Does the MOS have any recommendation for or against using the {{clear}} template to prevent images from spilling into subsequent sections? It appears to be the main use of the template, according to its documentation, but I couldn't find any official guideline mention. Obviously, the best course would be not to use too many images, but this is not easy to achieve consistently across all displays. With today's huge display resolutions, an article that follows MOS:LAYIM's benchmark of not spilling over at 1024×768 might still break down on wider screens. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned at Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. DMacks (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's not really part of the MOS, though... --Paul_012 (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more specific recommendations could be made at MOS:IMGLOC and/or MOS:LAYIM? Something along the lines of "try not to have images spill into the next section, and optionally, use {{clear}} to prevent this happening on wider screens." --Paul_012 (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be mentioned in the layout MOS somewhere. I'm not sure simply spilling into later sections is a problem (the tradeoff is whitespace that interferes with flow of text). But if the later section(s) have images, there's an image-stacking problem that makes those other sections' images not located where their content is, and "put images where their content is" is a explicit MOS guideline (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Vertical placement. DMacks (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think this is best left unsaid. If images are stacking (in windows of reasonable width – there's always going to be some nerd with a super-big monitor telling us that articles don't look good in super-wide windows) then resize them, juggle them to different sections, left-right alternate them, or whatever. You really shouldn't be using {clear} to solve that problem, because as already mentioned it substitutes one unattractive thing (excess vertical whitespace, which can REALLY look awful) for another. Pretty much the only time I use it is when there's an image near the end of the last section of the article, just before ==References== etc., and maybe on a wide screen the image will intrude into the references, distorting the column layout or whatever; plus I've used it in a few very well-considered situations in articles that are very stable, with a lot of images carefully laid out. (Open Phineas Gage for editing and search {clear}.) But this something best left to experienced editors, and it's best taught by their seeing it in actual use. If we start talking about {clear} in MOS some zealot will start running around adding it everywhere an image spills into the following section, and next thing you know there will be edit wars, angry words, and we'll all be at Arbcom. So let's just let this lie.

BTW, I think I wrote the text at IMGLOC, An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section; if this is not possible, try not to place an image "too early" i.e. far ahead of the point in the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this could puzzle the reader. Notice that it says an image shouldn't be too "early" – it doesn't talk about being too "late". I worded it that way consciously to avoid making editors feel every image must be neither too early nor too late, and must therefore be "just right" i.e. in the exact section. If an image of John Smith comes a paragraph later than where he's discussed in the text, that's not so bad, because the reader has presumably already read about him; but if the image comes before where he's discussed, then the reader may be puzzled.

Finally, Wikipedia:Picture tutorial is the most godawful hypertechnical overcomplicated help page we have, and should be ripped to shreds and the pieces ritually burned, if we could figure some way of doing that over the internet. It's useless – horrible. EEng 02:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair points. I've also mostly used it to stop images breaking the references columns, but was kinda worried it might be regarded as an inappropriate lazy hack or something. I'll stop worrying. (Since you mentioned WP:Picture tutorial, might I add that I've never understood why there are so many image policy/guideline/instruction pages, nor been able to easily locate information in any of them?) --Paul_012 (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Archaic 'st' words – it's more of a MOS:COMMONALITY vs. MOS:ENGVAR matter than a MOS:WTW one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this section is biased. -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just copy-pasted it from the original (and fixed the markup). This is just a pointer to the discussion; the place to object to the title is at the actual discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the bias in the title (it could have been "Chiefly UK 'st' words") the subject still merits discussion. Sorry if you think the title is biased, but the fact remains that outside of the UK (particularly in America), those words are considered archaic. Various UK style guides seem to agree. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, if you are wanting to start an open RfC-style discussion about something, beginning by creating an impression that these words are archaic is not particularly good. You do not need to say anything about them. –Sb2001 21:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the original thread "Are -st variants of words archaic?" (and preserved the old one as a valid link target, with {{anchor}}). Hopefully that will resolve the issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC in progress at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#RfC_about_linking_in_quotations about MOS:LINKSTYLE & MOS:LWQ. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I often despair of Wikipedia and its growing list of does and don'ts. I am reverting the Revision as of 06:28, 2 October 2017 by user:Scribolt because it is not only unnecessary instruction creep it is also potentially harmful to the goals of the section in which it resides.

The problem is that if someone adds a bullet point to this page like this then it is only a matter of time before someone runs AWB or a bot script over articles that the user of the bot or AWB has never manually touched. If there is what you think is an archaic spelling on a page then be bold page and fix it. If it is reverted then follow BRD. That is standard practice and it does not need additional guidance here.

This looks to me like an addition that was not thought through. The bullet point that I am removing says is in a section called "[MOS:COMMONALITY |Opportunities for commonality!]: When more than one variant spelling for a word exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should be preferred unless there is a consensus at the talk page of the article to use the less common alternative.

MOS:COMMONALITY a complicated issues because it is often used as a method to ride rough-shot over national varieties of English, particularly those of minority English dialects -- which in practice means everything but American English. Just look at how "fixed-winged aircraft" article was usurped by "Airplane". If that additional article had been created with "Aeroplane" as its title it would probably have been speedily deleted.

The point is the "there is a consensus at the talk page of the article to use the less common alternative" is an inversion of the usual Wikipedia way per BRD where changes are only made if there is consensus on the talk page to make them. I do not believe this is an issue where the usual proof of consensus ought to be changed, because if the spelling is really archaic then most editing in good faith will accept it, and if not then the usual dispute resolution will end up with change.

Or user:Scribolt was it your intention to create a bludgeon so that those running bots and AWB script could force through changes on multiple pages without the tedium of engaging in BRD to gain a consensus for such changes?

As phrased this rule would allow someone could go through any topic with close connection with Britain and "rationalise" [sic.] the spelling of words ending in "ize" to the usual British ending of "ise". That might be desirable for consistency across British English articles, but how does that improve MOS:COMMONALITY in general? -- PBS (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored a variant of it (since the line-item was added after extensive consensus discussion), but without the "unless ..." caveat that is the subject of this dispute, and modifying it to say "usually", which is consistent with our general approach to such matters (advise, permit exceptions, don't dump a huge list of examples on people). PS: The Oxford -ize worry above is not actually applicable, because Oxford spelling is itself explicitly recognized on WP as an legit ENGVAR, and we even have templates for it along with the "use American English", etc., templates.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SMcCandlish for your rewrite, that is an improvement. PBS, you might want to consider whether speculating on my motivations for an edit without evidence in such a manner is appropriate. Indeed, if you'd taken even a cursory amount of time to read both the RFC and discussion I referred to in my edit summary I think you would have been unlikely to conclude that an intent to facilitate bludgeoning of any kind was not very likely. For the record, I have never contributed to Wikipedias growing list of female deer, but even if I had I would see nothing to apologise for. Scribolt (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At User:Scribolt I did not speculate on your motives, ask asked you if it was you intention to. There is such a thing as unforeseen consequences. -- PBS (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:SMcCandlish you write The PS: The Oxford -ize worry above is not actually applicable, because Oxford spelling is itself explicitly recognized on WP as an legit ENGVAR, I know about Oxford spelling and its acceptability to date (which is why I used it as an example), but according to the wording you restored it contradicts that for British English because "When more than one variant spelling for a word exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred." as "ise" is more common in British English that negates the use of "ize". If on the other hand you are going to argue that "ize "should be used because it is the most common thanks to its use in American English then that negates ENGVAR. -- PBS (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except, again, WP treats Oxford English as its own ENGVAR. If you can't replace New Zealand English with Canadian English (without a legit reason), you can't swap out Oxford and non-Oxford British English either. If you think it's necessary, we could add a footnote about it or something. On the side matter, I wouldn't personally mind at all if we just settled on -ize across the board for commonality reasons, since the British have no lack of familiarity with the spelling, but some just prefer -ise. (There are lots of similar conflicts in Canadian English, some arising as "big deal" matters only since the 1990s.) However, there appear to be more British (and other Commonwealth English) users who prefer -ise (as with -st, e.g. amongst – see other thread) despite Oxford and other British publishers advising to avoid that style in formal writing. So, I would not expect such a proposal to gain consensus, and it would piss people off to advance one seriously.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This[20] should do it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)   And that's been sagely compressed by EEng and DrKay [21]; I was sleepy when I cobbled the original together. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there has been a related discussion about exactly this bit of the guideline over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Archaic 'st' words, which may have been the basis for starting this thread here. For my part, I don't see the problem that PBS describes unless there needs to be a clearer distinction between common and universal vocabulary. So we use regional spellings that are common to a region, but for cases where both universal and regional synonyms are used in the same region (such as among and amongst in the UK), we prefer the universal term. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought you said savagely, and the funny thing is that I didn't bat an eye. EEng 23:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I share PBS's concern that the recently added "unless there is a consensus at the talk page of the article to use the less common alternative" is an inversion of normal editing and BRD; we've had this issue before with ENGVAR, DATEVAR, etc., being written as if a consensus discussion has to happen before anyone's allowed to edit. Which reminds me we had a consensus discussion on one of these (DATEVAR, I think) that agreed to clarify it, but the clarification hasn't been made yet (archiver bot hid it away a few weeks ago). As for -st, I'm skeptical we'd get consensus to always prefer "among" over "amongst" right now (though going that direction is inevitable in the long term because English itself is moving that way).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That bit was actually your suggestion... But yeah, I agree that it's better now, and thanks to everyone involved. Scribolt (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bystander comment

