Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
? faq page Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Wikipedia's Manual of Style contains some conventions that differ from those in some other, well-known style guides and from what is often taught in schools. Wikipedia's editors have discussed these conventions in great detail and have reached consensus that these conventions serve our purposes best. New contributors are advised to check the FAQ and the archives to see if their concern has already been discussed.

Information.svg To view an answer to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Why does the Manual of Style recommend straight (keyboard-style) instead of curly (typographic) quotation marks and apostrophes (i.e., the characters " and ', instead of “, ”, ‘, and ’)?
Users may only know how to type in straight quotes (such as " and ') when searching for text within a page or when editing. Not all Web browsers find curly quotes when users type straight quotes in search strings.
Why does the Manual of Style recommend logical quotation?
This system is preferred because Wikipedia, as an international and electronic encyclopedia, has specific needs better addressed by logical quotation than by the other styles, despite them being more frequent in externally published style guides. These include the distinct typesetters' style (often called American though not limited to the US), and the various British/Commonwealth styles, which are superficially similar to logical quotation but have some characteristics of typesetters' style. Logical quotation is more in keeping with the principle of minimal change to quotations, and is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing, than the alternatives. Logical quotation was adopted in 2005, and has been the subject of perennial debate that has not changed this consensus.
Why does the Manual of Style differentiate the hyphen (-), en dash (–), em dash (—), and minus sign (−)?
Appropriate use of hyphens and dashes is as much a part of literate, easy-to-read writing as are correct spelling and capitalization. The "Insert" editing tools directly below the Wikipedia editing window provide immediate access to all these characters.
Why doesn't the Manual of Style always follow specialized practice?
Although Wikipedia contains some highly technical content, it is written for a general audience. While specialized publications in a field, such as academic journals, are excellent sources for facts, they are not always the best sources for or examples of how to present those facts to non-experts. When adopting style recommendations from external sources, the Manual of Style incorporates a substantial number of practices from technical standards and field-specific academic style guides; however, Wikipedia defaults to preferring general-audience sources on style, especially when a specialized preference may conflict with most readers' expectations, and when different disciplines use conflicting styles.
WikiProject Manual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.
 

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)

Concluded[edit]

Extended content

Proposal to fix a potential hole in the Manual of Style[edit]

Statement[edit]

This is a proposal to fix a potential hole in WP:MoS, which has allowed contributors to use the term 'English-Irish' being used in the article about the girl group Girls Aloud. It would be necessary to state that such usage may render the aforementioned term as usable alongside the term 'Anglo-Irish' (in which may be more preferable). Thus, this potential hole shall be called the 'English-Irish problem'.

A few more examples of the 'English-Irish problem' exist in the following articles:

A potentially good solution to the 'English-Irish problem' would be to add a Manual of Style rule forbidding the usage of terms following a similar pattern to the terms 'English-Irish', 'China-United States', and 'Burmese-Siamese', and requesting the usage of terms following a similar pattern to the terms 'Greco-Chinese', 'Russo-German', 'Anglo-Saxon', 'Burmo-Siamese', 'Saxo-Thai', and 'Franco-American'. For example, a team whose members are from both Spain and the People's Republic of China should be referred to as either 'Hispano-Chinese' or 'Sino-Spanish'. Similarly, a person whose parents are of Russian and Tibetan origin should be referred to as either 'Russo-Tibetan' or 'Tibeto-Russian'.

It's time the entire of Wikipedia deprecated terms such as 'English-Irish', in favor of terms such as 'Anglo-Irish'. What will the community think? Opinions can be shared in the 'Discussion' section.

