditional usage. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks; that's a good clarification (and was actually something I had not caught onto, this new linguo-political squabble and its known-antecedent source). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason why the MOS should not say we should do this in all cases, lets keep it gender neutral. After all it will keep out articles consistent.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, see this entire discussion both above and below your comment for objections to this idea. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This discussion started off anchored in a real-world situation (i.e., Ezra Miller) by Girth Summit as well it should, and then became rather theoretical, or unmoored to an extent. In any case, I'd like to bring it back down to earth by pointing out another article where the gender-neutral pronoun issue has been discussed numerous times, namely at Albert Cashier. Discussions on how to handle gender pronouns for Cashier can be found in the current Talk page and in both Archive pages. These discussions include two completed Rfcs: one here, and a second one here, which resulted in a consensus to exclude gendered pronouns from the article. (The Rfc has not yet been implemented and the article uses she/her/hers.) The option of using singular they was also discussed numerous times. (An additional complication in this case is that Cashier was a Civil War soldier who lived in a time where the current concept of transgender would not exist for another hundred years.) My feeling is that finding the right solution is highly dependent on the unique circumstances of the individual case. I'm not sure how much guidance MOS can, or should, provide, other than to possibly enumerate the various different approaches that could be taken, and illustrate them with links to sample articles where they exist. Mathglot (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish made a good suggestion, and perhaps we should formalize it: in cases where it is decided that singular they with a known antecedent has been decided to be used, there should be a note explicating this, as this usage of singular they is unfamiliar to many (probably most) readers. Treat it as MOS:JARGON: to be avoided in general, and used carefully with a brief explanation where it is used. Any instructions in the MOS should make it clear that this does not apply to the traditional singular they with unspecified antecedents. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Something like what Mathglot and Curly Turkey are converging on is probably workable, though it will take example sentences and some word-smithing. Way more editors are familiar with broadened use of singular they than with what an unspecified antecedent is. Heh. Explaining "geeky" grammatical things is a bit of a challenge here, and places were we do so (perhaps poorly) tend to become loci of recurrent dispute and confusion, e.g., MOS:ENDASH and MOS:5LETTER to pick two examples. We have editors who even have trouble with the concept "preposition" and don't understand that "like" and "past" can be prepositions. Both of those cases, like this one, are also prone to dogmatic insistence on mimicking what someone's personally preferred but very not-encyclopedia-like sources are doing (e.g. press-releases, logos, and other marketing writing, low-end entertainment journalism, and in this case activistic "force the language to change" screeds from gender-studies majors at liberal arts colleges). Such cases in MoS, when unclearly constructed, tend to inspire outright denialism that it's an arbitrary internal style decision enacted to agree with contemporary sources that are of a comparable register, and as a compromise between unhappy internal factions to get them to stop fighting and get back to work. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

There's no rush—we can handle this incrementally. For instance, we could start with something like the {{Japanese name}}—for those who don't know, Japanese names are sometimes done surname-first and sometimes surname-last on Wikipedia, so the {{Japanese name}} leaves a note—for example, for Itō Hirobumi {{Japanese name|Itō}}:

We could have a similar template, perhaps rendering something like {{Chosen pronoun|they}}:

This article refers to So-and-so with the pronoun they.

Or whatever formatting those-who-know think is appropriate. It would be nice if there were an appropriate article to link to, like Japanese name, but Singular they is not really appropriate (especially if the chosen pronoun is "he" or "she", but also because most of Singular they is about traditional usage). Does someone know of (or can create) an appropriate article? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that instances of the singular they fall into three general categories:

Used in conjunction with an indefinite pronoun/unspecified antecedent: Should the biography of a living person include their criminal record? Someone left their umbrella behind, and I have no way of contacting them. (Personally I use this sort of construction in informal speech even when the gender of the unknown person is clearly apparent: Whoever sang first soprano in the women's chorus should go get their hearing checked.)
Used to indicate a particular person whose gender is unknown: Genericusername57 is sharing their crackpot ideas about grammar. (I think that in most cases 'he or she' is preferable, but agree that it's better in the Cashier article to avoid pronouns altogether.)
Used to indicate a particular person who has requested that others use the singular they to refer to them. Example Person is a punk musician and LGBTQ advocate. They were born in Osaka, Japan. (Footnote: In the essay 'Please Call Me They', Person ...) (In this case using 'they' would be more a matter of courtesy than of grammar—I'm not sure, though, that there's a sharp distinction between calling people 'they' if they ask for it and calling them 'xie' or 'shim'. I'd hesitate to say that the singular they currently is (or should become) the default for all people who self-identify as nonbinary/genderqueer/third gender.)

As for whether these three uses should appear in Wikipedia articles, my votes are a: yes, b: no, and c: possibly in a few, clear-cut cases (with explanatory footnote). Cheers, gnu 57 00:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with A or B, but (as others noted in the Albert Cashier discussion) it's generally possible to avoid using the singular "they" in these cases by restructuring the sentence. This is more or less in line with what newer style guides recommend.

Regarding C: if a person has clearly expressed a preference for gender neutral pronouns, "they" should be adopted and a brief mention can be included along with the first use (example) - IMHO, this is already the policy given by a plain reading of MOS:GENDERID. It might be sensible to just avoid pronouns for brief mentions, but writing an entire BLP article where we assiduously avoid adopting a person's clearly expressed preference just looks silly. As for those edge cases like Ezra Miller: Wikipedia should probably follow rather than lead here and just defer to what reliable sources are doing. In Miller's case, it appears most are mentioning his identity but sticking with male pronouns. Nblund^talk 18:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this was meant to be a discussion of whether any of these should be allowed—the MoS doesn't disallow any of them—but what advice can be used to deal with them. But anyways—

A should be left uncommented, as it is unremarkable.

B is unlikely to happen in article space, and the MoS doesn't apply to comment sections.

C should require a note for the reasons I've given above, and there should be some sort of advice in the MoS on how to deal with it.

Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

For B: My objection is to using 'they' to refer to people like the Pearl poet and the Cleveland Torso Murderer: specific people of unknown gender. (Both currently avoid pronouns altogether; Pearl (poem) uses he/she) I think 'they' would be as incorrect as a gendered pronoun here.

For C: I agree of course that, following MOS:GENDERID, (i) people who ask for 'they' should be called 'they'. But how about (ii) people who declare a genderqueer identity without specifying pronouns, and (iii) people who have asked to be called something else? The majority of people on the List of people with non-binary gender identities use he, she, or they, but:

Hida Viloria uses s/he [1], the article uses she
Gopi Shankar Madurai uses ze [2], the article avoids pronouns
Kate Bornstein uses ze and hir [3], the article uses she and they
Justin Vivian Bond uses v [4], the article uses they.
Qween Amor uses s/he [5], the article avoids pronouns.
Janae Kroc doesn't appear to have explicitly specified a preferred pronoun, the article uses she
Genesis P-Orridge uses s/he and the article uses they, as mentioned above.

I'd say that it's best to avoid pronouns altogether for this subset of C, or else consider using the preferred one, since it's not clear to me that 'they' is the "default" gender-neutral pronoun. Cheers, gnu 57 22:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a tougher call. I'm inclined to say that, if we're forced to choose, "they" is probably more familiar to readers than s/he, ze, hir etc. and it doesn't directly contradict any specific gender identity. This, too, would be largely consistent with the AP's approach, which is moving toward accepting "they" but still eschews "ze". Nblund^talk 22:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

We should definitely avoid uses like "ze" and "hir." The Kate Bornstein Wikipedia article, for example, does fine without it. I know that SMcCandlish strongly opposes uses like "ze" and "hir" in our biography articles. As for "writing an entire BLP article where we assiduously avoid adopting a person's clearly expressed preference just looks silly" in cases of singular they, it also looks silly to those unfamiliar with singular they in such cases. The AP still advises that we "use the person's name in place of a pronoun, or otherwise reword the sentence, whenever possible. If they/them/their use is essential, explain in the text that the person prefers a gender-neutral pronoun. Be sure that the phrasing does not imply more than one person." I think that a brief mention of the person's preference for singular they should be noted and then occasional use of singular they in the article, with the article mostly using the person's surname. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) gnu: neither Pearl poet nor Cleveland Torso Murderer use singular they, and I don't see it in the edit history, either. Is this an actual issue?

