Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:MOS)
Latest comment: 10 hours ago by Nikkimaria in topic Cause of death in infobox?
Learn more about this page

Welcome to the MOS pit[Humor]


    Style discussions elsewhere

    edit

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

    Current

    edit

    (newest on top)

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Capitalization-specific:

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

    Move requests:

    Other discussions:

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Concluded

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

    Discussion at Archimedes § MOS:'S (redux)

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 month ago7 comments5 people in discussion

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

    Specifically, input would be appreciated regarding the treatment of derivative proper names (e.g. Archimedes' principle) in running text versus the titles of dedicated articles. Thanks! Remsense ‥ 论 07:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Just for the record, I detest and/or, which the MOS backs me on, but (besides ... instead of the clearer [...] in quotations) I also detest Archimedes's. Can't we just use the Latinate genitive Archimedis? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
    As someone who does not particularly despise Archimedes's, I would cast my even less ramified ;vote for that. Remsense ‥ 论 05:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Me also. It’s a straightforward grammatical rule that ‘s indicates a possessive singular and ‘ ,following on from an s, indicates a possessive plural. That is clear to both casual and expert readers alike, and the large majority of our readership nowadays wont have any familiarity with the archaic or traditional forms used for a handful of mostly ancient historical figures. MapReader (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Not quite; ‘s indicates a possessive of either a singular or of a plural not ending in s. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC) -- Revised 18:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The genitive Archimedis is faux Latin in this situation. The correct Latin is la:Cochlea Archimedea (the adjective wikt:Archimedeus = Archimedean). More importantly, the Latin genitive is confusing in English. 173.206.40.108 (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    conciseness & succinctness: efficiency, not size

    edit
    Latest comment: 20 days ago7 comments5 people in discussion

    Apparently WP:BECONCISE, WP:SUCCINCT redirect to WP:TLDR, a stupid term with bad redirects. One of my professors is on a team editing the world's (maybe formerly) largest science/mathematics book--on abstract algebra--which was 20,000 pages (multi-volume). It was made more efficient (saying more with fewer words) while describing same, so they reduced to maybe 5,000 pages (or in range of 10% to 1/3). Isn't that what conciseness/succintness is, though for most people, still too long to read? Redirects should be to more (less unintellectual) details here (or WP:CONCISE), not a crass Internet meme term mostly used by Millennials, Zoomers who grew up reading few books; there's an article how even freshmen at USA's elite colleges feel they can't read books, because they never got in the habit. I'm not deletionist, but I'd say delete WP:TLDR, because people saying that about one full-length standard (not extended) Twitter/X statement (increasingly common) may not want knowledge.--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 06:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    It's just an essay, not policy. Gawaon (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, well people are throwing many of these around maybe implying they should be followed, and 'WP' could look official. What about the redirects?--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib)
    If you want to move or delete Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read you'll have to suggest doing so on that page. Success would be more likely without weird comments about people now in their 40s growing up without books. CMD (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    If you want others to read your posts? Then comply with their requests to shorten them. You can't force others to read'em. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah but TLDR is an insult. "I didn't read your whole paper, it was [not succinct enough, not concise enough, too prolix, whatever] might sting but is not an insult and is constructive criticism. "Here's your paper back, TLDR" is just dismissive. Herostratus (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Actually I went ahead and did put in a requested move there. Herostratus (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Good; thanks. I don't consider 'TL;DR' an insult, but indeed dismissive, anti-intellectual, and not conducive to discussion: if they won't read what others say, why should anyone read what they say, and why say it at all? It's often a waste of others' time just like many people only replying 'me too' when Eternal September started on Usenet and then early world wide web (WWW) forums--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 18:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    More input wanted at Talk:IMEC regarding the brand's capitalisation

    edit
    Latest comment: 25 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    Hi, I would like some more input at Talk:IMEC § Spelling, regarding whether the name should be capitalised in all-upper-case to comply with MOS:TMRULES point number 3, or capitalised in all-lower-case which is the company's official way of writing their name. That point number 3 says, "as long as this is a style already in widespread use", however an issue here is that there are just as many secondary sources that spell the company name as "imec" as there are sources spelling it "IMEC".

    There just isn't enough watchers of the article to form a proper consensus, so more opinions from the people who know the MoS well would be appreciated! — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    RfC: Gentilic form of Botswana

    edit
    Latest comment: 8 days ago45 comments14 people in discussion

    How should the gentilic (adjective and noun) form of the country Botswana be written on Wikipedia articles?