--69.160.29.17 (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Oppose no need to swap between equally valid terms. No case has been made for the need to mandate one set of terms over the others. --Jayron32 14:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The acceptable form depends on context; article titles follow common name and prose follows consistency within the article.
    • BTW, for the Girls Aloud article, that's given with a primary source (interview) and Ireland is only mentioned once in the article body (for a music chart) so there doesn't seem to be a strong connection. I might be tempted to relegate that information to a footnote. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - the term “Anglo-Irish” has a historical connotation/context that is not the same as “English-Irish”. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I concur with the objections, and will add that we should avoid using constructions that are not easily understood. Burmo-, Saxo-, etc., meaning nothing to the average reader. Sino- is borderline, but is used in some contexts regularly by reliable sources. Russo-, Franco-, Gr[a]eco-, and some others are both common enough and obvious enough in meaning to use them, but we shouldn't do so when the sources don't. A further issue, is that the hyphenated forms are more and more frequently being reserved for "is a combination or collaboration of" cases, and less and less for "is a conflict or a diplomatic issue between" cases. That is, Mexican–American War and China–US relations are more common in contemporary English than any hyphenated expressions with a demonym-derived prefix.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think "Russo-, Franco-, Gr[a]eco-" are common terms at all, at least not common to a secondary-school student trying to puzzle out a Wikipedia article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    But they are quite obvious and self-explanatory, given that they're very similar to the countries they refer to, being Russia, France, and Greece, respectively. El Millo (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    For sufficiently literate people, but WP has plenty of users who would be flummoxed. "Write simply" is always good advice, wouldn't you agree? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    I do, but didn't want to go so far as to suggest MoS recommend against ever using them (except in proper names). It could go that way eventually, but this stuff is best shifted slowly and carefully, on an as-needed basis. MoS was a hotbed of turmoil for about a decade straight because everyone kept trying to impose sweeping changes, willy-nilly, to satisfy their pet peeves.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per SMcCandlish above, and particular oppose mandating less obvious forms with different roots such as "Sino-". Nor should we be micro-managing our articles in this way, particularly where sources may differ. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SMcCandlish�. Tony (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Tense in chronologies (timelines)[edit]

Just now Special:Random took me to Timeline of women's legal rights (other than voting) in the 20th century, where I saw on the first screenful:

1901
  • Bulgaria: Universities open to women.
  • China: Girls are included in the education system.
  • Cuba: Universities open to women.
  • Denmark: Maternity leave for all women.
  • Sweden: Women are given four weeks maternity leave.

Similarly, in Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War, the first few entries are:

1619
1640
  • The General Court of Virginia orders John Punch, a runaway black servant, to "serve his master or his assigns for the time of his natural Life here or elsewhere." Thus, "John Punch, a black man, was sentenced to lifetime slavery."
1652

And in Timeline of the London Underground, the first few entries are:

1825
Using his patented tunnelling shield, Marc Brunel begins construction of the Thames Tunnel under the River Thames between Wapping and Rotherhithe. Progress is slow and will be halted a number of times before the tunnel is completed.
1843
The Thames Tunnel opens as a pedestrian tunnel.
1845
Charles Pearson, Solicitor to the City of London, begins promoting the idea of an underground railway to bring passenger and goods services into the centre of the City.


Note that all of these are written in the present tense. This seems to me to be an absolutely standard way to write this: perhaps some of you who have access to style guides can check whether they agree.

The reason I raise the point is that a while ago I added several dozen entries to one of Wikipedia's longer chronological lists, and a later contributor went to the trouble of transposing all my verbs into the past tense. In fact the list contains a mixture of past and present tenses throughout.

The relevant MOS provision is MOS:TENSE, which states

By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering works of fiction (see Wikipedia:Writing better articles § Tense in fiction) and products or works that have been discontinued. Generally, do not use past tense except for past events and subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist.

Okay, a chronology is about past events, but I believe it is standard English usage to write its entries in the present tense; and I suggest that this paragraph be extended to require the present tense in this situation: something like "In timelines (chronologies), generally use the present tense, which refers to events at the indicated date or time."

--142.112.159.101 (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

This was discussed at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2018#Accident lists where there was clear consensus to talk about past events in the past tense. @Primergrey and Batternut: MB 17:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I submit that three opinions does not make a "clear consensus"; it may also indicate that not many people are reading the thread. I know I wasn't. --142.112.159.101 (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't myself see why historical timelines should be a special case. Eg, the American Civil War article is written in the past tense, why should associated timelines be in the present tense? Two of the timelines mentioned by the OP have introductory paragraphs in the past tense while the lists are in the present tense, which seems inconsistent to me. Batternut (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, can anyone with access to style guides see if they take a view on this? --142.112.159.101 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • There is, what is essentially, a timeline on the MP every day, in the form of OTD (which is always in past tense). Primergrey (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe they could be written in either tense, but just be consistent within the article. There is no sense in adding another rule. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • They absolutely can be written in either tense, but when someone comes along and changes it to past tense, it should stay that way. No new rules needed. Primergrey (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Then a rule is needed, saying that either tense is acceptable in this type of use so long as things are consistent. (And thanks for the example of OTD, BeenAround.) Otherwise sometime someone will notice articles like the three I cited at the top and waste time changing them to past tense. --142.112.159.101 (talk)
  • We are talking about the use of the historical present here. It is commonly used in timelines, but doesn't have to be. Some authors use it, some don't. Some professors like it, some hate it. Since we don't prescribe a particular variety of English here we shouldn't be telling editors they can't use it, or that they must use it. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Do we have a problem with editors edit-warring back and forth between tenses? If not, then there is no need for the MOS to mention it. Blueboar (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I submit that if the MOS recommends a particular practice, but another practice is widely used elsewhere and accepted on Wikipedia (as per my examples at the top), then the MOS should change to conform. I propose wording like:
In a timeline or other chronological list, consistently use either the present or the past tense to describe events at the indicated past date. Either of the following is acceptable, but not both in the same timeline.
  • 1776: The United States declared its independence.
  • 1783: The United Kingdom accepts the independence of the U.S.
--142.112.159.101 (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Decision?[edit]