As to C, my proposal was meant to apply only to where there's consensus to use they; the MoS should not give a general recommendation on using it, only advice on how to use it when there's consensus for it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion—those were the first unknown-gender people who occurred to me, and I was pleased to see that their articles handled pronouns so well. I have come across a number of articles that use B or otherwise mishandle things: I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration uses 'they'; aXXo and Satoshi Nakamoto switch from 'they' to 'he'; John Doe (Panama Papers' whistleblower) uses 'he', even though the sources I checked don't. Cheers, gnu 57 05:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess we've got another situation on our hands. It should probably be handled in a separate discussion, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, one of my rewrites of the P-orridge article actually did avoid pronouns, but someone later came long and they-ified it, and sometimes someone re-injects the s/he stuff. I don't have enough interest or time to watch list it closely, but anyway, it was actually fine without pronouns. It just said "P-orridge" a lot. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

There's actually bios on Wikipedia that deliberately avoid using male & female pronouns? GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It makes sense to me for unknown authors, serial killers, and the like—if the person's gender is unknown/disputed among scholars, then it's reasonable to avoid 'he'. Cheers, gnu 57 22:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

If the gender is known, then we should use it. As for the subject of the article not wanting to be identified as a 'he' or 'she' or neither & Wikipedia having to go along with that? that's taking it too far. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

GoodDay: that'd be a subject of a separate discussion; there's no consensus for that view, so this discussion is about dealing with the consensus we do have. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"If the gender is known, then we should use it" – That doesn't actually stand to reason, since writing better sentences can usually avoid any need for a pronoun. In a longer piece, where this might be tedious, it can at least be minimized to immediate-referent cases that flow like natural English instead of awkward constructions like we often end up with in TG articles (which are harder to rewrite, though I've done it in at least one case). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The answer can't always be "recast", though. We can try at least to mitigate the confusion and dispusion with a hatnote, à la {{User:Curly Turkey/Template:Use pronoun}}:

etc. It's in my user space, but anyone who think they know what they're doing is free to modify it (including renaming it or moving it into template space).

Of course, something like this should be used only where there's consensus to use a pronoun in an article in a potentially unexpected way. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

At articles for non-binary people, we should also keep in mind that a non-binary person may not use gender-neutral pronouns. Ruby Rose for, example, identifies as genderfluid, but still uses feminine pronouns. We had people jumping to use singular they for her without knowing her pronoun preference (and some seemingly did so even while knowing it). If the non-binary person hasn't expressed a pronoun preference, it might be best to go by the pronouns that the preponderance of reliable sources are using for that person. Although Miley Cyrus has identified as genderfluid, her Wikipedia article still uses feminine pronouns. This seems to be due to the fact that Cyrus didn't specify a pronoun preference and the preponderance of reliable sources still refer to her as a she. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Leading and trailing ellipses

A discussion is being had at my talk page over this edit [[6]] over whether or not it is common practice to add ellipses to incomplete quotes [[7]]. So what is the correct MOS?Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Which isn't even the question. Let's try this again: Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven made these reverts od edits in which I had removed the leading ellipses in quotes, à la:

The report however found that "....anti-Israel attitudes are not, as a general rule, antisemitic ... [rest of quote omitted]"

==> The report however found that "anti-Israel attitudes are not, as a general rule, antisemitic ... [rest of quote omitted]"

I noticed years ago that copyeditors at FAC and elsewhere remove these leading and trailing ellipses, and doing so makes sense to me (I even thought it was in the MoS). I thought this was standard practice at Wikipedia. After all, we don't do this:

The critic found the film "... moving ...", yet found it nonetheless "... flawed ..." in ways that "... ultimately spoiled ..." it.

... which would be plain obnoxious and inhibit readability. The MoS even gives the example Siskel and Ebert called the film "interesting but heart-wrenching"., which seems to me to parallel the example above.

What advice can the MoS folk here give? Should I stop making these changes? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

No. Having ellipses at the beginning or end of quotes is almost always pointless - we're almost never going to be quoting the entire source, so of course there's something before or after that's being omitted. See for example APA Style Blog. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The only instance where I think it's useful is when the quoted portion itself constitutes a full sentence yet it's not in fact the complete sentence as originally written, and particularly if there's a preceding sentence that we're also quoting. So, taking the example text in that APA Style link, I'd say it's acceptable to write: One theory of exceptional employee behavior posits: "Stars have disproportionately high and prolonged performance, visibility, and relevant social capital, and there are minimum thresholds for each ..." (Because we're omitting "that must be attained to be a star" from the end of the original text.) And even more so if the previous sentence from the original text were included. JG66 (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that in your examples the ellipses should be omitted. I'm not sure we need to make an official rule about it; I can imagine circumstances where emphasizing the fact that some additional text has been omitted would be useful. But most of the time, we should use ellipses in quotes only when stuff in the middle gets dropped. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with omitting them, except when they're useful for indicating that important context is missing, and for the special case that JG66 outlines. Doing something like The critic found the film "... moving ...", yet found it nonetheless "... flawed ..." in ways that "... ultimately spoiled ..." it would be absurd. PS: "The report however found that "....anti-Israel attitudes" is wrong twice over; if there were a reason to include an ellipsis there, it would be three dots, and spaced. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Bolding of titles, and titles of redirects

Do we have a clear policy here? I can't see it.

Many articles, e.g. Apollo Command/Service Module cover two large and very notable topics, because it's clearer for the reader to describe both in one place (the implicit assumption is that everyone will want to read about both). In that case, should the two sub-article names within the overall article be bolded? Apollo Service Module redirects to Apollo Command/Service Module#Service Module, wherein Service Module is bolded.

AFAIR, this is our policy. But I can't find the canonical version of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

See also WP:ANEW Andy Dingley (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The lead says (wikilinks elided): The Apollo Command/Service Module (CSM) was one of two principal components of the United States Apollo spacecraft, used for the Apollo program which landed astronauts on the Moon between 1969 and 1972. The CSM functioned as a mother ship which carried a crew of three astronauts and the second Apollo spacecraft, the Lunar Module, to lunar orbit, and brought the astronauts back to Earth. It consisted of two parts: the conical Command Module, a cabin that housed the crew and carried equipment needed for atmospheric reentry and splashdown; and the cylindrical Service Module which provided propulsion, electrical power and storage for various consumables required during a mission.

This seems perfectly fine, under MOS:BOLDSYN. If the question is "should 'Service Module' also be boldfaced at first regular-prose occurrence at Apollo Command/Service Module#Service Module?", surely not since the heading is already "Service Module", in bold. Bolding it again would be pointlessly redundant. If the heading were something else, like "Additional module", then the bold would make sense, to draw the eye of the reader to what they are looking for if they arrived at that section via a direct link in another article, a disambiguation page, or an {{R to section}} redirect to it. Basically, MOS:BOLD compresses to "don't apply boldface without a good reason to do so". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't see anything in MOS:BOLDSYN that really clarifies this. These aren't alternate titles, they're sections.

WP:R#PLA seems to be very weak, in terms of support for it. But contains the statement, But insignificant or minor redirects can skip this: which leaves it wide open for anyone disruptive to revert at whim, just by claiming "it's only minor". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: We have WP:GAMING and WP:COMMONSENSE for a reason. It isn't credible that the command module and service module are "only minor" at the combined article on the Apollo command and service modules. And they are alternative titles, within the meaning of that guideline material, since the article covers both subjects (sub-subjects?) in one place. It's theoretically possible to write separate articles on these. A comparable example: Aphrodite's Giant is an alternative title, in this sense, for the article Cyprus cat. While, technically speaking, the former is a standardized breed and the latter is a free-breeding feral landrace from which the breed was developed, neither are perhaps notable enough alone for a split (or at least one of them is not, at present RS-coverage levels). The breed is arranged in the article as a subtopic (though I've proposed reversing this relationship on the talk page). In short, I think you're commingling the concepts of "subject" and "title". A title (and an alternative title) is a text string that gets you to particular page; it's not dispositive of whether the referent of the string is or could be a separate topic or is necessarily/by definition a subtopic and destined to stay that way. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Command/service module caps

That article sure is in need of some style work. It seems to cap just about everything, as its sources do not, starting with the title. No objection to the recommended bolding. Dicklyon (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I've done some work on case normalization. Please do let me know if you see any mistakes in that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I was about to post a warning here, to not rename the Apollo article without first discussing it. I decided not to, because that might be seen as taunting you with such a ridiculous possibility, also because even you surely wouldn't do such a thing. But then you went and did it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

When you went ahead with other editing here and elsewhere without responding to my suggestion, I figured you were not in disagreement that editing toward the guidance of MOS:CAPS would be a good thing. Please explain why you now object to and revert my changes in that direction. Do you seriously think that one can argue these are proper names, in light of their most commonly lowercase use in sources? Dicklyon (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

So I started an RM discussion: Talk:Apollo_Command/Service_Module#Requested_move_26_November_2018. Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Honorific Dewan Bahadur

I am copyediting Krishnalal Jhaveri and the lead starts

Diwan Bahadur Krishnalal Mohanlal Jhaveri (30 December 1868 – 15 June 1957)

I've poked around the MOS in several areas looking for guidance but am still at a loss. It looks weird as a link before the name but the link made it easy for me to understand what it means. Should this stay as is or should the sentence go something like

Krishnalal Mohanlal Jhaveri (30 December 1868 – 15 June 1957), known honorifically as Diwan Bahadur Krishnalal Mohanlal Jhaveri

If I am at the wrong place to ask, please point me to the right place. Thanks so much. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 01:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Even that's unnecessarily repetitive. Just stating toward the end of the lead section that his name is sometimes prefixed with Diwan Bahadur is sufficient. We're handling such things in this kind of way in other articles, e.g. at Nithyananda. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I see nothing wrong whatsoever with

Diwan Bahadur Krishnalal Mohanlal Jhaveri (30 December 1868 – 15 June 1957)

as long as the title has been formally conferred by the state and not just adopted by the individual or conferred by some non-governmental organisation. In terms of honours conferred by the British Empire, it's no different from adding "Sir" before a name or postnominals after it. It's a title, not an honorific. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Second that. Or you might say "He was awarded the title of Diwan Bahadur by the government of British India [with date if known]". We don't always start the article with "Sir" for knights. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Johnbod, Necrothesp Thank you. I will be changing it back to the original. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 23:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Johnbod, Yes, we do, for British knights. Always. No exceptions (unless they're honorary, Anglican clerics or have subsequently been granted a peerage, of course). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant, since he's not a British knight. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Margravate or Margraviate? Creeping neologism?