    A: Botswanan (pl. Botswanans) in all cases, without exception
    B: Motswana (pl. Batswana) in all cases, without exception
    C: Motswana in articles with strong national ties to Botswana or South Africa, otherwise Botswanan
    D: Retain whichever word is used first in the article, either Botswanan or Motswana

    ―Howard • 🌽33 12:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    • Comment: I am opening this RfC because I believe a decision here will affect many articles over Wikipedia. Articles are inconsistent with usage, with many using Botswanan and many using Motswana. There was a previous discussion on the matter, but it went for a week without agreement, so I hope by inviting more people we can come to a conclusion. I am inexperienced when it comes to opening RfCs so I apologize if this was malformed or unnecesary. ―Howard • 🌽33 12:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Pinging users from the previous discussion: (Mathglot—Aficionado538—SMcCandlish—David Eppstein—Blueboar) ―Howard • 🌽33 12:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • C: Considering that the Dictionary of South African English lists Motswana but not Botswanan as the gentilic of Botswana and the Historical Dictionary of Botswana (page xiii) uses MoTswana (alternate capitalization), it can be established that common usage within the countries of Botswana and South Africa is Motswana. This word is included in some foreign English dictionaries (OED, CALD) and by the CIA World Factbook, but the OED and CALD do also include Botswanan and two dictionaries (MW, AUH) include Botswanan but not Motswana. Therefore the only resolution, as far as I see it, is to use Motswana as the gentilic in articles with strong national ties to Botswana or South Africa and otherwise using Botswanan. ―Howard • 🌽33 12:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • C or D - Per MOS:TIES - however, mention both in the article text at least once.
      It will be helpful to readers (especially those not from Southern Africa) to explain that people from Botswana are called “Botswanans” externally, but use “Motswana” internally. Once this is explained, the reader will understand whichever usage is used in the rest of the article. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      This sounds a bit like consonant mutation in the Welsh language, where an initial "b" might sometimes be written and pronounced as "m". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Should there be a disclaimer similar to Template:Family name hatnote?
      Something like:
      In this article relating to Botswana, the gentilic of Botswana is Motswana.? ―Howard • 🌽33 00:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Most readers won’t know what “gentilic” means. Keep it simple. Blueboar (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Gentilic is the proper word for it, no? Otherwise it would have to be something longer like "the adjectival and demonymic form." ―Howard • 🌽33 00:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I think you can just link the term "gentillic" to either the Denonym article or a soft redirect to Wiktionary to help readers, would that help? —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 01:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      That would be good enough, the same is already done for when patronyms are mentioned (eg. Lenin) ―Howard • 🌽33 22:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • C or D per Blueboar's rationale, it would help readers to explain the above and thus the usage in the article. It may also help to treat the usage similarly to MOS:ENGVAR, retaining it unless there is broad consensus against it, MOS:TIES, etc. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 23:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Didn't we just have this discussion already? Use option A. Use plain English, not terms that are familiar to nearly no one who is not from the area. I would grudgingly accept C as a compromise, but only barely. We need to get away from the idea that, e.g., articles about India are written only for Indians, that articles about Texas are intended specifically for (and to appease the preferences of) Texans, etc. That's not what Wikipedia is about or is for. But C would produce a bit less inconsistency than D (the "do nothing" option), and would impose fewer (than opt. B) instances of unfamiliar terms (arguably non-English at all, using a pluralization scheme that doesn't pertain to this language) on our readers. So C is slightly better than nothing. But A is clearly the proper course of action at this site, even if Motswana/Batswana might make more sense in a blog written in southern Africa with a Batswana audience in mind. This case isn't really any different from Navajo; the fact that their own endonym is Diné, and this term can be found sometimes in English-language sources (mostly specialist or activist literature), does not impose on Wikipedia a requirement to use it broadly (and we have good reasons not to, starting with intelligibility to the average reader). Some occurrence of it will be sensible in an ethnological context, such as the Navajo article itself. But we should not and generally do not use it in more general articles, e.g. on the history of the American Southwest or on the present demographics of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. The same logic applies to Botswanan vs. Motswana/Batswana. What next? Shall we start writing about Ireland as Éire and the Irish as Éireannaigh?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Are you sure that these terms don't just fall under MOS:ENGVAR? I don't think that the concept of it not being Plain English applies here as readers can presumably infer that "Motswana" or "Batswana" refers to "Botswanan" in articles involving Botswana in some way, regardless if readers are familiar with the term. There are some cases where it is inappropriate, such as in articles that only briefly mention Botswanans (e.g."He later met the Motswana president" where this is the only mention of it in the article) and "Botswanan" should be used instead, but most readers can infer the meaning of it as a denonym of Botswana easily. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 02:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Elaborating on this, I don't think the terms differ significantly from English enough to justify using Botswanan in place of it. While foreign-language terms such as "à la" are generally avoided on Wikipedia per Plain English, descriptive terms that do not differ enough from English such as "jeepney" in Philippine English (see Template:Philippine English) seem to be an exception of this, which I believe these terms fall under; but this is ultimately up to an editor's judgement to decide. The question is whether or not these terms are covered by ENGVAR or not. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 02:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I've yet to see any indication this is an obscure word considering the various sources which I have listed above, which come from both in and outside Botswana. Likewise, Google Scholar hits for Botswanan (5,170 results) are not drastically higher than for Motswana (3,050 results). I want to be clear I do not intend on promoting endonyms above exonyms in all cases. But what I do want to ensure is a consistency across all Wikipedia articles while conforming to the correct variety of English. By looking at the vocabularies of South African and Motswana English, I have found that Botswanan is nonstandard and Motswana is the standard and commonly used form. ―Howard • 🌽33 22:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • A - A vote for Botswanan.Halbared (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Please remember that this is not a vote but a discussion based on existing precedents in the MOS. Per the page's editnotice, comments/opinions may be ignored if there is no rationale that addresses policies or guidelines. Thanks. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 21:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I didn't realise it was no a vote, I just felt the arguments put forward by — SMcCandlish were the best.Halbared (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I get it, I think I've done that before too. But I think you can just say "A per SMcCandlish because (insert reason / add-on here, e.g. 'they make a good point')", as it helps people identify your rationale. Thanks for asking. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 23:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • D because RETAIN is a better rule than TIES in general. I understand (and feel) the impulse to avoid weird words that are not understood by most English speakers, but I have to admit that my sense of "weird" here is likely specifically Western; it's not a good look to allow (say) Irish-origin terms (e.g. Taoiseach) but not African. --Trovatore (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Question: I wasn't familiar with these terms prior to this discussion, but, as a westerner and a native English speaker, I don't find them surprising or difficult to understand. However, I do have some questions about nuance. According to Wiktionary, "Batswana" means "A member of the Tswana tribe of southern Africa, especially an inhabitant of Botswana; a Botswanan". Is it accurate that everyone from Botswana is Matswana, even members of minority ethnic groups? What about inanimate or abstract nouns? Is it correct to write the "Batswana economy" or "Matswana lakes"? pburka (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Great question! The demonyms for Botswana are:
      1. Motswana (singular)
      2. Batswana (plural)
      For example, 'He is a Motswana' and 'They are Batswana'.
      In contrast, Setswana refers to the language spoken in Botswana and can also describe something originating from or related to Botswana, such as 'a Setswana lake' or the 'Setswana economy' it's akin to saying 'the French economy'. However, the use of "Botswana" in this regard is still okay and more widespread e.g., 'the Botswana economy'.
      The largest ethnicity in Botswana is Tswana; however, not all Batswana (that is, citizens of Botswana) are ethnically Tswana. So you can still have have Kalanga Batswana, Afrikaner Batswana, etc. Aficionado538 (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    C: In Botswana, as well as in neighbouring countries with shared cultural and linguistic ties, the terms "Motswana" and "Batswana" are the standard and authoritative ways to refer to people from here. We do not use any other terms as they are nonstandard and foreign.
    I am inclined to vote in favour of Option C, because of MOS:TIES and for feasability's sake as juxtaposed to, say, options A & B.
    I also agree with the thoughtful point raised by @Sparkle & Fade, who rightly notes that readers are unlikely to encounter difficulty understanding these terms to begin with. They do not appear in isolation and are almost always accompanied by contextual clues that make their meaning apparent, even to those unfamiliar with Setswana.
    In the same vein, @Trovatore’s observation about the usage of “Irish-origin terms” on the Wiki (such as Taoiseach or Teachta Dála) that may confuse non-Irish speakers is a good one. Unlike such esoteric terms, "Motswana" and "Batswana" fit within a clear linguisti framework that allows for intuitive understanding. Through context, even readers encountering these words for the first time can readily grasp their meaning.
    Considering these factors—strong ties to national identity, the ease of comprehension and feasability—Option C stands out as the most fair, logical and respectful choice. Aficionado538 (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    " "Motswana" and "Batswana" fit within a clear linguisti framework that allows for intuitive understanding. Through context, even readers encountering these words for the first time can readily grasp their meaning." Would they, though? If I hadn't come across a discussion about this a few years ago, I would probably see these words and think that someone had vandalized the page in a manner similar to an old children's song ("Billy, Billy, bo-billy / Banana-fana fo-filly / Me my mo milly.") --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, readers encountering "Motswana" and "Batswana" for the first time can indeed understand their meanings intuitively.
    Even if someone has never seen the terms before, they are almost always introduced in a way that makes their meaning clear. For example, an article or discussion might say, "A Motswana is a citizen of Botswana," or "The Batswana people have a rich cultural heritage." These contextual cues make it pretty much easy to infer that "Motswana" is singular and "Batswana" is plural. Even in languages that don't use prefixes like "Mo-" and "Ba-" for singular and plural distinctions, people naturally pick up on patterns. If "Motswana" or "Batswana" appear a sentence, it doesn’t take much effort to deduce that they follow a singular/plural structure—just as English speakers recognize "goose/geese" despite these being irregular.
    English speakers frequently encounter non-English words and intuitively grasp them through context. Consider "alumnus/alumni" from Latin or "samurai" (which remains the same in singular and plural). Even unfamiliar terms like shiitake are understood quickly through how they are used in sentences. Wikipedia consistently uses the term Taoiseach to refer to the head of government of Ireland, despite it being unfamiliar to many English speakers at first glance. While an alternative, more immediately recognizable title such as "Prime Minister" could be used, Wikipedia prioritizes the official terminology used by the country itself. Readers encountering"Taoiseach" for the first time may not immediately grasp its meaning, as it does not resemble any commonly known English words, yet its use remains.