I never cease to be amazed at the things people manage to find worth arguing about. EEng 11:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I need to take issue with such a parochial view. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What?! That word is abused! No church parish is at issue!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gesundheit. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been suggested at Talk:Disk storage#RfC on "data are" or "data is" that this issue should be decided by MOS. Is this a MOS issue? Specifically (assuming both "data are" and "data is" are proper English, and the difference is use as either a count noun plural of "datum" or a mass noun) is use choice a national variety, like "colour/color"? Is "data is/are" already covered by WP:ENGVAR? If so, should ENGVAR be amended to make that coverage obvious? If not, should ENGVAR be expanded to cover similar variations that don't follow national boundaries? Should other English "boundaries" be identified by common usage within a field, industry, subject, time, etc., or some combination? How? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I commented there. I see no reason to think this is ENGVAR related, and I don't think the MOS needs to cover such narrow cases. Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with ENGVAR, no need for special treatment at MOS. The answer to the underlying question depends on the context (whether the data is counable) , not on a rigid rule. "All of that data is now stored on the backup server". "These three specific pieces or data are now stored on the backup server". --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Guy Macon and Dicklyon.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. EEng 02:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is a style question since most everyone seems to agree that both "data is" and "data are" are correct. Absent a guideline in MOS this question of style becomes an editor's choice which is coverred by MOS:STYLEVAR, specifically, ' that editors should not change an article from one styling to another without "substantial reason." '

FWIW there are 9,814 instances of "data is" and 14,645 instances of "data are" in WP articles including 809 instances were both are used and 100 instances where "data is" is used in the same article with "dataum," e.g. Data structure alignment. There is a concensus that both the latter constructions (usage of both and usage of datum and "data is") are incorrect. I therefore suggest that some attention is appropriate for WP:MOS

Note that this style issue is addressed in other "Manuals of Style" so that it is appropriate herein.

I suggest the teachings of MOS:ENGVAR can be applied to intra-language variations such as "data is" and "data are" or "disc" vs "disk." Such intra-language migh contain the following sections:

1. Opportunities for commonality - like MOS:COMMONALITY except restated to prefer a varient which is dominant within an article's subject matter.
2. Consistency with articles - same as MOS:ARTCON; however needs to be expanded to address datum with data is as an inconsistency.
3. Retain existing varients - same as MOS:RETAIN

There is no need for an equivalent to MOS:TIES since it is covered in 1. above.

My recollection is that this issue comes up from time to time as it currently is in Talk:Disk storage#RfC on "data are" or "data is" so that some guideance in MOS would prevent or reduce such discussions.

Accordingly I would like further discussion herein. Tom94022 (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Wouldn't it just be rehash? We already know that the actual meaning of "data is" and "data are" (and of "disc" and "disk") are different and context-dependent; using the one that matches the intended contextual meaning is a "substantial reason" for a change on a case-by-case basis. Going around changing all cases of "disk" to "disc" or "data are" to "data is" (or vice versa in either case) is not, and we already know that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rehash of what? It's not explicit that intra-language choices are covered by MOS:STYLEVAR nor is there any requirement for consistency of style. No one is thinking about changing all cases but the two "improper" cases cited above (datum/data is and data are/data is) should be fixed and without WP:MOS guideance fixing might not occur or might be disputed. Tom94022 (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

STYLEVAR is general, and says nothing that limits it to inter-dialect (I don't think you really meant -language) disputes – those are covered at ENGVAR, so of course STYLEVAR includes intra-dialect ones. The nature of the "data is/are" dispute is actually something fairly unusual: group A understands that these have different meanings in different contexts, while group B consists of Latin-nerd prescriptivists with a WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:TRUTH (or "how English should really work, dammit", i.e. WP:SOAPBOX) perspective that "data is" necessarily must be wrong, no matter what. This is a usage-defying prescriptive grammar PoV, and WP is the wrong venue to push it. It may be the case that this dispute is recurrent and flamey enough that MoS should say something specific about it, but it would be specific about data is/are, not a general change to STYLEVAR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a third agnostic group - let the editor's decide. It would suggest a policy that "The English Wikipedia prefers no specific variation in language within a national variety of an English language over any other." I think a general policy is prefered with "datum/data is/data are" as an example but it could be limited to just "datum/data is/data are". Other Style Guides cover this subject why not WP? Tom94022 (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I've run into problems with some editors who insist that the preposition at should not be used with respect to cities, but should always be changed to in, of, from, or some other word. Attempts to point out that at is perfectly appropriate and idiomatic in this context, and also expresses the intended meaning better than the alternatives, usually result in the same changes being made repeatedly. It looks as though a few editors are actively seeking out such phrases and changing them to their preferences, and resisting any attempt to convince them that at a city, town, or other geographical location is perfectly acceptable. I have asked for some authority supporting the claim that this usage is wrong or should be avoided, but haven't been shown any, and haven't found any on my own. Most grammar books and style guides are silent on the issue, or seem to support using at with cities and towns. The Oxford English Dictionary specifically says that this is one of the primary uses of at, and gives examples from the thirteenth century to the present (mostly limited to English cities such as Winchester and London, in my edition).