Fellow Wikipedians, can you help with the confusing use of these two words that refer to the same thing? Here is why:

In relation to the historic states (Länder) in the Holy Roman Empire, there is a number of articles on Wikipedia entitled, e.g. Margravate of Meissen and then others entitled, e.g. Margraviate of Brandenburg. The OED lists "Margravate" as the territory ruled by a Margrave. This is the historical and primary form in English of the German translation. If there is already an established word, Margravate, is it not confusing to introduce another expression, "Margraviate" for the same territorial definition by adding an "i", making it a secondary form? Moreover, in the case of Brandenburg, there is a map that refers to the "Margravate of Brandenburg", even though the article is entitled "Margraviate". The secondary form appears to stem from the adjective, "Margravial" or the female noble title, Margravine and seems to be an unnecessary Neologism or an error of usage.

I would like to suggest that, in the interests of uniformity and precision, the original English form of "Margravate" be applied throughout on en.wikipedia.

What are your views? Many thanks. --Po Mieczu (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I fear I lack the historical and linguistic perspective to understand why this is a MOS issues. E Eng 13:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

They are the same thing. Both forms are acceptable. Wikipedia does not select between two variants of the same English word. My only advice is to keep the spelling in a single article consistent, so use either "margravate" or "margraviate" thoughout the same article, don't switch between the two. By the way, "margraviate" is the earlier spelling, as explicitly explained in the OED, and probably comes from the French margraviat. DrKay (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I would go for margravate, since it's shorter, and most dictionaries prefer it. Adding the i serves no purpose. Make an exception for something for which RS consistently prefer the long version. DrKay's correct that this isn't the sort of thing MoS would have an individual line-item about; it's just another dictionary matter. General advice on all such matters: survey major dictionaries as a group (see list at WP:WikiProject English#Online tools) and use whatever the majority of them converge on as the first spelling to list or the primary entry. If all the British ones prefer one spelling and all the American ones prefer the other, then you have an MOS:ENGVAR matter on your hands. If most of them clearly prefer one spelling over the other, then the other is becoming obsolete. In spot-checking this one, I note that most major online dictionaries redirect margraviate to margravate, or list it as an alternative spelling if they have a separate page for it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR still recommends we use at least one standard national variety of English. It doesn't allow for a free-for-all, just that if two standard national varieties differ, we shouldn't fight over it, since neither is "more right". HOWEVER, it doesn't mean we have zero standards, and AFAICT, "margravate" is the preferred form in every national variety of English. Wikipedia does select between two variants of a word when all national varieties show such a preference. I think it would be fine, in the article titled margravate, to note the alternate forms, but since no one has demonstrated that the "margraviate" form is dominant in any particular relevant national variety of English, we should use the one to be most recognizable. MOS:COMMONALITY says, and I quote, "For an international encyclopaedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable." Again, while the margraviate form is known, margravate is the more common form in all varieties of English. --Jayron 32 18:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Using Comparative v.s. Absolute Adjectives (lower v.s. low)

I can't seem to find seem to find any notes on whether comparative (lower) or absolute (low) adjectives should be preferred in writing, such as "the study found that the treatment produced low levels of anxiety" versus "the study found that the treatment produced lower levels of anxiety". To me it would make sense to prefer comparative forms of adjectives since they imply a previously mentioned, and ideally specific, reference for basis. On the other hand, absolute forms imply a general basis which is less likely to be consistent between readers and has a better chance of leading to ambiguity. Of course not every adjective has both of these forms, for example good is a word but "gooder" is generally not considered a word, but in cases where such cases both exist I think it would make sense to prefer the comparative forms. —The Editor's Apprentice (Talk•Edits) 22:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't this depend on the context? They generally mean different things. For instance, "low levels of anxiety" and "lower levels of anxiety" are not necessarily the same—lower could just be lower than very high. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the two forms do have different meanings. I guess I'm also proposing that phrasing be written in a way to always supply a baseline and use comparatives. As I mentioned, my main problem with using phrases such as "low levels of anxiety" is that its unclear what low means more generally, and a persons own experience is likely to have a large influence. —The Editor's Apprentice (Talk•Edits) 22:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Have a read of Adjective#Comparison it may clarify things for you. (BTW, there may not be "gooder", but there is "better".) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The section seems to give a good overview of the subject, and made me realize that I incorrectly used the word absolute in the context of linguistics, oops. It doesn't see, to answer my overall question though about preference, only meaning. You are correct are correct about "gooder" and "better", I probably could have found a better example, in mind I guess then seperate but related. —The Editor's Apprentice (Talk•Edits) 23:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Unicode representation of non-breaking space

In wikitext, non-breaking spaces are represented by the html entity "& nbsp;" the template:nbsp. the resulting wikitext could be hard to decipher. Maybe the relevant Unicode Character U+237D “⍽” (Shouldered Open Box) of the Miscellaneous Technical block could be used instead for wikitext legibility and replaced by mediaWiki to the correct nbsp?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

No, that thing is too difficult to type. And don't suggest adding it to the characters that can be clicked on in the wikitext editors, because those characters are often outside the window when you need them. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The functionality could be present anyway. I use copy-paste, not U+xxx. I didn't think of the char set below the editor, "& nbsp;" is in /wiki markup/ (and could even be replaced by ⍽ to gain some space), ◌ is also in /symbols/.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Erm, this isn't really an issue for the MoS so much as one of a technical nature. And if you're concerned about readability of the wiki markup, then it seems that what you really want is the editor to find instances of {{nbsp}} or   and then to display them as this box character. It probably would be more readable, but there are an awful lot of little issues that would immediately pop up. Maybe WP:VPT is a better place to ask. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep, thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

nbsp has relatively narrow uses and the last thing we need is a magic character to confuse newbies. At least   and {nbsp} can be looked up in the same place you look up hundreds of other things. `E Eng 19:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

MOS:OUR

MOS:OUR also is a shortcut to the same section as MOS:WE. Perhaps it should be addded to the shortcuts box at the target. 188.143.76.147 (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't see why not. —The Editor's Apprentice (Talk•Edits) 22:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind that some of these section have dozens of shortcuts; we shouldn't try to list all of them. Generally, more than two is too many. "OUR" might be a good addition in this case of "lecturing" style that over-uses it, especially in mathematics textbooks and other such materials; it actually does creep into our articles fairly often. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Commonwealth English

The manual now directs editors: "For topics with strong ties to Commonwealth of Nations countries and other former British territory(sic), use Commonwealth English, largely indistinguishable from British English in encyclopedic writing" and "Commonwealth English" is linked via redirect to English in the Commonwealth of Nations where we learn that there is no such animal as "Commonwealth English" but, rather many varieties of English. The direction is, therefore, meaningless, purposeless and of no assistance to editors. I recommend its deletion. We oughtn't to send editors on a wild goose chase. sirlanz 10:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