    These terms are directly related to Botswana, making them far more intuitive than "Taoiseach". Even if a reader is unfamiliar with them initially, their similarity to the country’s name provides a clear linguistic link, making their meaning easy to deduce. Given that Wikipedia does not replace (for the sake of example) "Taoiseach" with "Prime Minister", there is no justification for replacing "Motswana" and "Batswana" with Botswanan, a term that lacks local legitimacy. If Wikipedia trusts readers to understand "Taoiseach", a term with no obvious cognates, then it should certainly extend the same respect to the authentic demonyms of Botswana.
    Oh, and the claim that "Motswana" and "Batswana" might look like random syllables strung together (as in a children’s rhyme) simply overlooks the way humans process language. Vandalism typically consists of outright gibberish without clear meaning, whereas "Motswana" and "Batswana" consistently appear in contexts i.e., in articles with strong national ties to Botswana where their meanings are evident. Unless a reader completely disregards context clues, they are unlikely to mistake these terms for non-sense. Aficionado538 (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I don't know, you seem to have missed the context clues that the children's song is not random, so the context clues here would probably be missed by others.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    We should stop trying to argue from personal experience and restrict our arguments to based on what reliable sources say. ―Howard • 🌽33 18:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Option C. In articles without strong ties to the country/ies, where the word is presumably not very important to comprehension of the article, we would be confusing more people than we are educating. In articles with strong ties, we want to be correct. --GRuban (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • C: Motswana in articles with strong national ties to Botswana or South Africa, otherwise Botswanan It seems straight forward. I would have gone for A as SMcCandlish above but I think there is a case for Motswana in the strong ties case.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Meh. We should not use what (in English) amount to regional colloquialisms when they are not intelligible to the majority of our readers; ENGVAR is not license to confuse just to try to make a sociopolitical point. To revisit a point above more clearly: We do not use Diné (outside narrow contexts in the article on the subject) to refer to the Navajo, despite the fact that it's their name in their own language, some of them prefer it in English, and plenty of people in the Four Corners region are aware of it. We don't because hardly anyone else is. These are directly parallel cases.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      You seem to forget that:
      • these aren't "colloquialisms". These are formal words used in countries to describe people from a country/ethnic group and not some slang terms;
      • these terms are in fact English terms as said countries have their own form of English i.e., South African English and as pointed out earlier by a user on this RfC, the Dictionary of South African English (as well as other foreign dictionaries) lists Motswana and nothing else as the terminology used;
      • the point you make about Diné doesn't really hold the same weight with "Motswana" and "Batswana" as the suffix "-tswana" will easily give readers a hint that these are the gentilic terms to refer to citizens of Botswana or people of Tswana ancestry as these words are virtually always used in the context of someone or people from Botswana.
      Aficionado538 (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Question (for my own education): is “Motswana” restricted to a particular ethinic group within Botswana… or is it applied to any citizen of that nation. For example, would someone of European ancestry who emigrated to Botswana be a Motswana? Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      According to the Historical Dictionary of Botswana and the DSAE, Motswana refers to "a citizen of Botswana," and OED says it can refer to "a native or inhabitant of Botswana." ―Howard • 🌽33 18:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Blueboar Any citizen of Botswana. Aficionado538 (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Thank you. Blueboar (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • B per MOS:TIES. Botswanan is simply wrong and as jarring to those familiar with the subject as Switzerlandish or Walesian would be. That some sources use the incorrect form merely points up that they do not have a properly constructed MoS like we do, but luckily we have MOS:TIES. We also have many discussions of this over the years at Talk:Botswana and eg at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa/Archive 1#Botswanan. John (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Why should MOS:TIES be used to justify using Motswana exclusively across all articles? American English dictionaries only include Botswanan (MW, AHD, NOAD) so this appears to be an Engvar issue. The only American English source I could find which recommends Motswana is the CIA World Factbook. ―Howard • 🌽33 19:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Interestingly enough, Encyclopaedia Britannica (which is owned by the same company who owns MW) says "country’s whole population is characterized as Batswana (singular Motswana) whatever their ethnic origin." ―Howard • 🌽33 19:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Yes, I definitely agree. The only reason why "Botswanan" exists is because of people using the wrong demonym over and over again. That doesn't change the fact that it is the incorrect way of addressing someone from here. Aficionado538 (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      No, it means that English is forming its own demonym and is not constrained by Botswanan linguistic norms. It is no more wrong than is the English word :French", which aso differs from the form used in the French language. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
      These terms are English terms though—they appear in multiple English dictionaries and both South Africa and Botswana have English as their official language, meaning they have their own recognized variants. So no, this argument doesn’t hold up at all.
      Hope that clears things up. Aficionado538 (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Botswanan is also an English term that appears in multiple English dictionaries and variants worldwide. Commonality would seem to indicate that Botswanan would be the preferred term here, just as we use Ganges and not Ganga. -User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
      If we are considering commonality here, then Motswana should be the logical choice, no? American (CIA, Britannica), British (Cambridge, OED), South African (DSAE), and Motswana (Historical Dictionary) publications have all included the word. Botswanan appears to only be included in publications specifically outside Southern Africa. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Anything except A. People should be allowed to use the term accepted by the people it applies to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Adjust MOS:SIC

