Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:...)

Welcome to the MOS pit


    Style discussions elsewhere

    [edit]

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

    Current

    [edit]

    (newest on top)

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Capitalization-specific:

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

    Move requests:

    Other discussions:

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Concluded

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

    Commas around incorporated businesses' names

    [edit]

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

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

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

    An editing policy question

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

    It's fine, really. This is one of those things the MOS exists to obliquely neutralize—i.e. this is a pretty conjectural position and not worth getting into all-in or all-out discussions over. Remsense ‥ 论 17:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “Obliquely neutralize” — there’s a new one for me! 😅
    I just thought it would help lighten the bureaucratic tone of these articles to dial down the legalese, as many editors feel increasingly on edge with all the rules and regulations they discover the more they wade into Wikipedia. Augnablik (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Genuinely, I apologize that I can't talk normal when the situation would benefit from it. Take that how you will. Remsense ‥ 论 17:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or shall. EEng 17:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    😂 Augnablik (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Am losing the will to live here, mate. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The classic rule is that, in the first person (I/we) the unmarked form is "shall", whereas "will" connotes a deliberate choice, but in the second and third person, the unmarked form is "will", whereas "shall" connotes a demand based on the speaker's authority.
    There are two good ways to remember this. The classic one is the English canard about the Irishman in trouble in the lake, who said "I will drown and no one shall save me", so to respect his wishes, they let him drown.
    The other one involves Tallulah Bankhead. I shan't repeat it here. I expect anyone who wants to can Google it. --Trovatore (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]
    Just be aware that you’ve entered the purview of a global encyclopedia, and that means you will encounter forms of English that aren’t necessarily common locally to wherever you live. MapReader (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this one of those rfc:2119 situations where we should stick to a limited number of modal verbs on a sliding scale (must > should > may)? --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MapReader, Although I’m aware of different styles of English in different parts of the world, the shall/will issue I’ve raised here is more about how Wikipedia wants to show officially expected actions in particular situations.
    Not like , “Today I shall go to the beach” … but like, “Administrators shall hold discussions on the matter for one week before reaching a decision.” Augnablik (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevertheless, ‘shall’ is still reasonably common usage in formal, official or legal written texts, in the UK, in a way that I don’t think you can say for the US (but willing to be corrected…), and is not considered particularly user-unfriendly. Your observation to the contrary above is therefore pitched from the perspective of a particular Engvar, which was my original point. MapReader (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MapReader, you're probably right about "how official" shall sounds to UK and US readers of official documents. And frankly, that word is still used from time to time in official documents in the US, even though much more rarely these days. Even so, here's a thought: if will would work equally well as shall in Wikipedia policy and guidance documents, why not use it consistently here so as to make "official stuff" sound a bit less bureaucratic but at the same time affirming of expected behavior?
    Though I'm American, I doubt that any of our UK cousins across the pond would feel affronted if Wikipedia consciously adopted will in its policy and guidelines. Wouldn't it simply be one more example of Wikipedia's intentions of providing as welcoming and user-friendly environment as possible in which to work, while in no way demeaning other varieties of writing?
    Alternatively, to avoid the whole shall/will issue, there are still other ways wording could be done. For example, instead of "Administrators shall hold discussions...,” we could say, "Administrators are to hold discussions ....” Augnablik (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More rules about how rules should be written could be one step forward, two steps back. EEng 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Onbiously, you're free to edit how you want, but as a general rule, surely it isn't WP's object, nor that of the MoS, to try and enforce general language preferences on our editors? MapReader (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You state the onbious. EEng 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, @MapReader, I think it’s time for me to gracefully bow out of the discussion now. My only Intent in making my suggestion was far from an attempt to enforce, though I see how it might be interpreted that way.
    Instead, I was trying to make a case for a slight change in wording that seemed to me could help Wikipedia accomplish its very positive goal of creating an open, light, friendly ambience — just as seniors helping in the Teahouse and elsewhere are asked to do with those who ask questions. I know that as some editors get involved with Wikipedia, they come to feel weighed down by many rules and regulations and even become fearful they might make a slip and face serious consequences.
    It was this I hoped my suggestion might help prevent in the long run, with the flip-side benefit of editor retention. Augnablik (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Archimedes § MOS:'S (redux)

    [edit]

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

    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]

    Discussion on American football bio leads

    [edit]

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

    Usage of historical place names in infoboxes

    [edit]

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

    When are words being used as-words?