As spectacles go this should be a good one. Gladiators, ready! Christians, ready! Lions, ready! E Eng 12:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Don't you mean glasses, not spectacles? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
That's the spirit! E Eng 13:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I've never heard of any such thing called Commonwealth english. I speak Canadian english, though; assuming there's such a thing as Canadian english. GoodDay (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I've also never heard of "Commonwealth English" before, and I definitely speak New Zealand English. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the term "Commonwealth English" is meaningless. I also agree with deletion, as proposed by sirlanz. Doremo (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
There are two broad English macro-varieties; American English and everything else. The "everything else" is basically British English, but that isn't polite to say, so we call it Commonwealth English. I think that's a reasonable way to express it. --Trovatore (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
As I understand it, the term "Commonwealth English" is used to describe those dialects of English (largely the former Commonwealth countries) which share spelling conventions with eachother. The term is employed since most speakers of it are not "British", and since English has been made somewhat indigineous by this point, it is as much a local language in these places as other languages are. As such, the term is an umbrella term to which dialects of English such as Australian English, New Zealand English, Indian English, Hong Kong English, Nigerian English, etc broadly belong. It is sometimes referred to as "British English", but I would say there is merit in the distinction since it separates the broad 'family of dialects' form 'the form of English spoken in Britain' and the distinction is a useful one at times. I disagree with the deletion. Kdm852 (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
It has never been in general press usage (I checked via Newspapers.com, so it is strictly Wiki-speak, but I believe it is useful. Keep it. Doesn't hurt anything, unless I am missing some of the argument. You might define it as those people who turn to the Oxford dictionary and not Webster's for spelling. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
If it's strictly Wiki-speak, it could be rephrased as "Wiki Commonwealth English" to clarify its status as a non–real-world term. If it's Oxford dictionary English, then it stipulates using ‑ize spellings as default, among other conventions. Doremo (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- It is definitely not "strictly Wiki-speak". I am not a linguist and can't attest whether linguists use it, but it was used all over the place in alt.usage.english. --Trovatore (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Kdm852 has it right. The MoS needs to make it clear that what it means by "Commonwealth English" is Commonwealth orthography. There's one, broad USEng orthography despite the variety of spoken USEng dialects, and that's what we mean when we slap a {{Use American English}} template at the top of the page. If we use the term "Commonwealth English", it's only because we haven't found a broadly-accepted term for this non-USEng/non-CanEng orhtography (and its Oxford variant).
Proposal: replace all relevant instances of "Commonwealth English" with "Commonwealth orthography" (or "non-Canadian Commonwealth orthography", if you're really afraid about WP:BEANS). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- If the -ise spelling is desired, the term ought to be "non-Canadian non-Oxford Commonwealth orthography". Doremo (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  - Unless -ise is considered the default and -ize the Oxford variant. Can someone please come up with a name for the non-CanEng/non-AmEng English orthography that uses -ise? We know we're talking about, we just lack a name for it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    - English English? :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      - I often casually call it "Cambridge English" in contrast to "Oxford English" (both being understood as types of British English), but even that is a misnomer because Cambridge dictionaries also give ‑ize spellings as primary. Doremo (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      - Frankly, the most honest label would probably be "Anti-American English" because what we're talking about is a BrE variant that exploits the available options in BrE (‑ise/‑ize, variable serial comma, variable date format, etc.) in order to be as most unlike AmE as possible. (I should add that this is not my original idea; it was mentioned to me by a British linguist.) Doremo (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
        That's not far from the truth; the primary "bastion" of the -ise style is British journalism in particular, which clearly does go out of its way to diverge from American newswriting as much as possible and still be intelligible (on punctuation, acronyms, and many other things). Perhaps unfortunately, the British press also do not unify their style. There's no UK or Commonwealth English equivalents of the AP Stylebook (followed by about 95% of American news publishers). The British news publisher each have their own house style, and it conflicts on many things (e.g., there are at least twelve published sets of British "rules" for punctuating and the end of a quotation, and even some that converge on the same output do so by accident, offering completely different rationales for how they got there).
        On the broader question: "I've never heard of ..." – See WP:IDONTKNOWIT, and see also the link provide to explain the term in case it's not familiar to someone (and boy is your head asplode when you encounter the concept of world Englishes. Heh.) Basically, it's the WP:COMMONALITY principle in different wording (and narrowed very slightly). If we should seek commonality between American and "not-American", between North American and Commonwealth, we obviously – even more obviously – should be seeking it between the English of England and Northern Ireland and Hong Kong and Belize and New Zealand. Don't write (here or, if you're sensible, anywhere else) in colloquialisms in a desperate attempt to sound more Irish or Singaporean or South African. Formal, written English in virtually all Commonwealth nations (aside from Canada), plus Ireland which actually isn't one, is barely distinguishable. And when it is, it's usually just due to over-use of "regional flavour" wording that can be easily replaced with something understood by everyone.
        PS: Canada isn't consistent on much of anything, including -ise. All usage in Canada is a continuum, with trends changing (often in conflicting directions) when examining urban to rural usage, and when moving east to west or vice versa. One of the Canadian dictionary projects has been doing surveys (I forget the frequency, maybe once per decade) and they don't show that written usage in the dialect is solidifying much. Some Canadians lean British on everything, others lean way more American, and on average it's a mixed bag, with a lot of -re and -our but less -ise and -mme that one might expect. This isn't actually terribly different from American and Nigerian English (for example); both of them preserve some features considered archaic in British English, and reject as archaic some things used in the latter, plus have their own innovations; not only does it vary widely at a sub-national level, the direction any particular wording or other usage matter will go is very close to random. Canada's not any different in that regard.
        — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
        
        Sure, but you're talking (at absurd length) at cross purposes. The OP and several were confused because the MoS did not make it clear it was talking about orthography—so the simple solution is to make that explicit: avoid saying simply "Commonwealth English" in favour of "Commonwealth [English] orthography". That there are intra-ENGVAR variations is not at issue. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
        Works for me. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Style-related RM discussions

Is there any appropriate and neutral place to list MOS-related RM discussions, to bring in editors who care about such things to balance the topic-area fans who often don't? Would it be appropriate to list them or call for more eyeballs here on WT:MOS? Dicklyon (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Could try it and see. Wikiprojects have sometimes held RMs on their own talk pages, and predictably gotten almost no input but their own. WT:MOS is one of the most watchlisted guideline talk pages on the whole system, so it's definitely likely to get broader input. But it could get tedious and distracting if it were done frequently, so probably better reserved for multi-RMs. Also, maybe try one of the naming-conventions talk pages, when there's an NC that covers the matter in question, e.g. WT:NCCAPS for capitalization-related RMs. Another approach is to multi-list things that are the same sort of case but not in the same category, and not all in fields prone to over-capitalization. That should help draw in something more diverse than a bloc vote. Sometimes that can fail if the alleged rationales for the capitals are very different. I've found it helpful to keep a running topical log of RM results, though only for one topic area and it's rather tedious to do it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, for the 4 open CAPS-related ones I see, I made a list with links at Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions (capitalization)#Capitalization discussions ongoing. Dicklyon (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

! We should have done this years ago here, too. I misunderstood "place to list MOS-related RM discussions" as "place to create their listings", i.e. place to host the discussions. I didn't realize you'd meant "place to keep a list of them". Doing the latter would actually be less tedious than our usual practice of adding a new thread to just point to another discussion. Why did no one think of this before? I made a version (below) for this page, and added some stuff to it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

RGloucester suggests developing a template for this. What would we want it to do? Float bottom-right? Top right? Be a centered list at the top of the page kind of like a wikiproject banner? Be the same at page bottom? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I actually made one, though I won't claim it to have been of any superior design. Given you reverted its inclusion, I've requested it be deleted...perhaps someone with more skill can make something prettier. I do, however, believe that a template is the best approach for this... RGloucester — ☎ 21:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

RGloucester Sorry about that; I didn't see the {{Bulletin board}} bit you'd done in that edit, just the reversion of the original list. Given that the template's already been deleted, I'm not sure exactly what it did, though I would guess it's along the same lines as Cinderella157 (below) and I were thinking. Apologies for not paying closer attention. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish has added a section on this page as a log of such discussions. SMcCandlish, in a hidden note, suggested there my be alternative ways to log such discussions but (IMO) the section below is a start. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history has a header of "open tasks" (ie a log). I would suggest something similar for here. The actual list might be kept on a transcluded page(s). This could then act as a log of past (closed) discussions as well as active discussions. I am raising this concept for discussion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID

Could we look at adding some words to the MOS:GENDERID to "Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources" to overlook self-designations made as a joke or for mischief. We have just seen an edit war on changing the gender from male to female and back again on Barry O'Sullivan following some political banter where he declared himself to be a woman saying nobody would question his right to have an opinion on abortion if he became a woman. He had previously made similar remarks saying he would become a woman so he could use women's toilets. A number of people (whether well-intended or mischievous) justified changing the pronouns in the article using MOS:GENDERID on the basis of this "self-designation". Could we add some words to say if the self-designation is suspected to be not genuine (e.g. a joke or mischief), consensus should be established on the relevant Talk page before embarking on gender changes in the article or edit warring over them. In this particular case, the Senator's own web page was at no time updated in relation to the senator's self-identification and continued to use male pronoun. Kerry (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

careful... we do not want to open the door to Wikipedians passing judgment on the “validity” of someone’s identity. The fact that O’Sullivan’s webpage has not been updated (yet) is telling... however, what do we do if it is eventually updated? Even if an expression of gender is politically motivated, I think we would have to respect the subject’s wishes, and use “her” desired pronoun. Blueboar (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