I'm not sure there's a Wikipedia policy that applies here. Is it simply an English variant? Or just personal preference? That's how I see it when people substitute other prepositions for the intended one. I've written a lot of articles about ancient Romans and Roman families, and over time I've come to prefer the phrase at Rome, because it conveys location without adding unintended or inaccurate meanings. In Rome implies "within the territorial boundaries", which is too specific and not necessarily accurate; of Rome and from Rome imply origin, which is often somewhere other than Rome, or at best uncertain. In any case, if at is perfectly appropriate, and more accurately expresses the intended meaning, is there any policy to point to when reverting changes to other prepositions based on another editor's preferences? Is it relevant if such a change is the only involvement that an editor has with certain articles? It's a little annoying when it appears that editors are simply searching for examples of phrases they dislike, in order to change them to ones they prefer, if they have no other interest in the articles, or understanding of the reason why one choice of words is preferable to another in a given instance. Or is even asking the question displaying "ownership behaviour"? The situation is becoming quite frustrating. P Aculeius (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples would help, but I think you're way off base here. Looking at your recent edits, I see for example "The gens Flavia was a plebeian family at Rome." (wikilinks omitted). This is horribly awkward; in or of would be a lot better here. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you think it's "horribly awkward". Could you explain? In either case, in would be completely wrong, since it implies spatial relationships, rather than location, and therefore territorial limitation. The Flavii were a Roman family, no matter where individual members went or lived. While they were chiefly associated with Rome, they didn't have to live within the city limits, or cease to be part of the family when they went elsewhere. Of would be better than in, but it implies origin, which is not necessarily true of many Roman families. But your point seems to be that at should not be used of cities. I don't understand why anybody thinks this; it's flatly contradicted by the best authorities. The Oxford English Dictionary says, "2. With proper names of places: Particularly used of all towns . . ." with examples following: at Winchester, at London, at Jerusalem, at Edinburgh. It's not easy to search for specific prepositional phrases in literature, but I found a site to search Shakespeare, and found numerous examples: at Marseilles, at Rome, at Ephesus, at Antium, at London, at Harfleur, at York, at Venice, at Antioch, at Tyre, at Pentapolis, at Mantua, at Verona. On point, my copy of Reading Latin describes the locative case: "it is used to express 'at' with names of towns and one-town islands", with examples at Rome, at Corinth, at Athens, at Carthage, at Sardes. So what is the authority for this being incorrect? Is it just that some editors don't like it? And if that's all it is, then what's the relevant policy? P Aculeius (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but to me "at" is something you would use for an instantaneous action, while "in" implies a longer duration. So, "our train stopped at Rome", because stopping is a quick event, but "I stayed in Rome for a week last year" because staying is not. In the case of the gens Flavia, they were in Rome (that's where they lived), not at Rome (on their way through from somewhere else to somewhere else). This web site gives a different distinction, based on the size of the place (one that I'm not sure I agree with) but it ends up with the same result in this example. This other web site comes closer to the distinction in my mind: "at" is for specific points in space or time (time, as I explained it above) while "in" is for a broader location or time period. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think for a second that The gens Flavia was a plebeian family at Rome is acceptable 21st-century English, you need to get your nose out of Gibbon. EEng 05:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Deacon Vorbis and David Eppstein. To answer P Aculeius's question, The gens Flavia was a plebeian family at Rome is horribly awkward, as Vorbis put it, because it's not idiomatic in formal English. It may be idiomatic in colloquial English somewhere, but WP isn't written in colloquial English. That "at [city name]" usage is virtually unseen in writing we'd find in sources we'd consider reliable, except for things like David's "the train stopped at Rome", which is still a construction most people would probably avoid. That kind of case is actually a shorthand for something more specific, either a particular station actually named "Rome", or one named something else and just serving Rome, but called "Rome" for short by insiders to that transit system. The station is not the city of Rome (present or past) or vice versa. By way of comparison, I might get off at a bus stop named Foo Street, at the corner of Foo and First, and say "I got off at Foo Street". But if I got in a car wreck on that street, I'd say it happened "on" (or maybe in British English, "in") Foo Street, not "at" it. The street and the station named after it are sharing a name, but are not the same thing or the same kind of thing, ergo different prepositions are liable to apply in such cases, and even to the same case in different contexts. The Flavian family did not live "at" Rome any more than I live "on" the city of Oakland, or I'm going "for" the grocery store, or your cousin grew up "of" Boston. (Yet a sign may point at Rome, a rain can fall on Oakland, I could work for a grocery store, and your cousin might be of Boston).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More on "on" vs "in" for streets —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. Cornell: The Beginnings of Rome (Routledge History of the Ancient World) (1995)

• "This seems to have happened at Rome at the end of Phase IIB."
• "What happened at Rome at the end of the sixth century . . ."
• ". . . to my mind the traditional accounts imply a change of precisely this kind at Rome."
• "At least one chamber tomb has been identified at Rome itself . . ."
• ". . . the fall of the monarchy at Rome was part of this wider picture."
• ". . . the Esquiline necropolis at Rome . . ."
• "The Tarquins were not the only outsiders to rule at Rome."
• ". . . the rule was already established that Roman citizens could not be enslaved at Rome."
• ". . . such luxuries as were to be found at Rome must have been imported . . ."
• ". . . may indeed have ruled at Rome."

Gary Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome: from Prehistory to the First Punic War, University of California (2005)

• "These simple graffiti constitute some of the earliest samples of writing discovered at Rome."
• "Furthermore, although examples of writing at Rome are quite rare for this period . . ."
• ". . . J. C. Meyer has combined both these concepts to explain the history of human habitation at Rome during the early Iron Age."
• ". . . public performances of some sort existed at Rome much earlier than is generally supposed . . ."
• "Laws ameliorating the conditions of indebtedness were not forthcoming at Rome until the fourth century B.C."

The Roman Historical Tradition: Regal and Republican Rome, James H. Richardson & Federico Santangelo, eds, Oxford University Press (2014)

• "This child, who had been left at Rome, was the seed of the Fabian race . . ."
• ". . .Timaios attributes the first coinage at Rome to Servius."
• "What is far more perplexing to us is how a historian contemporary with the very first coinage at Rome. . ."
• "However, with the credentials of the story of the Tarquins at Rome now restored . . ."
• "Festus preserves the precious information that she changed her Etruscan name to Gaia Caecilia at Rome."
• "The possible identification of Servius rex at Rome and the seruus rex at Aricia gives an obvious origin and a terminus post quem for the tradition . . ."
• "According to one version, the child of the Fabii who owed his life to having been left at Rome had the praenomen Numerius."
• ". . . Claudius mentioned foreigners who had even attained the kingship at Rome."
• ". . . a time before the establishment of written historiography at Rome near the end of the third century . . ."
• "It seems, therefore, that Marcellus had a decisive impact on the tradition of the spolia opima at Rome, starting in his own lifetime."
• ". . . the fact that they never had, except at Rome, a nomen gentilicium . . ."
• ". . . it implies a fertile and creative narrative tradition existing long before the introduction of literary historiography at Rome."
• "On the Capitoline at Rome, then, there was an acropolis dedicated to the great deity of Olympus . . ."
• ". . . and his mother (unnamed) bore him in the palace at Rome."
• ". . . with interesting repercussions on the transition from monarchy to Republic at Rome."
• "The record of their women as priestesses and queens certainly fits their aristocratic origins and position at Rome."
• ". . . developments at Rome were influenced by Rome's relationship with both the Greek world and Etruria."
• "Even that single Fabius left at Rome, who later became the propagator of his race, has a parallel in the Greek story."
• ". . . they may be used as evidence by those who think the change at Rome from monarchy to Republic was more an evolutionary than a revolutionary process."
• "By traditional dating, this change takes place fifty years earlier at Rome than at Athens.
• ". . . although the three elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy existed at Rome under the monarchy . . ."

Mary Beard, SPQR: a History of Ancient Rome, W. W. Norton (2015)

• ". . . after his detention at Rome and attempts at popular politics at home . . ."
• ". . . the snobbery that was another side of life at Rome . . ."
• "In the first civil war at Rome since the brief conflict after the death of Nero in 68 CE . . ."
• "Some of his rivals called him just a 'lodger' at Rome . . ."
• ". . . Polybius tries to shoehorn the political life that he witnessed at Rome into a Greek analytical model that does not entirely fit."
• "It was never a rallying cry at Rome, even in its limited ancient sense . . ."
• ". . . who would never have dreamt of standing for election at Rome . . ."

And just by titles,

• R. Develin, The Practice of Politics at Rome 366–167 B.C.", Ed. Latomus (1985)
• Sandra R. Joshel, Work, Identity, and Legal Status at Rome: a Study of the Occupational Inscriptions, University of Oklahoma Press (1992)
• Keith Bradley, Slavery and Society at Rome, Cambridge University Press (1994)
• Denis Feeney, Literature and Religion at Rome: Cultures, Contexts, and Beliefs, Cambridge University Press (1998)
• David Noy, Foreigners at Rome: Citizens and Strangers Duckworth, Classical Press of Wales (2000)
• Francisco Pina Polo, The Consul at Rome: the Civil Functions of the Consuls in the Roman Republic, Cambridge University Press (2011)

I'm sure I could come up with many more examples if I spent hours searching for them. But I think my point must be adequately demonstrated by now. At with the names of towns and cities is perfectly acceptable English, whether formal or familiar, and even recommended in certain contexts, of which at Rome is a prime example. And in the particular example that's being cited repeatedly, it's the preferable alternative because I do not mean in with the connotation of "inside, within the boundaries of", nor do I mean of or from, suggesting point of origin, which is frequently unclear or known to have been some other place. Indeed, as some of the passages quoted above discuss, it was not only possible for a family to hail from one town or region or people and yet come to be regarded as "Roman" in subsequent times, but also that it held a markedly different social status at Rome. A family might have been part of the local aristocracy at Tusculum, Antium, Praeneste, but enrolled among the plebeians at Rome; or like the Claudii, distinguished only by wealth and influence at Regillum, but accorded patrician status at Rome.