    [edit]

    It seems to be required by MOS:WAW that any statement that uses constructions like:

    • This concept is called Example, ... (also termed, known as, referred to as, etc.)

    italicize the term. However, this is almost never consistently done even in many of our FAs (see Introduction to general relativity, used as an example in the MoS), and many other publications are unbothered. Am I worrying about something that doesn't make a difference in the clarity of many passages?

    I just struggle with paragraphs like (adapted from Chinese characters § Zhou scripts):

    It just looks weird that maintaining a natural flow in more jargon-y passages requires two terms to be italicized and one not to be. It looks arbitrary, and might even confuse readers if they notice? Remsense ‥ 论 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that either of the phrases in the example qualify as words as words. WAW, I think, applies to things like, "Of all the nouns, birdcage is the best." Or, "...some egghead discovered a misprint of the book, with relative misspelled." I would use quotation marks in the example you provided.

    Unless, of course, I'm mistaken. Primergrey (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Order of explanation for placing ref as per MOS:REFPUNCT

    [edit]

    Hi

    I am finding an increased number of refs in the middle of text, and I wondered if it could be confusion to the current wording. If the editor/reader deos not read more/further than the first sentence of this section of the paragraph, they may well put the ref in the middle of a sentence and not after punctuation as it appears to first suggest that: "All reference tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space. Apart from the exceptions listed below, references are placed after adjacent punctuation, not before."

    Can we consider rewording this to: "All reference tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, and should be placed after the next adjacent punctuation with no intervening space. The exceptions to this are listed below."

    This would then read as a two-part instruction rather than the current which appears to be one instruction to place it directly after the text.

    Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No, you don't have to wait for punctuation to place a reference. The current wording is fine. Gawaon (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It clearly states that we do, in the current wording - "references are placed after adjacent punctuation" Chaosdruid (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's saying that if there is adjacent punctuation, the ref goes after, but it does not preclude placing a ref immediately after the relevant text when there is no adjacent punctuation. Schazjmd (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've always understood the part about punctuation to mean only that if the text to which the footnote applies ends in a punctuation mark, treat that mark as part of the text you're footnoting and put the footnote after it. There's no implication that you have to defer placement of the footnote to the next punctuation mark that appears. And certainly not to the end of the sentence: the guideline covers commas as well. Largoplazo (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Upgrade MOS:ALBUM to an official guideline

    [edit]

    Over at Village pump (policy), I proposed upgrading MOS:ALBUM from an essay to an official guideline. If this talk page is the preferred venue, I apologize. I also apologize for the delay in notifying this talk page. Please see the discussion if you have any input or opinion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Upgrade_MOS:ALBUM_to_an_official_guideline.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    New discussion at Talk:2018 Crozet, Virginia, train crash

    [edit]

    I've tagged it at the top of this page as well, but also putting the invitation here to participate in a new discussion on the use of MOS:GEOCOMMA in article titles (such as train and bus accidents) at Talk:2018 Crozet, Virginia, train crash#Requested move 15 January 2025 - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Usage of 'Notable person' vis-a-vis that of 'Notable people'

    [edit]

    In the course of editing, I very often come across a section header with 'Notable people' and only one entry, so modify the grammar.

    Several days ago, after making such a change, the edit was reverted outright, in conjunction with a statement to the effect that the heading is 'Notable people' regardless of the number of entries listed. It seems to me that, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plurals#Miscellaneous_irregular_plurals, the reversion was incorrect. Hushpuckena (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Honestly I think we should use "persons" as the unmarked plural of "person" Wikipedia-wide. Encyclopedic writing is a very formal register, and "people" has other baggage, often not intended.
    That said, what sort of article is this? Are these city articles, or what? --Trovatore (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been no negative intent on my part when using 'people', but so it goes.
    These articles have been on various communities and I have made such changes for years, but till now have never had any editor state that grammar is immaterial. Hushpuckena (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some section headings are either by guideline, like WP:ELORDER for "External links" or MOS:NOTES for "Notes" and "References" etc., or by tradition and common usage, like "Notable people", "Awards", "Published works", written as plurals, even if there's only one entry. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed; keep it plural, also like "Languages" in the sidebar (even for only one language) and like "Media" in the Commons template (even for only one file there). Doremo (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Oxford spelling and commas