All the more argument for waiting and seeing how the matter unfolds before rushing in and misleading readers (as per WP:BREAKING). Kerry (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Dangerous joking for a politician from Queensland. E Eng 02:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Kerry. Clearly not a genuine transgender case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This issue has arisen previously with similar political stunt by Lauren Southern (see discussion). Contra Blueboar, Wikipedians absolutely should question the validity of this kind of transphobic provocation. Maybe an explicit clarification is warranted, but I don't think that any reliable sources actually took O'Sullivan or Southern seriously, so editors who were citing MOS:GENDERID were probably misinterpreting those policies. Nblund^talk 04:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I really, really don't think this is an MoS matter. It's a WP:V and WP:UNDUE stuff (i.e., it's about WP's credulity at what a subject is saying, and whether we've checked what the RS reactions to it are), and also a WP:NOT#NEWS matter (we have no reason to respond to "breaking stories" about which little substantive analysis has been done in independent and genuinely secondary RS – and "was in a newspaper" doesn't make it automatically secondary). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Nblund that those citing MOS:GENDERID were probably misinterpreting it. Given that this misinterpretation has lead to an edit war and article protection, I think that clarifying the MOS would be helpful. Yaris678 (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

One incident in all these years isn't a good justification for adding wording that's already a WP:Common sense matter. WP content is based on the core content policies, which does not collectively treat jokes and marketing hoaxes and other nonsense as reliable sourcing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Invoking WP:NOT here is not useful. We can't just remove someone's pronouns from an article completely. There are only two options: we follow MOS:GENDERID, or we don't. At the very least, MOS:GENDERID should not prescribe any usage, in order to avoid these scenarios. You said that this is common sense, but it is only common sense, and it contradicts the one and only relevant PAG. So much trouble was went through to create MOS:TM, which is supposed to be common sense. And if MOS:GENDERID fails in this situation, it doesn't look like a very serious guideline. Note that this is not the first case of a lengthy discussion about such a prank or whatever, as others have mentioned above. We want to avoid unnecessary discussions wherever possible, so that attention can be given to time-consuming discussions about including lists of victims on every article about a crime. Especially if it's something as simple as Do not follow self-identification if it is seriously contested in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. This could apply to every self-identification dispute, not just about gender. We really don't want to be worse than every style guideline there is, so we should make it clear that we do not allow spam. wumbolo ^^^ 16:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed revision of MOS:HEAD

A recent discussion on section headings showed that some of the restrictions on section headings at MOS:HEAD are "hard" (typically having technical basis, not subject to override by consensus), and some are "soft" (might admit to an occasional exception). To clarify which are which I propose reorganizing and revising the "heading should" list at MOS:HEAD as follows.

Section headings should:

Be unique within a page (otherwise section links may lead to the wrong place, and edit summaries may be ambiguous).

Not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked.

Not contain images or icons.

Not contain <math> markup.

Not contain citations or footnotes.

Not use ";" (description list) markup to create pseudo-headings.

These restrictions are necessary to avoid technical complications, and are not subject to override by local consensus or WP:IAR.
In addition, as a matter of consistent style section headings should:

Not redundantly refer back to the subject of the article (Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life), or to a higher-level heading, unless doing so is shorter or clearer.

~~Not start with a number (other than a year).~~ [Amended 2 Dec. per discussion]

Not be numbered or lettered as an outline.

Not be phrased as a question.

Avoid use of color or unusual fonts that might cause accessibility problems.

These are broadly accepted community preferences. Occasional exceptions may apply; these should be discussed on the article's Talk page.

♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Why? No-one in that discussion was receptive to you, as you were clearly also not being receptive to the people who answered your question. --Izno (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Quite an amazing characterization, which I dispute. In the prior discussion I had a specific question, which got bandied about. In the course of that discussion it was evident that some of the the MOS:HEAD restrictions are possibly mutable (might allow an occasional exception), and some are pretty solidly immutable. What I am proposing is to make this clearer. No change of policy, nor even expressions of broadly accepted standards, is intended. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Everything in guidelines is possibly mutable; it's explicit in the definition of "guideline" at WP:P&G. We don't need to spell this out for each and every guideline line-item, or even on every guideline page (especially since the guideline banner at the top of the page reiterates already). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I like it. There's a difference between a rule with technical implications and one that's purely style, and it is by no means obvious which is which.

I would drop "these should be discussed on the article's talk page." It's redundant - the path to consensus needn't be any different for this than for anything else in Wikipedia. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Possible exceptions certainly should be discussed. I take the underlying issue to be whether such discussions be done at the article Talk page, or here. I am slightly inclined towards doing so at the more particular level, but don't see any great problem doing it here. As a matter of clear guidance, do we prefer one way or the other? Or does it matter? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It would be at the article talk page most likely, because some IAR claim is going to be highly local to the particular topic. If someone wants to try to demand an exception for an entire class of articles, they're likely engaging in a WP:CONLEVEL failure, and even if they're not, it would likely be an MoS-level discussion (like, do we need to rewrite this line-item to account for X?) So, I agree with removing the instruction about discussion. "some exceptions may apply" automatically implies a discussion, but where the discussion should happen is going to vary. We don't even need to say "some exception may apply" at all, since MoS's lead already says this, as does the definition of "guideline" at WP:P&G. Re-re-including it here is pedantic and seems engineered to pander to dispute-mongering. We never need to say "some exceptions may apply" with regard to any single line-item in any guideline, and I can't think of a reason to do so that doesn't boil down to "make it easier for me to manufacture conflict". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

This fails to do what it sets out to do. E.g., not using color is a technical accessibility matter just like not using links in headings. "Not start with a number (other than a year)" is an over-statement. What it really means is "don't number the headings". There are other reasons a heading might start with a number, the most obvious being a proper name that begins with one such as 3M Corporation. There is no reason for a WP article's heading to be phrased as question, ever. Implying that's just some optional "style" concern for people to fight about is wrong. Not abusing description-list markup for headings is a technical matter and a style matter but is not a "hard" technical restriction, it's just ignorant (or willfully stupid and lazy) abuse of the wrong markup. And so on. I share ~~J. Johnson's~~ Izno's concern that the previous discussion of this doesn't show support for the idea. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC); revised: 21:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: I think you mean my concern, as JJ is the one putting forth this proposal. --Izno (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, yes. My eyeballs are in revolt again. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering why there was an objection to "starting with a number". Because editors have tried to explicitly number sections? Okay, and perhaps that needs a better, more explicit formulation, and even a bit of explanation.

Please note that I am not quibbling about any of these restrictions (except for being unclear or under explained), or their possible mutability. What I am proposing is that we clarify some of this, so that (e.g.) "3M" doesn't get the same knee-jerk, adamantine rejection as including gif files.

And please note (as I already said): the previous discussion was on a specific restriction, while this proposal is about reorganizing the list of restrictions. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've already outlined why the reorganization doesn't seem on point. As for the numbers thing, it probably would be easier to just say "do not number the headings". I would think that is the rationale for the rule being in there (it pre-dates even my time here, but I'm hard pressed for why else it would be there). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, it seems like a reasonable explanation. And an example of why some of these reasons should be explained. Though instead of "do not number" (pretty broad) I would say something like "section headings should not be numbered or lettered as done with outlines", as it gives a more specific focus, and even suggests a reason ("because these are not outlines"). ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep. It also thwarts WP:GAMING that "A.", "B.", "C." isn't strictly numbering. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. At the very least I think we should make that revision. Is that okay with you? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Certainly, though I tend to wonder if there's some other "starting with a number" case this was meant to address. I'm trying to think of an objectionable one and it's not coming to mind. We already have a principle to not write things like "3rd term in office" or "3 singles released" (use spelled-out words for small numbers). I can't see any problem with a heading like "47 fatalities reported", since we'd write "47" in mid-sentence, too. I don't have any objection to someone preferring a heading of "Forty-seven fatalities reported", but it doesn't seem rule-worthy. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, again. This case also illustrates how some of these rules are "soft", not having any "bright line" as to what should, or should not, be, in contrast to rules that are pretty definite, like being unique, and not including <math> markup. Distinguishing these allows for discussion as and when needed for the soft rules, while making a stronger assertion of the hard rules. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: Given no objection, might as well proceed with something like a "Not be numbered or lettered in outline style" tweak (or whatever wording you like better, but I'm going for tight, and using the format of the original partial-sentence list). If there really is some other "We had the broader wording because X" reason, I'm sure it'll come up soon enough. I note the absence of an objection from EEng, who watchdogs rule creep even more than I do (presumably, in this case, because it's actually a creep reduction, a narrowing). My compressed version is also about the same length as the original "Not start with a number (other than a year)" and less parsing-complex. PS: If anyone wonders whether we even need such a rule, yes we do. Several times per year I encounter stubs and obscure-topic non-stub articles written in numbered outline form, and they're pretty common in draft-space. We don't have a common problem with it in mainspace because we have a rule against it (albeit one that could be clearer). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

absence of an objection from EEng – Honestly I was leaving this one to you, haven't been following. E Eng 07:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I've made that change (slightly tweaked) to the proposal. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Generally support, but what is the technical problem with " Not use ";" (description list) markup to create pseudo-headings." which I have sometimes used to give a "header" to galleries for example? Johnbod (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