My question, however, remains. If a word is correct, perhaps more correct than the alternatives in a given context, and another editor makes it a crusade to change it to his or her personal preference wherever that usage occurs, is there any particular Wikipedia policy that supports reverting the change? P Aculeius (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the merits of "at" vs "in/of", I'll just say that it's generally considered ok to revert such a change and then discuss on the talk page, per WP:BRD. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

P Aculeius I appreciate your question, your gracious tone, and the time you spent looking for sources to support your view. I agree with the others, above, that at with a city is unusual today. In the course of reading and copy-editing many articles on Wikipedia, though, I have to say that I have seen the preposition at used with cities, and places in general, more than I ever had before. I think it must be more a British English usage (and perhaps, as EEng said, a usage in only certain parts of England, and perhaps it is a usage that was more common in the past but is fading) than American English usage. Americans would never say "at Rome", or "at London", except for something like Our train stopped at Rome. Instead, they would use in Rome, of Rome, or from Rome, depending upon the intended meaning. In that particular example you cited, I think the sentence could be re-worded so that the connection between the family and the city of Rome were made clearer. "At Rome" doesn't really explain much. I would write something like:

• The gens Flavia was a Roman plebeian family.
• The gens Flavia was a plebeian family centered in Rome.
• The gens Flavia was a plebeian family long connected with Rome.  – Corinne (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an important detail missing from this discussion is that the example provided is from the lead sentence of the article. It's true that at Rome doesn't really explain much; but that's precisely the point; the alternatives are too specific. The article, and others like it, already provide more detail about origin, location, and time frame. The natural course of an article is to move from the general to the specific detail, beginning with the most general description in the lead. With respect to the alternatives you suggest, the third seems to be the least appropriate, since it implies that the family had some independent status as plebeians divorced from Rome or the Roman state; which it did not, as the distinction between patricians and plebeians is specifically Roman. The first alternative also stumbles here, as there were no non-Roman plebeians; but I also think the phrasing is awkward. Meanwhile, "centered in" combines the notion of territorial limitation that I'm trying to avoid with in, and adds the suggestion that the family diffused outward as one traveled away from the city, which may or may not be true, but which is certainly not the intended meaning of the sentence.

In this specific context, I chose at Rome because it was the simplest, most straightforward way of indicating location without describing territorial limitation, point of origin, duration in time, spatial relationship, concentration, dilution, organization, or other more specific meanings. It's a phrasing that's been used from Middle English up to the present time, and continues to be used in formal and academic writing, both British and American, as well as less formal sources such as SPQR, in ways that cannot be clearly distinguished from the case at issue. I think I have my answer now: there's no particular policy about arbitrary changes to language, but they can be reverted, and if necessary discussed on an article's talk page so that the reasons for or against a particular wording can be debated. Thank you for taking the time to answer me civilly, as I very much appreciate the courtesy, and your suggestions, even though I wasn't convinced that any of them were better than the original wording. It's much easier to discuss issues when you're not being told that your choices are wrong, that you're wrong to ask the question, wrong to present your reasons, to support your point with reliable sources, and that you've just been wasting everybody's time. P Aculeius (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Aside from suggesting that he's got a bit too much invested in this, P Aculeius' list of examples is pointless. Yes, there are lots of places the phrase at [city] makes sense, but They were a family at Rome isn't one of them. Prepositions are funny that way. As usual, Corinne is infinitely patient, and her suggestions are good ones. This is not a MOS matter. EEng 15:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the gist of the entire thread right here: "there are lots of places the phrase at [city] makes sense, but They were a family at Rome isn't one of them." Things like "at Rome at the end of Phase IIB" and "possible identification of Servius rex at Rome and the seruus rex at Aricia" are references to an extended archaeological site and artifacts within it (e.g. inscriptions), not references to a city per se. Families are not artifacts or digs. The "in the palace at Rome" type of construction is different, and common for nested placenames ("University of Texas at Austin"). Families are not placenames. Similarly, "his detention at Rome" is the same kind of case as "The train stopped at Rome"; here "Rome" is referring to a facility (a governmental/military facility in the one case and a transit station in the other). Families are not facilities. And so on. The only kind-of-comparable case I'm seeing in that list (about names) is "she changed her Etruscan name to Gaia Caecilia at Rome." It's uncertain what the exact intent of the statement is without more context (given the legal nature of a name change among the Roman aristocracy, it probably refers to a institution not the entire city, and is thus another shorthand; compare "Alfred the Great died at Winchester"; this means at his royal facilities in Winchester, not "somewhere within the city"). But lets take it at face value and say that "in [city]" is at least attested in the sense that P Aculeius wants to use it, "The gens Flavia was a plebeian family at Rome." Is it the dominant usage? No. Is it common? No. Is it likely to be understood and interpreted as proper English by the average reader? No. Is it likely to result in later editors changing it, and thus in edit-warring over it? Yes (proven, since it already happened).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the distinction you're trying to make doesn't make any sense. The quotations given above cover a wide variety of circumstances including several referring to people. So you seem to be saying, "it's okay with respect to objects, buildings, institutions, and individual people, but not groups of people". And there's no basis for such a distinction other than that you think it sounds odd. Maybe several other people with similar backgrounds may think so too, but that doesn't make it bad English or in any way inappropriate if it happens to be the word that best conveys the intended meaning. I think your conclusion that "it's unlikley to be understood and interpreted as proper English by the average reader" is simply untrue. You've almost certainly passed over constructions of this type hundreds, if not thousands of times while reading various literature and not paid any attention to it because the meaning is perfectly transparent. And I'm even more certain that as an experienced editor in this field, you recognize that just because somebody, or lots of somebodies, prefer to say A rather than B, doesn't make it right, any more than the fact that edit wars get started over it. How many edit wars go on every single day due to people's personal preferences between different ways to say something that are both perfectly acceptable? The fact that one phrase is less common than another, or less common than it used to be, doesn't make it wrong, much less unintelligible. The question here was not whether this was good English, which I think the evidence clearly shows, even if you disagree. The question was how to respond to editors who make a crusade out of imposing one wording over another, if both are acceptable, but one may be preferred due to its meaning. And that question was answered already. P Aculeius (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No distinction is necessary (though I doubt anyone else has any trouble understanding those distinctions, since they were clearly explained in plain English, with examples, and were self-evident anyway). The fact that it's not a common usage in English is entirely sufficient rationale to avoid it on Wikipedia, per WP:COMMONSENSE. Re: "how to respond to editors who make a crusade out of imposing one wording over another" – Obviously, stop being the one who fits that description, since "both are acceptable" doesn't apply here. No one at all here or at the article appears to accept your "at Rome" construction in such a context; see WP:1AM. If you want to write that a railway line stops at Rome, no one would be likely to object, since that's normal English for that context. "The family lived at Rome" is not, in any dialect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly. It's apparent you're not a native speaker of English. And this isn't a MOS matter anyway, so work it out with the editors of the article. EEng 02:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first instinct, but judging from the user page, P Aculeius does appear to be a native speaker – just one who wants to pursue advocacy of very obscure constructions for no clear reason and which no one else seems to agree are useful here. A bit WP:POINTy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His user page has {{user en-5}} not {{user en}}. EEng 04:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say the book usage supports the idea that "at Rome" was once common and is now uncommon, compared to "in Rome". That's why it sounds odd or archaic to many: because it is. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, he needs to get his nose out of Gibbon. EEng 04:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the usage rapidly and completely reversed from "at" to "in", right at about 1889. I don't think we need to entertain usage from the Victorian era, to-day. Now, my haw-haw toffs, let's be afternoonified about this, before someone with no return ticket wants to worry the dog, go off in an aromatic faint, or burst their stay-laces over this nonsensational jolly. We needn't have grass before breakfast due to cheek-ache about such gaff and gum, like a pack of kanurd and flummut shirksters and scurfs. Granny? (For the curious: [22], [23].) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better get that keyboard looked at. EEng 05:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My God, that's another language! Did they really talk that way? Regarding this discussion, I'd like to add something. I think the graph Dicklyon provided is helpful in showing that in Rome is now more commonly used than at Rome. However, it also shows that at Rome is still acceptable, so on that point P Aculeius is correct. If both are acceptable, the question then is whether it is important to use the more common phrase. I believe, though I am not sure, that the participants in this discussion represent speakers of both American and British English, so if the speakers of British English say in Rome is definitely more common than at Rome, then we can agree it is not a question of a difference in variety of English. According to MOS:LEAD, The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. "Accessible" means easily understood by the average Wikipedia reader. According to Checkingfax, "25% of our readers and editors are between the ages of 10 and 17; 50% between 17 and 35; 25% between 35 and 85." We need to keep our readers in mind as we edit articles. The most easily accessible language would, I think, normally contain the most common usage. So on that point alone, P Aculeius ought to concede. The other point is that, as several editors here have said, the particular usage in the example sentence given, "The gens Flavia was a plebeian family at Rome.", is even more unusual than the other uses, so unusual, in fact, that several editors have said it is non-colloquial, and that it is simply not used today. I agree. However, I think it would be more colloquial if a verb – probably a past or present participle – were used before the phrase at Rome. I suggested several examples. Another would be "The gens Flavia was a plebeian family residing at Rome." That, I think, would be considered acceptable for those who don't mind "at Rome" instead of "in Rome". P Aculeius, your point that an article should go from general in the lead to more specific in the body of the article does not mean that a sentence should be pared of the words necessary to make it colloquial. So, here are five possible wordings that could be used:

• The gens Flavia was a Roman plebeian family.
• The gens Flavia was a plebeian family centered in Rome.
• The gens Flavia was a plebeian family long connected with Rome.
• The gens Flavia was a plebeian family residing at Rome.
• The gens Flavia was a plebeian family living in Rome.

Your example, "The gens Flavia was a plebeian family at Rome," does not sound colloquial to most of the participants in this discussion. So, if an editor finds a construction like this, I wouldn't fault them for changing it to something more colloquial. The specific wording to be used can be discussed on the article's talk page. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us would still object to "residing at Rome". PS: I think "does not sound colloquial to most of the participants in this discussion" is meant to say "does not sound idiomatic to most of the participants in this discussion". It does sound colloquial (like something informal and probably in a localized dialect), but it's not what we'd call "idiomatic in English" (reflecting common usage and understanding) any longer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The graph does not say in what contexts "at Rome" remains acceptable. Some, but not as many as used to be. Where "in" is the modern choice, the graph does not show that "at" would be acceptable; perhaps it is, but the graph does not show that. Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish, you are quite right. I apologize for using the wrong word. Dicklyon Good point.  – Corinne (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Mathematics variables section is wrong and needs updating
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some opinions at Talk:David Reimer#"Committed suicide" vs. "died by suicide"? A permalink for it is here. I mentioned there that we have discussed "died by suicide" at this guideline's talk page before. There doesn't appear to be any consensus on Wikipedia about whether we should avoid "committed suicide" or use "died by suicide." And since it keeps coming up, maybe we should address it in the guideline? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this should be addressed below, so we can hopefully generate some consensus to guide us in the general case. Two articles already talk about the public debate concerning this point of terminology, namely the Suicide article, and the Suicide terminology article, the latter having an entire section devoted to it. Mathglot (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opinions posted at WT:LAW, WT:MED, WT:LGBT, WT:SOCIOLOGY, WT:PSYCH. Mathglot (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with which ever. We have had RfC on this in the past[24]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no reason whatsoever to avoid saying "committed suicide". It is a common expression. bd2412 T 02:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And "died of suicide", besides appearing to have the intent of violating WP:EUPHEMISM in this case, is the wrong preposition. It should be "died from suicide". (I realize the Google statistics show that a lot of people disagree with me, but they're all wrong.) —David Eppstein (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At Rome they say "died by suicide". EEng 03:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be "died at suicide"?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about just "killed himself/herself"? Sizeofint (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Ended it all"? "Offed himself"? "Took the easy way out"? "Cheated the hangman"? "Did away with himself"? "Died by his own hand"? EEng 03:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Committed suicide" is standard English. So is the even blunter "killed himself". Anything else is so rare in usage or so obviously a euphemism as to raise questions as to the purpose for using such phrasing. Or questions about the writer's competence in English. Either way, there's no reason to change it. oknazevad (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; they are all invariably "standard English" by textbook definitions. "Died by suicide" is also not a euphemism — and to me it's far more neutral in that it describes what happened without putting intentionality into focus.

We don't express that someone "committed a motorcycle accident" or "committed alcoholism", despite both being choices to engage in motorcycling or alcohol drinking (at least initially). What is standard isn't de facto correct or neutral, and we should strive for neutrality over an infatuation with "standard language".

Within the professional community suicide is seen as a complication of depression, and this wording is a both uncomplicated and straightforward way to get this point across. Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By sticking to the common usage we are being neutral, as we aren't choosing phrasings to ale a point. WP:NOTSOAPBOX/WP:GREATWRONG and all that, which your response below skates quite close to. oknazevad (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, common usage is often far from neutral. Backpain in Spanish is often referred to as "kidney pain", however that is patently false. The same is true for "hysteria", which implies origin in the womb. Just because people in general say something does not imply neutrality. Neutrality is not what is most common... Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I did an N-gram at the main thread showing about a 100:40:1 ratio of "committed suicide" : "killed himself"/"killed herself" (combined) : "died by suicide".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see a problem with any of "committed suicide" : "killed himself"/"killed herself" (combined) : "died by suicide". they all describe unambiguously what happened and are sufficiently neutral and in my opinion grammatically correct. Leave it to the editors to establish consensus, and if that fails, stay with the earliest version of one of these three. The choice for a particular use may be guided by flow of the prose for FA. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

would agree w/ Pbsouthwood--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Committed suicide is the common term. Died by suicide is an attempt at political correctness and is unnecessary in wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've thoroughly misunderstood what political correctness is, and further misunderstood it by stating that something being politically correct is an argument against its use... Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know you think that. Natureium (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Politically correct" has two meanings: the original positive sense propounded by left-progressives in the 1970s (the "politically correct = respectful" idea), and the pejorative sense that now dominates, used by anyone (even on the left) who tires of having everyday English "policed" in the interests of hypersensitivity. I don't think think anyone here is unaware of that, or unaware which meaning Natureium intended. It seems disingenuous on CFCF's part to suggest that Natureium has "misunderstood" when it's clearly a matter of disagreement, not ignorance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that saying that something is "politically correct" is not an argument against it. It is textbook WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Had the argument been that it oversimplifies, or it adds ambiguity or is not generally recognized — then you have an argument. Saying that something is politically correct, and therefore we should not use it — is to imply that Wikipedia should strive to be politically incorrect. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not it at all. I'm saying that rejecting the most common term, which has been used in both formal and informal contexts for many years, for the sake of protecting someone's feelings is censorship. Natureium (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I meant. Thank you for clarifying for people who apparently don't understand. Natureium (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly prefer died by suicide. There are various professional guidelines about how to discuss suicide, which generally conclude that this is the preferable way to express such deaths. This is not specifically an issue of article names, so we are free to follow less standard language in the pursuit of neutrally covering a topic. It doesn't matter one iota what ngram tells us, because even if "killed themselves" was the most common — it's entirely inappropriate for use in an encyclopedia. I think we shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel, but instead follow the professional guidelines that exist about this. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are several sources which explicitly recommend "died by suicide" over "committed"

• American Foundation for Suicide Prevention — Recommendations for Reporting on Suicide
• Samaritans — Media Guidelines for Reporting Suicide

Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ngram approach is tricky when examining a term with changing usage. I doubt it can be done well enough to trust. If even the AFSP, working on prevention, seeks to avoid "committed", then why would we seek to perpetuate its use? Certainly advocates for and practioners of "assisted dying" would not want "committed" to continue. It's an obsolescent term rooted in particular mores and changing legalities. Further, it implies a mental volition and determination which may not be applicable in all cases. Sometimes attempts are more successful than intended when all that was desired was attention. In such cases "committed" is simply wrong. In David Reimer's case the intent is obvious but not the commitment. It would be sufficient to say that he turned a shotgun on himself. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The N-gram approach is actually quite solid when the numbers are big and the search is proper; it's only iffy when there's barely a statistical difference between usages, or the user does not account for how Google Ngrams is indexed and what the limits of its searching are. I'll repeat here what I posted at the article talk page, and people can judge for themselves:

"Committed suicide" is normal English and does not imply criminality ("commit" has multiple meanings in English - one should commit to committing them to memory). It is by far the most common construction, which is easily provable [25]. "Died by suicide" is actually quite rare (surely owning to its archaic awkwardness, shades of "died by [his/her] own hand", "died by misadventure", etc.). "Killed [him|her]self" (combined) have a bit less than 50% the usage rate in modern works as "committed suicide". There are other ways to write this sort of thing, like "death was ruled a suicide" (if we have official reports that say so), and rearranging the sentence: "His/her suicide ...". There are others (see Suicide terminology), but most of them are awkward. We've spent too many cycles on too many pages arguing about this. People who think that "commit suicide" auto-implies a crime are just flat-out wrong as a matter of English language usage, but in the end do we really care? It's easier and faster to re-word than to keep arguing about this on page after page for the next decade. But "died by suicide" is pretty much the last option; virtually no reliable sources use it other than a few newspapers who've jumped onto the oversensitivity pandering bandwagon. This "died by suicide" stuff is the advocacy position of a particular organization [26]; pushing it here is a WP:NPOV policy problem. While we should not revert rewordings of "committed suicide" that are actual improvements (and "died by suicide" is not, or way more than around 1% of sources would use it), programmatic editwarring against "committed suicide" has to stop. This is rapidly approaching disruptive editing levels, and is a major drain on editorial productivity. It's consumed probably several hundred editorial person-hours just in the last couple of months. [End copied post.]
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A few thoughts:
  • "Killed himself" does not indicate intentionality, which is a significant limitation. Thus it is usually going to be more appropriate to specify suicide in such cases, to immediately differentiate "accidentally killed himself while behaving recklessly" from "intentionally killed himself because he didn't want to be alive any more". Bluntness that leaves room for thinking that an intentional death was actually accidental is the wrong kind of bluntness.
  • "Died by suicide" has become more common recently, and it has its advantages and disadvantages. On the upside, it's less moralistic than "committed", so it has a slightly more neutral tone in that sense. On the downside, it also feels like it's treating suicide as a very particular, quasi-medicalized method of dying: It's death as a result of a state of deranged thinking that non-suicidal adults associate teenage angst and long-term depression and similar mental health conditions, but that has almost nothing to do with ritual "honor" suicides and terminally ill patients. Blog posts such as this one indicate the concept here: suicide is the last step in a long chain of medicalized events for people with mental illnesses, and suicide is just the sadly predictable result in some people with this class of medical conditions, just like fatal heart attacks are the sadly predictable result in some people with other classes of medical conditions.
  • About the prepositions: "died of" is more common for statements about causes of death, including murder, strangulation and even depression. One relevant exception: "Died from homicide" is more common than "died of homicide", and much more common than "died by homicide".
  • I think that one of the reasons some influential groups have been pushing "died by" is because they are specifically trying to discourage the publication of methods. Suicide and especially specific suicide methods are subject to fads. They may be trying to replace "He died by shooting himself" with "He died by suicide", and hoping that changing the fewest number of words in the sentence would make it easier for the journalists to accept.
  • My personal preference, at the moment, for the generic case, is "died of" or "died from". But my firm opinion is that editors should consider all of the facts and circumstances, and make a choice that fits the needs of the individual article. I do not want a rule that says 'this phrase is required', or 'that phrase is banned'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not split this discussion into multiple venues. The discussion is already part of a well-established thread at here at the Policy Village Pump and as such, lets not split the same discussion into two places, mkay? I will note that as of yet, that discussion has reached an almost unanimous consensus that the appropriate phrasing is "committed suicide". But if you have additional perspectives, please comment THERE and not HERE. Lets bring this into one discussion in one place. --Jayron32 19:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Jayron on this... starting another thread here at MOS smacks of forum shopping (although perhaps unintentional). As for the idea of adding something about the word choice to MOS... No. Something as specific as choosing between one phrasing and another is beyond the scope of a style guide. Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, lawdy, has this forked again?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed WP:Forum shopping was not forum shopping. I didn't start both threads; I started one (the one above). And I did not know that there was a general thread on the matter at WP:Village pump (policy). Furthermore, my initial post is more about one article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did say it was perhaps unintentional... never-the-less, when the same issue is raised in two policy venues in a short period of time, I hope you can see how it creates the ‘‘appearance’‘ of forum shopping... even if that was not the intent. Blueboar (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TLDNR He committed suicide. He died by shooting [himself]. It is a distinction between "who" did it and "what" was the cause of death. Another case might be, "he was murdered by strangulation" Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that murder by strangulation is quite a rare form of suicide. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I stated the following at the article's talk page: Discussions at this guideline talk page haven't helped to establish a consensus on the "committed" matter so far. I don't see that the current one will either unless an RfC is started here. And, yeah, I know that I often rely on RfCs. But per what SMcCandlish has stated, it seems to me that we do need an RfC on this here -- one to point editors to -- since "committed" is being removed from articles so often. People are going to keep referring to certain sources/style guides on the matter as justification for removing "committed." If Wikipedia does not support that route, then Wikipedia needs to be very clear about that. I wouldn't mind "committed" being removed and being replaced with "died by suicide" if "died by suicide" was actual standard language. Above, Doc James pointed to a 2017 discussion at the Suicide talk page about this; he stated "RfC." I'm not sure if he meant that the 2017 discussion was an RfC (doesn't look like it was one) or if he was referring to the 2013 discussion that Doniago pointed to as a past RfC, but that 2013 RfC discussion shows that consensus was for retaining "committed suicide." The Suicide article, however, currently uses "died by suicide." As for "killed himself/herself," which I don't find unencyclopedic, it is not possible in the case of many non-binary people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In the very few cases where people demand to be referred to by genderless pronouns, a different form can be used instead. Such as "killed themself", since "they" and "them" are being pushed as a gender-neutral singular pronoun. Natureium (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a style that WP uses. Same goes for made-up "pronouns" like zir and hisr.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Above, I see that Jayron32 mentioned a WP:Village pump (policy) discussion on the matter, but I also see that CFCF (Carl Fredrik) closed the discussion. Given CFCF's involvement with the discussion above, I find that close inappropriate. The WP:Village pump (policy) discussion would actually lead to consensus on the matter versus this non-RfC discussion, which is yet another discussion here that will die out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the 2013 RfC. That was a long time ago. Would be happy to see another one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the closure of the VPP discussion. That one is older than THIS one by almost a month. Expecting everyone to pick up and move over here is not how we do things. The older discussion has primacy. --Jayron32 18:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CFCF, the relevancy of the other discussion is obviously debatable. And regardless of its specific focus, it does provide consensus with regard to use of "committed suicide" often being fine. As for closing it, if it needed closing, I think the closer should have been uninvolved. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it is WP:FORUMSHOPPING to start a vote there yesterday — after this discussion was started and had elements of voting in it? Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Fredrik, I'm having a little trouble following you here. The VPP discussion is quite clear that there isn't going to be a recommendation in favor of "died by suicide". So when you say it doesn't discuss recommending one or the other, the only other possibility is that there could be a recommendation in favor of "committed suicide", which first of all I think is exactly what you don't want, and perhaps more importantly, I don't think anyone is proposing. My position, to be explicit, is that MoS should say nothing about it one way or the other (and for what it's worth, I'm perfectly happy to have it remain in your preferred form at David Reimer). --Trovatore (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone were to interpret consensus from what is on the VP it would be based off 10 WP:FORUMSHOPPED and uninformed voices set in front of a WP:STRAWMAN. Of course they are going to vote against the proposal. This is why premature voting, or having an RfC on things without properly presenting both sides (or even allowing both sides to partake) is disruptive. In fact it is the reason for our rules on WP:FORUMSHOPPING & WP:CANVASING. And, if we do get a recommendation for committed, it will be based on the shoddy arguments presented at the VP — and that holds no sway and will not result in any final consensus on the matter. It will just be challenged again. So, if we truly want consensus we should strive for informed debate, which was not happening at the VP. I appreciate that the result is likely not to favor my position, however if it does not even consider the many aspects brought up here, then the VP result is likely to be interpreted as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.