    [edit]

    As far as I'm aware, serial comma inclusion/omission is always treated separately from spelling conventions; MOS:SERIAL doesn't say anything related to MOS:TIES. However, when an article employs Oxford spelling ({{British English Oxford spelling}}), would it be reasonable to require the serial comma? (Of course, this wouldn't prohibit removing it to avoid local ambiguity.) On one hand, it seems a bit odd that editors of a specific article must follow one prominent component of a specific style guide's instructions while being free to ignore another component, and because en-gb-oxondic is a narrow group of articles and compliance requires a little training, these articles are already having their spelling/grammar watched by editors who are familiar with everyone else not being aware of the standards. But on the other hand, I can imagine it being awkward to require serial commas on a small portion of the encyclopedia, while the rest of the encyclopedia merely requires internal consistency; it might lead to confusion because a small set of articles has rules different from the rest. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The serial comma and Oxford spelling are not related to one another save from the fact that Hart's Rules and the Oxford English Dictionary share the same publishing house on the River Isis, and they are not intended to complement one another in any particular way. As you've noticed, this is conflating apples with oranges stylistically. More concretely, our guidance on serial commas is not dependent at all on what variety of English is being used—instead, it should be consistent, and possibly depend on what is best for eliminating ambiguity in each article on an individual basis. Remsense ‥ 论 22:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So Hart's Rules doesn't demand the use of Oxford spelling? My thought process:
    • Oxford spelling says that Hart's Rules follows Oxford spelling
    • Style guides are created to be prescriptive on this kind of thing, so Hart's Rules will require a specific spelling system
    • Hence, it's highly likely that Hart's Rules will require the spelling system that it uses
    Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oxford spelling is just that—spelling. As an ENGVAR, it is merely British English with etymologically-minded spelling conventions. Remsense ‥ 论 22:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As for Oxford comma, I refer you to a reply I gave some years ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Does Wikipedia use honorific titles?

    [edit]

    I remember reading a while ago that Wikipedia does not use honorific titles in referring to people, e.g. Albert Einstein or Einstein instead of Dr. Albert Einstein or Dr. Einstein. I can't find anything like that today. Did I imagine that? Is there any style guidance on use of titles such as Doctor? MOS:HONORIFIC is just about using special honorifics associated with a person who is the subject of a biography. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:JOBTITLE and its subsection MOS:DOC says to avoid "Dr" and similar titles.  Stepho  talk  06:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As a general rule, we also don't use even less specific honorifics or courtesy titles (I'm not super-sure of the distinction between the two), like Mr, except in quotes. See MOS:MR. --Trovatore (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ENGVAR question

    [edit]

    Based on a dispute at Bicolor cat. Does the fact that the article has, and has always had, a clear ENGVAR title control what variety the body uses? Seems obvious to me, but the guideline doesn't actually state what to do.