To take a wild guess: does that kind of markup cause problems when converted to a URL? Also, is such a pseudo-heading a fake in that it is not really a heading, not appearing in the TOC? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Ah, I should have asked: did you search the archives? I see about a hundred hits for "pseudo-heading", some of them fairly recent in related topics. But while that's something I think we should better document, I would suggest that my proposal to re-organize this list does not require perfection of the listed items; it can be taken as a useful first step. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I hadn't, but I have now. I'm still rather unclear as to if there actually is a problem - I don't think people should be able to jump to galleries from the TOC really, so that's fine by me. I suppose I can just use 3' in the normal way. Whilst I'm at it, I have been known to phrase section names as a question, but very rarely, which still seems acceptable per the draft. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that "headers as questions" is necessarily acceptable, only that they might be discussable. As to gallery names (and without getting into whether they should be linkable): are they perhaps excluded on the basis of not being a section header (title)? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's what one could argue, but I can see the opposite being argued too. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, no quick resolution there, so I say we leave that rule as-is until someone wants to argue otherwise. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps more the point, it's already been discussed. These are really old rules, especially the one on not posing questions to readers. It's a primary- and secondary-school pedagogical style, not an encyclopedic one. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

To stuff years of pseudo-headings-with-definition-list-markup discussion all into one paragraph: The ; markup is simply the wrong markup, and using it for pseudo-headings or other typographic boldfacing produces invalid HTML which is an accessibility problem, a content re-use issue, an impediment to our plodding migration toward HTML 5, etc., etc. The fact that MediaWikia happens to render that in boldface is random accident, a completely arbitrary stylesheet decision someone made a long time ago, and which we could undo (and arguably should). The markup simply doesn't exist for boldfacing, but for presenting a term to be defined by an item immediately following it with : markup. There's an open ticket on Phabricator to have MW be smart enough to do something else (like a boldfaced div) when a ; line isn't followed by a : one (or another ; one – it's valid to have two or more terms with one definition or vice versa). But that ticket has been open for more than a decade, and the devs simply are not working on it. Our abuse of : (the <dd> element) on talk pages is a lost cause for now (though fixable the same way, but using a div that does a CSS indent). But we shouldn't abuse : or ; (<dt>) in actual articles, the real content. It's a bit like covering your car in shit and calling it brown paint. >;-) Anyway, we have a template for doing pseudoheadings, and they can also be done manually by just writing a line and boldfacing it. It's not like avoiding D-list markup abuse is denying any ability to any editor. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

In reviewing this discussion I see that I did not respond Mac's comment of 30 Nov. about the last sentence of the proposal, "Occasional exceptions may apply...." While I think it would be better to include it (even if it is repetitive), I am fine with striking it.

There is a question regarding "psuedo-headings", but that would be best considered in a separate, specifically focused discussion.

@SMcCandlish: as the principal critic here, do you now find this proposal for reorganizing the list acceptable? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

There isn't any question (in the community at large) about pseudo-headings. We've been over this again and again. The desire to save a few characters by doing ;Foo instead of '''Foo''' cannot surmount all the arguments against misusing inapplicable HTML elements to simply force a typographic effect (which could simply go away, anyway – there's nothing intrinsic to the <dt> element that makes it boldface. It's pure whim.) Use the right markup for the job. Anyway, I don't really care what order this list gets put in, I just think the technical versus non-technical distinction is artificial and misleading. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I think there is potential question on the nature of whatever problem is caused by pseudo-headings, but it's not a question we need to be concerned about here and now.

Granting that you think the technical/non-technical distinction artificial and even misleading, could you accept trying it out for a while? If at some future date we find it has been misleading, and less useful than the prior form, we can always go back. Okay? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

On the basis that these changes are not a big, burning issue, and arguably an incremental improvement, I have boldly made the change. Some of the individual points could use more clarification, but that is outside the scope of this change. If after a year or a year or so we find this reorganization of the list causes any problems we can always undo it, but let's give it run and see how it goes. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Strong national ties

Perhaps people are sick of the subject, but looking back through the archives I can't really find anything that clearly explains it. What are "strong national ties"? The examples currently given at MOS:TIES are things like cities, founders of countries, major national events, and so on, but I've recently been informed that "citizenship is by definition a strong national tie, unless the subject has emigrated" and therefore the correct style for all articles about American citizens is American date/spelling style. And apparently this applies to all American subjects, from American companies to American radio shows. I've always tried to go by MOS:RETAIN, but if strong national ties are that broad apparently that can be overridden across immense swathes of Wikipedia. I'm not saying we necessarily need to completely define "strong national ties", but it would be great if we could also have some examples of what they aren't. --tronvillain (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I gather your question is prompted by your edit here [8] which was reverted -- for obvious reasons. Someone whose bio opens "was an American X", and whose entire career as given in the article was in the US (birth and death aren't discussed) certainly has strong American ties. Before we reopen this can of worms I would say we'll need actual examples of controversies that would be avoided by a change to MOS. Certainly this particular example is obvious on its face. E Eng 23:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it? If we're saying that MOS:RETAIN is overridden any time someone is born and works in the US (or say, a movie is made and first released in the US), that's great and I'm happy to have clear guideance, but then it would be helpful if MOS:TIES was a lot more clear about it. --tronvillain (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting RETAIN's phrase with few exceptions to mean with unusual exceptions. There are few reasons to not just go with RETAIN, but those reasons apply quite commonly. Probably 90% of modern biographies, 75% of historical biographies, and 97% of geography articles have strong national ties, for example. I'm still waiting for examples of actual controversy about this, on actual articles. In the absence of that, it seems to me the guidance is already clear enough. E Eng 23:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of American ENGVAR articles with DAY-MONTH-YEAR date formatting—military articles, in particular—so this isn't really a TIES issue. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Though according to what I'm seeing here, those are wrong? Presumably with the exception of the military articles, given that the US military apparently uses DMY. --tronvillain (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

US military articles use DMY as a special exception to the general rule that US articles use MDY -- see MOS:DATETIES. E Eng 17:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, the existing examples of "strong national ties" are cities, wars, government organizations, and a single person who was founder of the relevant country. If, in fact, the consensus is that strong national ties include simply being born and living in a specific country, why not say that? --tronvillain (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Because it's blindingly obvious. E Eng 17:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"simply being born and living in a specific country" is pretty much the long and short version of "strong ties". Is this some sort of prank? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Depends on the scope of the "living". My sister was born in the UK and spent her first 5 years there, but has very little memory of it and spent the next 37 years in the southern US. She has no strong national tie to the UK. I'd be wary of an over-generalization that someone might use to, say, force BrEng on a Brazilian native because they spent four years at Oxford University before going back to Brazil. Not a strong national tie. But, yeah, if someone lived in the UK primarily or entirely during their period of notability, then the strong national tie is really obvious. E.g. Alex Pagulayan should be in Canadian English despite him being originally from the Philippines (which has ties to American English), because he moved to Canada and has dual citizenship. His specific, personal ties to Canada override vague ties of the US and its English to the Philippines. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The case being discussed was someone who apparently never left the US in his life. E Eng 14:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

EEng, I overlooked your link to the 'case', is the discussion about application of the MOS or the document itself? cygnis insignis 16:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. What "document" do you mean? E Eng 18:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

EEng, the MOS cygnis insignis 19:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I guess the discussion is about both MOS and its application, but I think we're done. If you're born, live, and die in nation X you have strong ties there. E Eng 02:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

"In other projects" v. in-article project link boxes

There was a time when the "In other projects" section on the left panel didn't exist and so say an article for an animal had corresponding content on Wikimedia Commons and Wikispecies, it was standard to place boxes on the bottom-right of the article to link readers to this content. Now that the "In other projects" section exists, shouldn't we avoid redundancy by removing these in-article boxes linking to other projects? (For an example, see Cressida cressida). Ypna (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that addition to the sidebar before I saw mention of it recently. Is there a page somewhere that explains how the "In other projects" sidebar works? I looked at how it works at Sphinx (genus) and it seems to come through Wikidata, but I'm not sure. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it works the same way as interlanguage links. Wikimedia main page (Q5296) should be illustrative. --Izno (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

WP having multiple forms of navigation is by design. Many readers pay no attention at all to the left sidebar. The other-projects boxes are in-article content, that goes in "External links" sections (when present, otherwise just at the bottom of the article). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Commas after short introductory phrases

MOS:COMMA doesn't seem to directly address the non-use of commas after short introductory phrases (in non-ambiguous situations), e.g. In 1997 he went to Spain. instead of In 1997, he went to Spain. per the long discussion here: WT:Manual of Style/Archive 208 § Comma after date. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