    edit
    Latest comment: 21 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

    With regards to MOS:SIC:

    When applied to linked titles appearing between <ref>...</ref> tags, title parameters in citation templates, or similar text that is linked, the syntax of the template may be adjusted to {{sic|nolink=y}} (producing [sic] in the resulting linked text).

    {{Sic}} contains a {{COinS safe|n}} warning that it "should not be used in citation templates such as Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2, because it includes markup that will pollute the COinS metadata they produce; see Wikipedia:COinS."

    Should the abovementioned MOS:SIC text not rather be changed to:

    When applied to text that is linked, the syntax of the template may be adjusted to {{sic|nolink=y}} (producing [sic] in the resulting linked text; for example in the link: [sic] template).

    waddie96 ★ (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Sounds reasonable. Gawaon (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    WP:BOLD change implemented. WP:BRD if necessary. Reference made here in edit summary. waddie96 ★ (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Done waddie96 ★ (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Chinese political ideology templates

    edit
    Latest comment: 21 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    There's some disagreement over how to structure and categorize the various political movements across several related templates. Please see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Political_ideology_templates Manuductive (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Can we add Manual of Style: as an alias for the namespace MOS:?

    edit
    Latest comment: 15 days ago7 comments5 people in discussion

    Or more likely the other way around. I do agree a single namespace for all manual of style pages is useful for consistency, searching, etc. It should not just be used for shortcuts but also for actual manual of style pages (and proposals). Aasim (話す（はなす）) 15:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Agree. Actually, narrowing the breadth of the generic "WP:" space wouldn't be a bad thing. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Support. The MOS is already gargantuan enough to warrant its own namespace, and sometimes I'm left scratching my head trying to find a particular section that has a WP: shortcut aliased to it instead of an MOS: one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Are we just talking about creating a Manual of Style alias namespace or actually moving the Manual of Style pages into that namespace? I'd support creating that namespace if we are actually moving the pages there. If not, that seems pointless as no one is going to use the longer name over "MOS". Gonnym (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    We can move all MOS pages into their own namespace. It would also help with a lot of manual of style pages that are not part of the formal MoS but are followed by a lot of users anyway. [2] seems like enough to fill a namespace. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 19:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Pages not part of the MoS should not be moved. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing (failed proposal) for example, is badly titled as it isn't a MoS page. Gonnym (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This seems unnecessary complexity. There is zero advantage in having yet another namespace alias. Subpages work perfectly and scale nicely even for truly gargantuan things like WP:AN and subpages. If we do not want pages that behave differently, we do not need a new namespace. —Kusma (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Usage of quote-page paramenter

    edit
    Latest comment: 15 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    I strongly support the use of the quote parameter when adding a citation to an article. I recently noticed that some of the citation templates have a field:

    |quote-page=

    I am intrigued by this option, and thought I would begin using it.

    In my typical usage I often cite a single page as support for the claim, so the cited page(s) will be identical to the page number for the quote, but I can imagine a situation where I want to cite a source for the claim as a range of pages, then identify the single specific page for the specific quote.

    However, I tested this on an example User:Sphilbrick/Cite_quote_example and the rendering:

    Rabinowitz, Harold; Vogel, Suzanne (2009). The manual of scientific style: a guide for authors, editors, and researchers (1st ed.). Amsterdam Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Academic Press. p. 363. ISBN 978-0-12-373980-3. p. 363: The primary designation system for bright stars, called Bayer designations… The Greek letters are assigned in order (α,ß,γ,δ etc.) according to brightness.

    Simply has "p. 363" in two different places. If I saw this in another article I think it was a malformed citation. I don't know exactly what I was expecting but I thought there would be some indication that one of the page ranges would be related to the overall reference in the other would be related to the specific quote.

    Am I missing something? This parameter seems potentially useful but useless in my example. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Wrong venue. You should post this at Help talk:Citation Style 1. Gonnym (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    RFC on "Author (year)" in-text citing

    edit
    Latest comment: 14 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
    NB: this message was cross-posted on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, and here.

    Hi everyone! This is a shameless spam message to inform you about an RfC regarding narrative citation.