That vote was a split from this discussion; is textbook WP:FORUMSHOPPING; and even borders on WP:CANVASING. Of course it matters. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:STRAWMAN page, though perhaps there should be. Anyway, I'm skeptical that it's constructive to split hairs between FORUMSHOP, CANVASS, and the principle that we should centralize rather than fork discussion (I forget the shortcut for that); the first two imply motive, and we don't seem to have evidence for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Template:SMcCandlish — I missread the timestamp, which you changed/updated. Since people generally don't do this I interpreted the entire vote section to have started on the 1st. However I would appreciate if you looked into the arguments made by the organizations I linked above, as to why died by suicide is better — and that Wikipedia need not strive for language purity. That commited sounds better is not an argument towards using it in my book, at least not when compared to other stronger arguments against it. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Manual of Style/Computing § Definite article has the following provision in it:

Titles of computer software, unless used in a noun group, are written without a definite article. Examples:

Correct standalone title	Correct in a noun group	Wrong
Windows	the Windows operating system	the Windows
Microsoft Office	the Microsoft Office productivity suite	the Microsoft Office
iTunes	the iTunes media player	the iTunes
TuneUp Disk Doctor	the TuneUp Disk Doctor utility	the TuneUp Disk Doctor
Active Directory	the Active Directory directory service	the Active Directory

This applies to the titles of video games as well, which, additionally, are italicized.

Service brand names are also written without a definite article:

• Correct: Hotmail, Gmail, GitHub, Amazon, Mac App Store
• Incorrect: the Hotmail, the Gmail, the GitHub, the Amazon, the Mac App Store

This is mostly and usually good advice, but has run off the rails in two ways, and is effectively a WP:CONLEVEL and WP:POVFORK problem:

1. Its across-the-board manner directly defies everyday usage in reliable sources.
2. Its emphatic tone, about a trivial matter, is not in the spirit of MoS or other WP guidelines, and it directly conflicts with MoS's standards about how to start sentences, when it involves cases that do not begin with capital letters (i.e., it thwarts many attempts to write around beginning a sentence with soemthing like ".NET" or "3DO Interactive Multiplayer"

In particular:

• It simply isn't true that "the Mac App Store" is "incorrect". This is normal, everyday English. Same goes for "the .NET framework" and many other cases.
• The intent of this guideline was to avoid awkward nonsense like "the eBay" and "the Microsoft Office" (as stand-alone noun phrases), virtually unknown in reliable sources.
• However, it is being bent to 3RR-level editwarring, e.g. at .NET Framework today ([27][28][29][30]), using the patently false claims that "the .NET Framework" is "ungrammatical", to pursue a WP:NOT#ADVOCACY-violating linguistic prescription against ever using "the" even in cases where this is overwhelmingly well attested [31][32][33].

Below, I suggest revising this – here at WT:MOS with the input of the whole broad MoS-watching crowd, since WT:MOSCOMP appears to be largely dominated as a "local consensus" by two or three editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft revision

The name of a piece of computer software (broadly defined) is usually written without the definite article, except when used as a modifier in a longer phrase, or when the proper name begins with "The". This includes utility, productivity, and entertainment software; video games (which are italicized); online services; and operating systems and their components. Examples:

Correct standalone title	Correct in a longer phrase	Incorrect as a standalone phrase
Microsoft Office	the Microsoft Office productivity suite	the Microsoft Office
Diablo III	the Diablo III console project	the Diablo III
The Sims 4	The Sims 4 release date	the Sims 4
Gmail	the Gmail interface	the Gmail
Windows	the Windows operating system	the Windows
Active Directory	the Active Directory service	the Active Directory

Those with titles that start with "The" often take a possessive form when used in longer phrases:

• The Legend of Zelda's 20th anniversary

There are many exceptions to the overall pattern; a leading "the" should be used when omitting it would be awkward and when its inclusion is typical in similar constructions found in reliable independent sources or the publisher's own documentation:

• The .NET Framework is a technology that ... [34]
• It is available on the Mac App Store [35]

A "The" that is not part of the actual name of the subject is never added to Wikipedia's article title about it, and should not be added in the lead sentence unless confusion could result without it.

Rationales for the changes:

• Our material should agree with real-world English, absent a compelling WP-specific reason to do something peculiar or arbitrary in a certain context (rare).
• This should use "usually", "should", and "often" wording, or the like, because the original's absolute-law approach is both factually wrong and contrary to MoS's intent; plus, as noted above, it can directly conflict with other MoS rules' operation.
• "Noun group" (a.k.a. noun phrase) was being misused. It does not mean what the author thought it means. [36][37][38] (everything in all three columns of the table is a noun group/phrase).
• It did not account for proper names that actually start with "The" (and how they operate).
• The example of "the Mac App Store" as incorrect should be removed, because it's provably counterfactual.
• Most of the examples were redundant, and have been replaced with ones that illustrate different classes of "software" in the broad sense.
• An accurate segment of proper use of "the" is needed.
• Small tables being centered is readability/usability problem.
• WP article titles were not addressed specifically, despite that being the original intent of the section (while MoS is not a naming convention under WP:AT, it fairly often mentions naming matters where pertinent, especially in the topical MoS subpages, to centralize topical advice).

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

• Support most of the draft; but
  Oppose the .NET Framework and Mac App Store part for several reasons:

1. It is a change from one arbitrary style form into another, that only adds more headaches and complexity. (A MOS is supposed to eliminate those.) It defeats the purpose of the guideline, which is to establish consistency and minimize friction between editors.
   • Right now, the editor's decision process is very simple: If it is a book title, film title, software title or play title, we skip "the". Editors can spend their energy where it matters more.
   • When this proposal comes into effect, editors must spend time and energy on such trivia as whether the reliable sources use "The" or not. (There are already disputes over whether something is a reliable source or no. God helps when it comes to indexing them first their use of "the".) Then, some sources use "the" inconsistently. Sometimes, they insert it and sometimes they forgo it. There will be unnecessary reversions and confused newcomers who ask in amazement: "Where is the logic in that?" I ask that too! Where is the logic in that?
2. I am not convinced that the proposal in regards to ".NET Framework" and "Mac App Store" comes from objective observation of the language. The nominator simply shows a portion of the language that supports his view. The evidence provided for "Mac App Store" and ".NET Framework" amounts to a simple "others mistakes exist", and arguing that we should make more mistakes. To that I say: We don't do mistakes. The grammatically wrong "the .NET Framework" and "the Mac App Store" stem from the fact that like Bee Movie and Dragon Book, the title is self-explaining. Let me point out other realities from which Wikipedia deviates:
   • Everyone in the world capitalizes each word in a heading or title. Wikipedia doesn't, because there is no grammar rule for it.
   • The most common grammatical mistake, more common that this, is interchanging "it's" for "its" and vice versa but Wikipedia has not endorsed it either.
3. I question the motivation of the nominator. He alludes to contradictions with other MoS and POVFORK but fails to point to the actual contradictory text. Is the nominator truly here for a tangible improvement and a change with benefit, or because he wants to get back at Codename Lisa with whom he had a nasty argument earlier today? Are you going to make life a living hell for the future generation of editors just because an editor hurt your pride by contesting your change with a reversion?