    In this particular case, the article was created as the stubbiest of stubs in 2002, with the creator using "bicolor" in the title (and the article has never been moved, I double checked) while using "bicolour" in the one-paragraph body. Over the next few years contributions included both spellings, and both appeared in the body at the same time. However, noting the inconsistency, a wikignome edited the body in 2008 to consistently use "color" and that ENGVAR was used consistently and continuously for 16 years until last September when, citing the ancient stub in Theo edit summary, someone changed the body ENGVAR to use "colour" making it inconsistent with the title. I changed it and was promptly reverted. I argue that there was no consistent variety at all until 2008, and that having a variety consistent with the title (which again, has never changed) is the only logical and valid ENGVAR. oknazevad (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Flip a coin if you want, but pragmatically a move is a "more substantial" alteration, so I would go with the title form. Remsense ‥ 论 23:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick spot check of the article's early history confirms that it started as "bicolor". Since there are no close ties to any country for this term, there is no reason for it to prefer either British or US spelling, so we fall back to the spelling used when the article was created. The use within in the article should match the articles name, so "bicolor" is the correct spelling for this article. As said above, this is all following WP:ENGVAR. Note: I say this as an Australian who would naturally use "bicolour".  Stepho  talk  23:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with oknazevad that it never had a consistent style until oknazevad's change to make the body consistent with the title. The previous change to use "colour" throughout the body does not count because the title remained inconsistent. I agree with the comments above that going with the original title is a smaller change and therefore better, but we can reach the same outcome by a different argument: oknazevad's version was the first consistent version so we should go with that. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I was not the editor who made it consistent in 2008 (which was done with this edit. In fact, I had never edited the article until today, after I noticed the obvious clash between the title and the body. A quick look at the history showed that it had been changed last September. I was just changing it back to the consistent ENGVAR the article had for over a decade and a half. oknazevad (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I stand corrected. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop making this claim. It was inconsistent before I edited it: [2]. I noticed the inconsistency and looked at the oldest revisions to decide on which variety to change to. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your implied claim that it was never consistent until you edited it is clearly false: the 2008 version that oknazevad links to is consistent. And your implied claim that your edit (I assume in this version) made it consistent is also false: there is no consistent spelling even if one ignores the obvious inconsistency between article and text. One could interpret your comment here as meaning merely that the version immediately prior to yours had inconsistencies (as did the version after your edit) but that is not a valid reason to choose one spelling over another; one has to look at the history. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. The version before the one you just linked to has one errant ENGVAR use. The alternate spelling in the first sentence is not only typical but expected. The only other use is in the title of a reference, and that should not be altered. oknazevad (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Query about use of subsections

    [edit]

    I understand that there is generally something of a taboo about breaking the entirety of a section into subsections without leaving any "independent" content; i.e., having all of the information under a given level two heading further located under level three subsections. I can see the appeal of having a separate paragraph at the beginning of the section as a sort of mini-lead, but as far as I can tell, there is nothing in the MOS requiring this. Is there truly anything wrong with having part of an article formatted like this, even if it isn't the most popular? — Anonymous 00:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No, there's nothing wrong with this. I've done this in multiple Good Articles including Antiparallelogram, Binary logarithm, and BIT predicate. I don't recall seeing any complaints about this from the GA reviewers. As long as the section title is self-explanatory enough and its subsections independent enough, one doesn't need a section summary paragraph first. In all of these cases, one could add a paragraph briefly summarizing each subsection, but it wouldn't add much useful content to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per above, there are obvious cases when it is advantageous versus when it is not. It depends on which structure feels more or less natural for discussing the subject at hand, as obvious as that may sound.
    (Someone tell me if I'm wrong here, but iirc German academia actually has particular preference for perfect cover by the subsections within monographs etc. A bit different than ordinary technical writing esp. since it's doing something very particular, but the infamous Tractatus comes to mind as the total reverse.) Remsense ‥ 论 03:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Executive orders: quotation marks or not?

    [edit]

    Just to be clear, executive order titles do not have quotations, correct? Across such articles, I have seen some with and some without, and MOS:NEITHER is not too explicit. I am asking due to the influx of executive order pages being created. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you mean whether quotation marks should be used around their titles when referring to them? Gawaon (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gawaon: Yes... For example, see Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness versus Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government at the time of writing this comment. I am fairly certain it should be no quotation marks, but given their equal prevalence, I thought I should ask. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that yes, quotation marks should be used around them. We generally use quotation marks around titles of the kinds of works that are typically short and rarely published stand-alone (newspaper and journal articles, short stories, poems etc.), and use italics for long, stand-alone works (novels and other books, films and TV series etc.). Executive orders seem to fall into the short category and so get quotation marks. Gawaon (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we'd benefit from some explicit guidance in MOS:TITLES or MOS:LAW regarding laws, orders, etc. Currently, there doesn't seem to be much consistency. Affordable Care Act (USA) is in plain text, while Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Australia) is italicised. I also note that most treaties (e.g. Treaty of Versailles, Montreal Protocol) are simply capitalized. pburka (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, MOS:NEITHER would make it seem like they do not get quotations as legal documents. That is what the MLA guidelines say, at least. I just wanted to ask before any mass edits. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find capitalization sufficient for executive orders, laws, acts, etc. I don't see them in quotes in sources. I've noticed that Australian acts, etc. seem to be italicized, but I've never made the effort to investigate it. If something is capitalized on Wikipedia, that identifies it as a proper noun, a specific thing. That's enough. SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=1271737054"