    Specifically, see here: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Proposal

    I think it's quite strange that Wikipedia has existed for 24 years, yet there still isn't a policy section about this. Input is appreciated. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Generally, we avoid having policy restricting editors if we don't have to. On Zhuangzi (book), I have parentheses for the number of each chapter being discussed, etc. etc. This seems totally reasonable and uncontroversial, as do the examples you present. Remsense ‥ 论 07:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    RSK language code

    edit
    Latest comment: 12 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

    Hello, I am not sure if this is the most appropriate place for my question. I noticed that the language code RSK in infobox templates leads to Ruthenian language instead of Pannonian Rusyn language (see Novi Sad for example). Do we maybe have some different language code for Pannonian Rusyn or the fact was simply not updated since the language received it's code recently? MirkoS18 (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    This is determined by the ISO 639 standard.[3] The two relevant codes afaik:
    Type: language
    Subtag: rsk
    Description: Ruthenian
    Description: Rusnak
    Added: 2022-02-25

    Type: language
    Subtag: rue
    Description: Rusyn
    Added: 2009-07-29
    Which would be most appropriate for further named varieties, I wouldn't have any idea. Remsense ‥ 论 07:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I see! Thanks for clarifying. Maybe we actually need disambiguation page for Ruthenian language page in a sense where it is related to historical/wider language, and the term when it is used to name Pannonian Rusyn. I think the code RSK in fact relates to Pannonian Rusyn and not to the wider concept used in academia. RUE would not be the right choice as it is northern version of the language which is more closely related to Ukrainian.--MirkoS18 (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The code rsk refers to Pannonian Rusyn. The code rue refers to Carpatho-Rusyn. There is no such code for Ruthenian language (which is no longer spoken). But all of these languages have been designated by various names. Carpatho-Russian for Rusyn, West Russian/Old Belarusian for Ruthenian etc. For the Ruthenian language page, I think a hatnote would be more appropriate, this is probably the primary topic. Mellk (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    SUFFIXDASH and categories

    edit
    Latest comment: 12 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_25#People_of_Azuchi–Momoyama-period_Japan where a further variation from WP:SUFFIXDASH is proposed for categories, following the precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_20#MOS:SUFFIXDASH_moves. – Fayenatic London 22:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    How does MOS:QUOTEMARKS apply for non-Latin languages?

    edit
    Latest comment: 12 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    I.e., Japanese uses 「 」 and 『 』 among other symbols for quotation. I assume similar conventions exist in other non-Latin languages. Alxeedo ゐ talk 04:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I'm curious when this would ever matter. The only case I can think of is if the marks are contained within quoted non-English text, in which case I imagine this guidance would apply:

    Do not use accent marks, backticks (`text´), low-high („ “) or guillemet (« ») marks as quotation marks (except when such marks are internal to quoted non-English text – see § Typographic conformity).

    pburka (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    MOS:APOSTROPHE and letters resembling apostrophes

    edit
    Latest comment: 18 hours ago20 comments6 people in discussion
      Moved from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Arabic) § MOS:APOSTROPHE and the templates...
     – Moved as no feedback after two weeks, likely due to low trafficked/wrong venue.waddie96 ★ (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I added a section to the templates {{okina}} (Template:Okina/doc#Letters resembling apostrophes), and transcluded to the other ones mentioned in MOS:APOSTROPHE. Let me know what changes should be made:

    Letters resembling apostrophes

    edit

    The table below provides an overview of various apostrophes used in transliteration and romanization of languages into Latin script. While not exhaustive, it highlights common conventions particularly relating to Arabic on Wikipedia.

    For Arabic transliteration, Wikipedia follows a modified version of the ALA-LC romanization method, ensuring readability and compliance with the Manual of Style.

    • Strict transliteration (used mainly for etymology) includes accents, underscores, and underdots, typically alongside the original Arabic script.
    • Other forms of romanization, such as basic transcription (used in most cases), follows the same system but excludes accents, underscores, and underdots, with some exceptions.

    For more details, refer to:

    Overview of various apostrophes used in transliteration and romanization of languages into Latin script
    Template[a] Output[b] Usage Unicode Comment IPA HTML
    Hexadecimal
    Straight apostrophe:
    Press ' key
     ' 

    Wikipedia basic transcription of both Arabic hamzah ﺀ‎ (glottal stop) and ʿayn ع‎[c] based on ALA-LC romanization

    		U+0027 ' APOSTROPHE Omitted when hamza or ayn appears at the beginning of words.[d]
    /ʔ/ /ʕ/
    {{left half ring}}
     {{lhr}}
     ʿ 

    Wikipedia strict transliteration of Arabic ʿayn ع‎[c] based on ALA-LC romanization

    		U+02BF ʿ MODIFIER LETTER LEFT HALF RING For example, ayn is preferred to 'ayn, or amr in Arabic: ع م ر. Both {{left half ring}} and {{ayin}} allowed for strict transcription, per MOS:ARABIC.
    /ʕ/
    {{ayin}}
     ʽ 
    		U+02BD ʽ MODIFIER LETTER REVERSED COMMA Both {{left half ring}} and {{ayin}} allowed for strict transcription, per MOS:ARABIC. &#x02BD;
    {{hamza}}
     ʼ 
    • Most commonly the Wikipedia strict transliteration of Arabic hamzah ﺀ‎ (glottal stop), marking a shift in vowel, as in the middle of the colloquial uh-oh.
    • Transliteration of letter aleph in Semitic language alphabets
    • Amongst various other glottal sounds in other languages.
    		 U+02BC ʼ MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE
    /ʔ/
    		 &#x02BC;
    {{right half ring}}
     {{rhr}}
     ʾ 