What exactly are you proposing? I personally would never accept "In 1997 he went to Spain", as that doesn't align with how the sentence would be spoken, and is incredibly awkward. The two acceptable options are "In 1997, he went to Spain" and "He went to Spain in 1997", or something of that variety. I often find that, in Wikipedia writing especially, it is much better to move the date toward the end of a given sentence. Otherwise, one often ends up with the equivalent of a bulleted list-type timeline. For me, anyway, the flow of the prose is critical. RGloucester — ☎ 01:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Where in that discussion was a conclusion reached that anything was to be addressed in the MoS? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

MOS IS NOT A GUIDE TO BASIC ENGLISH WRITING MOS IS NOT A GUIDE TO BASIC ENGLISH WRITING MOS IS NOT A GUIDE TO BASIC ENGLISH WRITING MOS IS NOT A GUIDE TO BASIC ENGLISH WRITING MOS IS NOT A GUIDE TO BASIC ENGLISH WRITING MOS IS NOT A GUIDE TO BASIC ENGLISH WRITING. E Eng 02:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your learned advice. RGloucester — ☎ 02:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You'll get my bill. E Eng 02:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Should we add guidance to the effect that "comma is optional after short introductory phrase", as many grammar and usage guides do? Or is saying nothing enough? Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Saying nothing is certainly "enough" in my book. I do think, however, that such constructions should be used sparingly in encyclopaedic writing... RGloucester — ☎ 03:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The less said the better, so if we could say less than nothing that would be best of all. This isn't a matter of house style. It's just English. E Eng 03:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. And RGloucester and I will continue to add commas where they seem useful (and remove them where they're not, like here). Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a dirty job[comma optional here] but someone's gotta do it. E Eng 05:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The "construction" I was referring to is the following: "In 1922, something happened" or "On 2 November 1789, so and so and did such and such". Perhaps it's outside your usual editing area, but I have done much current events work. In many cases, editors read the latest news on a given day, and then add "On 2 November...", and successively "On 3 November...", &c., to articles. This produces list-like articles without real prose. One of the things that has consumed the most time for me in my copyediting work has been translating these lists into connected prose...getting rid of the very construction we're discussing. Perhaps it's covered by WP:PROSE, but I wish we had some more clear way to discourage such writing. RGloucester — ☎ 06:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I gave a poor example (with such a short right-hand side), but I don't think the shouting or image is warranted, and seemingly none of it addresses the issue, which is addressed in many leading style guides.

Let me put a finer point on it. Should commas be present or not after short introductory phrases? Is it correct/advisable/acceptable to remove or add commas after short introductory phrases as a single edit (without doing anything else)? It comes up occasionally (currently at Tina Turner), so I'm asking. I was told "not" several years ago here, so that's the style that I use when writing or performing other edits. I understand and agree that it's not a desirable style to start every sentence with "In year", but if I'm not going to (or can't properly) re-write complete articles when fixing other (still important) things, the guidance on how to punctuate the existing usage is necessary – especially whether to add or remove such commas without doing anything else in the name of "grammar". Please help. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You must forgive EEng. His above response is simply a part of his character, much as my use of commas is part of mine. As for commas, I think the consensus above is to do what you think is right in a given situation, based on the how the sentence reads. Unfortunately, this sort of thing is not black-and-white...it requires human input to decide what approach is better in a given case. Copyediting is not a mechanical enterprise...you should be willing to rewrite sentences that are awkward, rather than just adding or removing commas. Usually, rewriting is the best solution in such cases. RGloucester — ☎ 17:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. After all, It's not just a question of the number of words – I mean, getting them in the right order is just as important. E Eng 18:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

What I was emphasizing in my original response is that MOS only opines (or should only opine – it slips now and then) on "house style" points; that does not include questions of general English grammar and style, which are left to the editors of individual articles to work out. There's no universal answer to your question, whether inside or outside WP. E Eng 19:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

While it may seem "beneath" the MOS to some who may be professional or prolific writers, the issue is mentioned in leading style guides (~~details coming soon~~ examples below), and is a routine point of contention in Wikipedia, needing some form of guidance somewhere, if only to give editors something to cite for their decision if disputed (instead of having to dig through archives and paywalled external style guides).

We also seem to have detoured on a tangent about repetition of the same introductory phrase "In 1999[,]", which I can see being more of a matter of "proper writing style". However, I still think there are plenty of cases where a single instance of that type of construction is perfectly reasonable, like "As of 1999^[update][,] the fleet consisted of...".

I acknowledge that a hard rule about word count is not advisable (which is why I wrote "about five words", based on a source), but "short introductory phrase" and "unambiguous" (or similar) appears in many style guides, which typically include examples to help clarify the criteria. I believe we should do the same.

Some examples:

In CMoS 17:

6.31: Commas with adverbial phrases
Although an introductory adverbial phrase can usually be followed by a comma, it need not be unless misreading is likely. Shorter adverbial phrases are less likely to merit a comma than longer ones.
...
In 1931 Henrietta turned fifty.

6.33: Commas with introductory phrases
Whether to use a comma to set off an introductory phrase can depend on the type of phrase, its relationship to the rest of the sentence, and its length. For participial phrases, see 6.30. For adverbial phrases, see 6.31. Some cases involving specific words are discussed below (6.34 and 6.35). For dependent clauses, see 6.24.

6.38: Commas with dates
In the month-day-year style of dates, commas must be used to set off the year...
... [but are] unnecessary where month and year only are given ...
The performance took place on February 2, 2006, at the State Theatre in Ithaca.
...
Her license expires sometime in April 2021.
On Thanksgiving Day 1998 they celebrated their seventy-fifth anniversary.

6.54:
...
In Illinois there are seventeen such schools; in Ohio, twenty; in Indiana, thirteen.

The MLA says "Is a comma needed after a short introductory phrase? No. For more on when to include and omit commas, see our post." The examples in the referenced article shown no comma after an introductory "This evening" (which I believe is analogous to the present discussion).

(examples added, more to follow) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

If I wanted to, I could provide a bunch of style guides that do recommend general use of a comma in such cases. I won't, however, as it's a waste of time. There is no general consensus on this matter in RS, and there is no reason to straitjacket our editors. Such a rule would be unenforceable, and a waste of editorial time. Editorial judgement is required to determine whether a comma is necessary in any given case, and that's not even taking into account differences in comma use across the various national varieties of English. RGloucester — ☎ 22:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I originally learned, and would prefer, to use the comma, but that certainly doesn't matter. If it's a known point of contention, like English variety and dates, shouldn't it be mentioned in the same way, and have rules like MOS:RETAIN applied, instead of being almost silent on the issue? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

We're silent on this issue, because, as EEng said, it's a matter of basic English...and no one has demonstrated that there is a problem with the status quo. Do you have any examples of specific instances where this has been a problem on Wikipedia? Or, are you simply looking for things to fix that don't need fixing, which is what your original query implied? As I said, copyediting is not a mechanical enterprise. There is no need to use a machine to convert all such sentences to have a comma or not have a comma. Leave such things alone...and if you find a sentence awkward, rewrite it. RGloucester — ☎ 00:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe I stated that Tina Turner was the latest instance that brought me here, but that is only the most recent occurrence. I'm specifically not looking to go around fixing it, certainly not in any automated way, and certainly not by itself (i.e. not in the process of doing other work). I don't know why you would think that from what I've written here, or from my edit history, most of which is time-consuming, difficult, manual work, as has been the work I've put into this discussion for the purpose of saving time and hassle in the future for myself and others, so try to WP:AGF, please.

If you really need me to find a list of edit conflicts to prove it's a problem, I shall, but I think most people who went to grade school more than a couple of decades ago would tend to use commas in this situation, but those who use a CMoS- or MLA-inspired (etc.) style would not. That should be plenty of reason to mention it.

If it's a matter of basic English, can I at least get some consensus as to whether the examples from CMoS above are "correct", "incorrect", or "neither", and whether similar usage on WP should be "fixed" or left alone, and under what circumstances? Do I need an RFC or different venue to get wider input or proof that opinions vary? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

So, you removed a comma for no obvious reason, and then edit-warred to remove it again after you were reverted. That's exactly the type of thing we do not want anyone doing. The solution to this problem is MOS:RETAIN. Unless there is something wrong with a sentence from some other perspective (such as fluency), do not add or remove commas in the manner that you did. Both styles are acceptable, and neither one harms the integrity of the encylopaedia. There really is no question of 'correct' here, nor any black and white answer to your question, as was said above. Your search for such correctness is the heart of your present folly. Your edit summary at the time you made the relevant edits demonstrates that your attitude needs changing: 'Short intro phrases ("In 2004") are not followed by commas'. I think it should be obvious to you that any form of deterministic 'are not' statement is inappropriate in this case. Read the wording of the Chicago guide again. RGloucester — ☎ 06:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

"So, you removed a comma for no obvious reason, and then edit-warred to remove it again after you were reverted. That's exactly the type of thing we do not want anyone doing." Absolutely. That's just {{Trout}}-worthy, not only for the WP:POINTiness of it and the bikeshedding, but because it's removing clarity (and futureproofing against later inclarity as the material expands) to save one single character and suit a personal expediency preference. Well, how about no. — SMcCandlish ☏¢ 😼 12:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

No.