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 17:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE applies to other content on Wikipedia, not to real-world usage in reliable sources, otherwise we would couldn't have policies like WP:COMMONNAME. It is not a MOS:STABILITY matter because a) that applies to changing article text, not coming to a consensus on resolving guideline wording and conflicts, and b) it is not a choice between one arbitrary style and another, but a matter of following actual English-language usage norms. Your attempt to prohibit the use of "the" in front of the name of an online service, etc. (except when used adjectivally), even though RS in the real world usually uses "the" in many constructions for clarity, is what is arbitrary and against our practices. You're also confusing a reference to something as a title of a work of code as such, and a reference to it as a service or technology as used by people; they are semantically different, and this is reflected in the difference between .NET Framework 4.7.1 was released in October 2017 versus The .NET Framework is a technology that ... (Microsoft's own wording; when are you going to schedule a meeting with Bill Gates & co. to "correct" their grammar about their own product?). Contradictory text: See #contradict anchor point; you can look up all places in MoS pages where this is covered on your own time. Finally, see WP:DR: When a dispute turns intractable and personalized, the solution is to open a general community discussion for further input, instead of two people continuing to argue in circles. This discussion has been broadly advertised to WP:VPPOL and various other pages, e.g. software and technology wikiprojects. Thanks for making it clear (so I don't have to try to prove it) that your position is a prescriptive grammar one (which WP generally doesn't entertain, per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the first paragraph and the table

Oppose the rest.

First, a MoS must not be overly detailed. It is a guideline, not a policy.

Second, Wikipedia uses reliable sources strictly for Verifiability. In the following areas, we have defied the rest of the world:

• Letting everyone edit
• Citation style
• Capitalization
• Rules governing uploading non-free contents
• Use of the second person pronoun
• Article tone

... or to summarize, in the field of style, we have defied the world. Our reasons are: Accommodating for and simplifying a project that is already massive and complex, without sacrificing accuracy and congruity.

Now, our esteemed colleague SMcCandlish has seen that the rest of the world uses the word "the" willy-nilly in their very small projects that don't even compare to one Wikipedia article. Therefore, he proposes that we go out of our way to study their willy-nilly usage, catalog it, make reason out of it and then apply that reason. The end result is that the word "the" loses its meaning and purpose, and we waste resources for the color of the bike shed.

I say not. I say let adhere to KISS principle. Let's not try to glorify other people's madness. There is no benefit in it. Let's stick to principle-based grammar because it simplifies our already complex project.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The revised version is actually smaller than the original, so the "overly detailed" complaint doesn't apply. [I was thinking of an earlier draft, with a two-item example table.] "Guideline not a policy" is much of the reason for the revision, because you are trying to impose the extant version as if it were a policy, and willing to editwar over it; an admin just protected the page to stop you. I can't think of a reason to respond to the rest of that, since it doesn't correspond to anything I said or meant, or the fact that RS news sources routinely use "the" in constructions that make better sense with that word prefixed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The revised version is actually smaller". Funny. It seems double the size of the original to me. As for the rest, thanks for the ad hominem. (You've written a lot of it today.) It proves you have no actual argument and no respect for WP:CIVIL either. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 19:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It being slightly longer, but much clearer and better reflective of reality doesn't equate to "overly detailed", but "sufficiently". Observing that an admin action was taken is not an ad hominem; please actually read ad hominem. Nothing in my revision or arguments for it is dependent upon a personal characterization of anyone. The same cannot be said if your or CL's opposition to it, which is littered with bad-faith accusations, labeling style one doesn't personally favor as "madness", etc., etc. Nice try.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think .NET Framework does beg for a definite article because ".NET" sounds like a noun adjunct. Same for "Mac" in "Mac App Store". Them constituting single proper names doesn't change the fact that they are constructed in that way, and the official Microsoft and Apple usages reflect that. From a quick web search I found that "the" was almost always affixed to these in practice. So, I think the de facto grammar here is that if it sounds like a noun adjunct it is used that way. If there is a clear "rule" otherwise I'd like to see the source for that, and would still be suspicious of it. Wikipedia should reflect how these are used in reliable sources. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the official Microsoft and Apple usages reflect that"—right, the Mac App Store itself calls itself "the Mac App Store", as any native speaker of the language would expect. We get a lot of people haunting Wikipedia inventing prescriptive rules that reflect neither sense nor common usage. This discussion isn't the first time I've come across people insisting dropping "the" due to inaudible capitalization. This is a butchering of the language. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You people are just labeling he who disagrees with you as non-native speaker. In fact, you have no evidence that native speakers do that. How do you know they are not written by underpaid Chinese employees, which are pervasively hired? I myself am a native speaker. Then again, native British English speaker are entirely different from native American speakers and native Canadia speakers.

As for what Microsoft does, it does a lot of wrong stuff: It refers to the partition with bootloader "system partition" and the partition with system root "boot partition". (See system partition and boot partition.) It uses "x86" when it must use "IA-32". FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 15:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More fringe prescriptivist OR. I don't think we need to entertain this any further. And the idea that the English usage we see Web-wide is due to pervasive hiring of Chinese workers is a minor variation on a global conspiracy theory. PS:The word "non-native" appears nowhere in this thread other than your own post.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

I would suggest avoiding the Diablo III adventure game as a positive example, since I do not know of any such construction elsewhere. --Izno (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean, but I replaced it with an example from the Diablo III article itself.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the previous example would be seen as somewhat "out of order": "the adventure game, Diablo III". Alternatively, there's a concise concern (given other context): "the adventure game", or simply "Diablo III". The new use seems fine but I'd probably see if I could remove that from the article in question if I were particularly motivated. --Izno (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try "the Diablo III game". What people don't seem to be understanding is that the belongs to "game" in such an instance, not to Diablo III, which is being used as a noun adjunct. This is such basic, grade eight dropout-level English (even if one does not know the terms) that I'm surprised there's even anything to be discussed. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you meant to reply to my comment, I took specific issue with "The X adventure game" for a specific reason (and I doubt I would have had such issue with the formulation you suggest). The implied PA is a bit unnecessary regardless. --Izno (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"implied PA"? Give us all a fucking break. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is such basic, grade eight dropout-level English (even if one does not know the terms) that I'm surprised there's even anything to be discussed. (emphasis mine) is frankly unnecessary to the discussion or at-best worded suboptimally, clearly seeking to inflame. (Whether me or another, I don't know.) --Izno (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But could you at least explicate what issue you have with the construction? Google doesn't seem to have any trouble turning up the pattern. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Diablo III adventure game"? Have you seen that anywhere? Google finds literally nothing. Continuing, "Diablo III game" has quite a few false positives in your link such that I'm not sure you reviewed the results e.g. "Diablo III game guide/logo/director/designer/system/-breaking" just in the first couple page of results. So that construction is also rare among all uses of the phrase (184k, many or even most of which are false positives, relative to 8.6m total). --Izno (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I ended up starting this side-dispute inadvertently. I agree that "the Diablo III adventure game" wasn't a great example, given that better wording would be "the adventure game Diablo III. I think the replacement of this with "the Diablo III console project" from the article's own text is sufficient resolution (at least for WT:MOS).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  14:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is why I said as much earlier. :D --Izno (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Outside voice: '.NET Framework ...' or 'The .NET framework'. Note the caps. –Sb2001 20:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Could convey a different, broader, meaning, though. And someone would almost certainly come along and capitalize the F in short order.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Microsoft responded! I can't believe this, but Microsoft actually responded!

Just above, SMcCandlish dared me to call Bill Gates and ask him to stop using "the" before ".NET Framework". Well, I didn't exactly do that. But I wrote emails to Joan Meredith and Brian Lich, with whom I had previously corresponded on the course of editing docs.microsoft.com. (They accept contributions from editors like me, although they peer-review it first.) I am still to hear from Brian Lich but Joan Meredith says my request to remove "the" from ".NET Framework" is reasonable. She said I am going to hear from her soon. From the letter, I infer that they will not attach any priority to it but I will be free to do the edit for them.

But I am sad. On the whole, it seems the world has turned upside down: Wikipedia, whose fundamental policy is WP:CIVIL, now ostracizes its editors by labeling them "non-native speaker", as if being non-native means having subpar intelligence, or less right to participate in grammar discussions. But Microsoft, who has reserved all rights to thinks to no one's but its own good, is now willing to accept reasonable input.

So, while I will retain my opposition to that particular change, in the end, I think it does not matter: You will end up not attaching "the" to ".NET Framework" anyway. Maybe I should contact Apple next. Well, I honestly don't know how to go about it yet. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 15:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]