    Wikipedia strict transliteration of Arabic hamzah ﺀ‎ based on ALA-LC romanization

    		U+02BE ʾ MODIFIER LETTER RIGHT HALF RING
    {{okina}}
     {{ayn}}[e]
     ʻ 
    		U+02BB ʻ MODIFIER LETTER TURNED COMMA &#699;
    &#x02BB;
    {{saltillo}}
     ꞌ 
    • Mexican linguistics
    		 U+A78C ꞌ LATIN SMALL LETTER SALTILLO
    U+A78B Ꞌ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER SALTILLO

    Notes

    1. ^ Redirect/shorcut is in small preceded by   redirect symbol.
    2. ^ Enlarged 250% for ease of viewing.
    3. ^ a b c Per MOS:ARABIC, Arabic ʿayn  ع‎  transliteration on Wikipedia using ALA-LC romanization is represented by the straight apostrophe  '  in Basic transcription (previously known as Standard transcription), and by the letter half ring  ʿ  or reversed comma  ʻ  in Strict transliteration.
    4. ^ For example, ayn is preferred to 'ayn, or amr in Arabic: ع م ر (lit. 'command') and not 'amr.
    5. ^ ʿayn is not the same as ʻOkina, however the same Unicode character ( U+02BB ʻ MODIFIER LETTER TURNED COMMA), which {{okina}} outputs, is used in UTC L2/00-220 transliteration and some romanizations, such as ALA-LC romanization, of the Semitic letter ayin, also known as ayn.

    Thanks. -- waddie96 ★ (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Moved. waddie96 ★ (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Notified: WP:ISLAM, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic, Template:Okina, Template:Ayin, Template:Hamza, User:HyperGaruda. waddie96 ★ (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    According to MOS:AR, Arabic ayin is represented by straight apostrophe ' in basic transcription and by letter half ring ʿ or reversed comma ʽ in strict transliteration. The actual practice of strict transliteration in WP articles, however, is to follow the great majority of usage in RS, which rarely if ever still use the Hans Wehr-style reversed comma ʽ (so MOS:AR allows it but actual practice is to use letter half ring). Basic transcription, which is a system peculiar to Wikipedia, just started to use straight apostrophe instead of the reversed comma at some point, perhaps because it can also be used in article titles, and/or because it simpler and more 'basic'.
    With all this in mind, the template docs should not say that {{ayin}} is preferred over {{Left half ring}}, because both are allowed, though only in technical transliterations (as an aside, since MOS:AR calls this 'strict transliteration', it's probably better to use that term). It should probably also say something about straight apostrophe being preferred in basic transcription, and perhaps also that in basic transcription it is omitted at the beginning of words. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Implemented: Changes noted, and changes implemented. Please let me know what you think? The {{tqb}} above is a transclusion so you can just purge the page if it hasn't updated. waddie96 ★ (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I would have expected {{ayn}} and {{ayin}} to result in the same output, i.e. one redirecting to the other. If anything, the distinction would be ayn for Arabic and ayin for Hebrew (following the use in Ayin). --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @HyperGaruda Yeh me too, but per @Kwamikagami see discussion at User talk:Waddie96 § Spelling of Ka'aba and let me know what you think @HyperGaruda? waddie96 ★ (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The {ayn} redirect keeps flipping between {ayin} and {okina}, which means the articles using it change from one week to the next. Hardly ideal. It was originally a rd to {okina} so that that template could have an arabic name, but maybe we should do a bot-replacement and retire it. No reason we can't use {okina} on Arabic-language articles
    I don't like the idea of ever using the ASCII apostrophe as a letter. It's ambiguous between the hamza and ayin, being commonly used for both, and we owe our readers better than that. It's used here because it's easy to type, but WP is about the reader, not the editor. The character boxes below the edit window, plus the templates, are enough for us to be able to easily use the correct symbols. — kwami (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Understood. So you mean instead of doing ', you mean one should be using {{ayn}} for even basic transliteration?
    Or do you mean in strict transliteration only: for hamza we should use {{hamza}}, and for ayn we should use either {{ayn}} or {{ayin}} (doesn't matter)? Because if the latter, then I ask: Why {{ayn}} when the {{okina}} character is not preferred per MOS:ARABIC for Arabic ayn; {{lhr}} and {{ayin}} are... waddie96 ★ (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I think letters should be used for letters and punctuation marks for punctuation in professional typesetting, including all WP articles. I would only expect lazy substitutes like the ASCII apostrophe on talk pages where we're not writing for our reader audience.
    I would only expect the half circles for strict transliteration, and would expect the comma-like letters for normal romanization. But whether you use the 6-shape or the reversed 9-shape for ayin is a matter of preference. I can't see that it really matters. I use the reversed 9 myself because I use the 6 as the Wade-Giles/Armenian-type aspiration mark. — kwami (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Also invite @JMF @Kwamikagami waddie96 ★ (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I have no useful contribution to make as it is way beyond my ken, except to observe that I only got involved in this question when I saw the template for Hawaiian being used with Arabic and thought it must be a mistake. As maybe others will stumble there too, it seems sensible to have distinct templates even if they resolve to the same physical character. (Compare with diaeresis (diacritic) and umlaut (diacritic) – same mark used for two very different pronunciations.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Totally get your point, and it makes total sense to me. Will carry this point forward to whatever resolution we may come to. waddie96 ★ (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    What I would like are {{Aleph}}, {{Ayn}} and {{Ayin}} with optional parameters for transliteration type, and possibly for language. That way the editors would not have to worry about the details or adjusting to policy changes. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That might be a good way forward. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Agreed waddie96 ★ (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    So for now is what I put in these templates fine as is? Since I would not know where to begin with the suggestion you made. Unless you were to give me a list of transliteration types and languages, I’ll implement it. But I would only know how to make a template for Arabic and its transliteration schemes, based on the table I’ve made pretty much. Help appreciated. waddie96 ★ (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'm thinking of types like ALA and STRICT, but we really need a subject matter expert or someone familiar with Wikipedia standards. All I can really say is that while U+05D0 א HEBREW LETTER ALEF and U+05E2 ע HEBREW LETTER AYIN are silent in Israeli Hebrew, they are pronounced differently in Yemeni Hebrew. I don't have a clue about their pronunciation in Aramaic. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    We've been using an ASCII apostrophe for Hebrew under the argument that it's just a punctuation mark, marking a syllable boundary [like Xi'an in Mandarin], not a consonant, but if that means we're incorrect for Yemeni Hebrew, we should either [a] change from punctuation to proper letters, or [b] label the transcription as specifically Israeli Hebrew. — kwami (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