I originally replaced a grammatically incorrect sentence with a new one that starts "In 2004" without a following comma, as has been my style in recent years. A comma was added [9] by a now-blocked sock without explanation, which I reverted, believing I was on solid ground with no mention in the MOS and justification from the style guides I've quoted. Another editor then added the comma again with a summary of "correct grammar ...". However, I regret that I then reverted them before engaging them on their talk page. After re-reading that discussion, I've apologized for being gruff. In my defense, the fact that I was already concerned about socking (which turned out to be correct) probably influenced my decision to revert the second time. Also note that the editor reverted me again with the reason "...MOS:COMMA. Dates are followed by comma.", which is incorrect, as that guidance specifically applies to the "MD,Y," dates, not a year alone.

In summary: I added the content, reverted addition of a comma twice (which is not typically my practice), and then discussed it.

It also seems to keep getting overlooked that I've clearly stated that I see three possibilities, one of which is that there is no hard rule, and to retain the existing style. If that's the case, I think it should be mentioned that way. Again, as I've said, I don't even like the no-comma style, and have no problem retaining/using the more-prevalent-on-WP comma style. (ed.) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Comma usage is a subtle and nuanced part of writing, and a nightmare for non-native speakers. The main problem in including advice or rules on comma usage in MOS is that in so many cases several matters need to be weighed against each other. Better not to unless it's a simple matter. Tony (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Include the comma after such a phrase. Several short points in succession: In 13 years here, I have only ever had my addition of such a comma reverted one time, and when I made a case to include it, the other editor yielded. There is clearly not a general consensus that they are optional in such a construction. Only some style guides consider them optional at all, and generally within particular contexts that do not apply here; they're treated as optional primarily for a) journalism (which focuses on compression and reading speed, at the cost of precision), and b) fiction and other dialogue writing; WP is not written in either style. Some paper journals also like that approach because it saves a tiny bit of space, but that style of writing, too, is unlike our own and is specialist-to-specialist communication. Some, like Chicago, want to tie the comma inclusion to the type of construction, but that's utterly impractical for MoS (witness the difficulty we have getting across even the basics of hyphen versus dash usage or capitalization of prepositions in titles of works – our editors are not grammarians, with few exceptions.) So are the length considerations, since our text changes all the time.
Leaving these commas out often produces awkward constructions that have be re-read several times to be understood, especially by non-native, non-fluent speakers of English. Most importantly, we have absolutely no control over the continuity of our text. The short "In 2008 Johnson moved to Dallas" that you inserted is likely to end up something like "In 2008 after leaving XYZ Inc. to take a vice-president of marketing position at ABC Ltd. Johnson moved to Dallas" some time later. Editors less conscientious about commas are not all that likely to insert new ones where they belong, so include them the first time. (I'm certain of this effect because the second most common minor edit I make, after removal of over-capitalization, is fixing run-on, palimpsestuous sentences by adding needed commas.) It is never, ever wrong to write "In 2008, Johnson moved to Dallas", so just do it.
I actually do think MoS should say so explicitly. While we don't have much of a history of dispute about it, we do have this question come up fairly often here, and the frequency with which people used to journalistic and fiction writing styles (and more compressed academic paper/journal style) omit the comma and cause problems in later versions of the text is quite high. PS: Virtually nothing in MoS is based on MLA Handbook (which is primarily intended for the writing of student papers, another style that WP is not written in.) And Chicago contradicts itself (hardly for the first time); its Thanksgiving example doesn't comply with its "where month and year only are given" would-be rule. Chicago is correct that the comma should always be included if "misreading is likely"; on WP that is effective 100% of the time, because we cannot be certain the text will not change a day or a month or a year later.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- For example, sentence/clause length can alter whether a comma might be appropriate at a certain point; so can the number of existing (mandatory) commas in the sentence; and if two nouns or noun groups are juddering against each other, a comma is more likely to be needed. Are we really going to legislate that? Tony (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  No, just say to include a comma in constructions like "In June 2001, The Times reported that ...", and "From Macedonia, Alexander moved east to ...". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Movie series and italics

I've read MOS:SERIESTITLE and this talk discussion. I think that I know what I should do but would like to make sure that my thinking is correct (and that there isn't some other guideline that overrides this). I am copyediting A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film). Throughout the article they use the phrase the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise. However, the name of the original film was A Nightmare on Elm Street and the franchise article is titled A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise). Although awkward (and I may find another way to write it), my reading of the MOS is that the correct way to write this is as the A Nightmare on Elm Street franchise. Yes? PopularOutcast^talk2me! 14:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you asking about the use of italics? Or are you asking about dropping the indefinite article (if so, did you see MOS:THETITLE?). CapnZapp (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Both. I had not seen MOS:THETITLE but had been looking at MOS:THECAPS. It seems then that the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise is correct. Yes? If so, maybe the MOS:SERIESTITLE should point to MOS:THETITLE. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 23:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

PopularOutcast, tuppence while I'm passing: while not familiar with those guidelines, I think that is correct and the alternatives would be awkward. cygnis insignis 16:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis, totally akward. It was originally right in some places. I am going to go back and check that I didn't introduce a problem. Technically I think they are both right, since MOS:THETITLE says that the leading article may be dropped, just one is awkward. Thanks for weighing in. :-) PopularOutcast^talk2me! 17:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

A leading "the" would be neither capitalized nor italicized here, since it has nothing to do with the original title, which began with A. As for italics, last I looked we do not italicize franchises or series except where they contain the title of the original work in the series (thus the Star Wars universe, but the DC Comics universe). I.e., we are not italicizing franchises and series, but we are italicizing titles of individual novels and films (where ever they occur). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish: I would say your reply is technically correct, but possibly not helpful. Yes "the" is the leading article in the construct discussed ("the A Nightmare on Elm Street franchise"), but I think the question revolves around the "A". Should it be italicized? Should it be included? Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, it's fine to write "the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise" or "is a New York Times editor"; an abbreviated title receives the italics of the full title ("I looked it up in the OED"). The A would be italicized if included, of course, but there's no reason to include it in that kind of construction. Just do what the rest of the English-writing world does, basically. It's completely normal to drop an original leading article from a title when it would be redundant or awkward, though there's one exception where we [users of English in general, not just WP editors] retain it despite the awkwardness, and that's after a possessive: "in John Carpenter's The Thing". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you User:SMcCandlish. Although I do believe PopularOutcast was more looking for a discussion/summary of Wikipedia's specific guidance than general English-language guidance. CapnZapp (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I personally do think SMcCandlish's advice is in line with policy and that no other guidelines contradict it (which I believe is the answer you were really looking for, User:PopularOutcast). Regards CapnZapp (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, as said in another thread on this page, MoS does not address about 99% of style questions that could come up (or it would be at least as long as The Chicago Manual of Style). For the majority of things, we really do need to look at what general English usage patterns are. As EEng says, MoS's purpose is not a basic "how to write" handbook. We only have a rule about something that is a frequent source of conflict/confusion, among our editors and in our articles, and about which a consensus has emerged. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure but my point here was that when someone asks "is X within policy" the answer should be something along the lines of "policy doesn't say" or "see MOS:XYZ". A reply like it's fine to write "the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise" or "is a New York Times editor" risk giving the impression the answer is in policy somewhere when in actuality it isn't. CapnZapp (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought I had been clear in my original request but apparently not. I was copyediting A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film). In the article, there were two issues. First, the A was being dropped from the italicized title so that the would not sound awkward in front of it (the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise). This did not alarm me. Second, in some places the whole franchise was abbreviated (the Nightmare franchise). This alarmed me.

I then looked for guidance in the MOS, specifically for the second problem, on how to italicize the name of a series or franchise. I found MOS:SERIESTITLE and this talk discussion. The information in those two places made me question if the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise was correct. Based on those two, it did not seem to be correct. So I came here to ask because the MOS is a big place and maybe there is something that overrides MOS:SERIESTITLE. But, also, to use your words SMcCandlish, because "general English usage patterns" make the A Nightmare on Elm Street franchise very awkward.

CapnZapp pointed me to MOS:THETITLE and that, I thought, answered my question. I pointed out that it might be beneficial to point MOS:SERIESTITLE to MOS:THETITLE.

There were two guidelines that answered my question. I am not asking for any more information to be added to the MOS. I do not have any problem with the information that is already in the MOS. I do not want the information in the MOS to be changed. I do not want help writing basic English. I say we close this topic. I believe that I publicly thanked you for your initial help CapnZapp but if I did not, thank you. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 18:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)