    WP:COMMONALITY: "the most commonly used spelling variant within a national variety of English should be preferred"

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago13 comments5 people in discussion

    Would it be possible to soften the wording here? WP:COMMONALITY says:

    within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred

    I've recently observed this verbiage, reasonably and straightforwardly applied, to change towards → toward because the latter is more common in AmE (and according to some other style guides, preferred). This seems counterproductive—unless I'm all out of whack, while and whilst may be a different story, but surely editors shouldn't have to fret about pairs like toward and towards when both are totally acceptable in both American and British English?

    Maybe something like should usually be preferred → is often preferred? Remsense ‥ 论 04:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

    • Makes sense to me. --Trovatore (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • "Preferred" is a softening of the intent (ie, this advice is not written in stone on pain of death but keep to it as often as possible), so "should usually" and "often" are not needed at all. I suggest should usually be preferred → is preferred .  Stepho  talk  05:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
      But crucially, I don't think it is preferred as a matter of course. Again, it seems pointless and against the spirit of WP:COMMONALITY generally to essentially engender a new ENGVAR distinction for vocabulary where really, none actually exists—based on an overbroad frequency criterion clearly meant for other cases subject to an actual distinction. Remsense ‥ 论 05:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Maybe we should just remove the bullet point altogether? If a preference in the MoS isn't doing any actual good, it should be removed. --Trovatore (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • I agree with the suggestion "is preferred"; it's a good recommendation that steers language away from fringe spellings/variants and encourages mainstream language use, thus allowing users to focus on article content rather than oddities in the text. Doremo (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Again, that works much of the time but blanket application also compels cases of the polar opposite dynamic, where totally normative, natural language choices are artificially subject to lexicographic sidebars. Remsense ‥ 论 06:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
      A blanket application would be encouraged by phrasing such as "is required" or "is mandatory" rather than "is preferred". Doremo (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Doremo, can you give an example of a fringe spelling being discouraged by this bullet point? --Trovatore (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Any old thing, really: acrost for across, alarum for alarm, annoint for anoint, etc. Doremo (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
      And have you seen actual evidence that the bullet point has been effective in discouraging such spellings? If this is just something that could happen, I'm not convinced it's worth the space in the MoS. Generally, the fewer rules the MoS has, the better. --Trovatore (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
      It can be a useful point to refer editors to when they use uncommon spellings (such as here). Uncommon spellings are not simply a hypothetical possibility. Doremo (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Commonality also directs towards using forms common to multiple ENGVARs, over ENGVAR-specific ones, where possible. MapReader (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Cause of death in infobox?

    edit
    Latest comment: 10 hours ago3 comments3 people in discussion

    Couldn't find any mention of this in the MOS but I'm wondering what the procedure is for cause of death in an infobox. Specific example here is Mark Rothko - an editor just added the artist's cause of death to the infobox (suicide by overdose), but I'm really not sure that feels appropriate. While Rothko's death and its cause are certainly notable, the mention in the infobox just feels a bit odd for some reason. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but if there is any solid guidance on this topic I'd appreciate the insight. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

    At first blush I can't imagine how Rothko's suicide is such an important element it needs to be in the infobox; it's not even included in the lead. It's not basic biographical information and it's not directly germane to his output, which is what an infobox should be focusing on (the high-level important stuff.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The template documentation advises that the parameter should be included only when significant to the subject's notability. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=1280034244"