I request opinions so a decision can be made on my compromise proposal. --142.112.159.101 (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Neutral On the one hand, I'm sympathetic to the argument that the MoS shouldn't contradict a (relatively) widespread and accepted practice, but Blueboar's point about WP:CREEP also resonates with me. I'd be more inclined toward the change if it could be pared down to one short sentence, or perhaps even an explanatory footnote, since timelines represent a relatively small fraction of Wikipedia's content. Colin M (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose any "magically special" exception, but address it in a short footnote only. For instruction-creep and consistency reasons we should not declare any kind of exception for this; there's nothing unique about timeline format, and any editor at any time can easily convert a prose section in chron. order into a timeline, or convert a timeline into a prose section (and the latter is actually encouraged per MOS:USEPROSE). If the verb tense is not consistent between the two formats, then inconsistency will only get worse over time within each format, both across articles and even within the same article. Also, if we make an exception for this, a week later someone's going to demand an exception for X, and the next day someone will want one for Y. Next, "some people don't write exactly the way WP does" is never a rationale for anything, and would invalidate us having a style guide at all if we accepted it as a rationale. Same goes for "some on-site editors don't follow our rule" (there is no rule that 100% of editors follow, and no one has to read MoS or any other WP:P&G pages before editing here; other editors just clean up after them and inform them what the rule is).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Default against bracketed ellipsis for quote omissions[edit]

Ellipses added by increasingly eccentric editor (EEng)

Why does the MOS recommend square brackets for text changed in a quotation, but not for text removed from a quotation?

  • MOS:PMC states: Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. and Where there is good reason to change the wording, enclose changes within square brackets and to Use ellipses to indicate omissions from quoted text.
  • MOS:ELLIPSIS indicates that brackets may be used for clarity: Occasionally, square brackets are placed around an ellipsis to make clear that it isn't original to the material being quoted, for example if the quoted passage itself contains an ellipsis (She retorted: "How do I feel? How do you think I ... This is too much! [...] Take me home!").
  • MOS:BRACKET indicates a default no-brackets around ellipses: When an ellipsis (...) is used to indicate that material is removed from a direct quotation, it should not normally be bracketed (see § Ellipses).

So, aside from cases like the example where there is both a quoted ellipsis and a bracketed editorial ellipsis, there would be no way to tell whether or not the ellipsis was in the original (aside from checking the source). The way it's worded, it seems to suggest that brackets make the omission clear but should only be used if it's important for the reader to be able to make this distinction, and that in most cases this is not important. Does this seem weird to anyone else? – Reidgreg (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, not the Simple English Wikipedia. Readers who don't understand that, unless otherwise stated, ellipses were added by the author (or editor) of the work currently being read, not by the author of the work being quoted, should seek further instruction in the English language. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how that follows. Are you suggesting that if text is quoted which originally contains an ellipsis, this should be explicitly mentioned? Colin M (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I suppose one could add [ellipsis in original] the way that the MOS:ELLIPSIS example (above) should have [emphasis in original]. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I think if the ellipsis is in the original we should say so. For one thing, it indicates the author of the source is the one who decided the omitted material wasn't important for the purpose at hand, not a Wikipedia editor. It also lets the reader know the missing material can't be found in the source, so the reader will have to look elsewhere for it, if the reader thinks it might be important. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, this was always unsatisfactory. I agree with Jc3s5h: default is no square brackets (which are ugly and disruptive to the eyes); and where the ellipsis points are in the original text, it needs to be explained breifly before or after the quote. Tony (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
    I agree with your agreement but am unsure what you mean was unsatisfactory. Is it that you want the guidelines to recommend explicitly that we call out ellipses present in the source? EEng 06:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
    Tony1? If you'll confirm that I'm right I'll try to integrate and clarify the guidelines linked in the OP. EEng 01:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
    @EEng: By "unsatisfactory" I meant that square brackets around ellipsis points are ungainly and disruptive, where the whole point of ellipsis points is to make a direct quotation smoother and more digestible through the omission. There was a thought some time back that square brackets might be used to indicate ellipsis points in the original source, but this has never worked because people don't recognise the distinction. So I propose that square brackets not be used at all, and that the default be ellipsis points without meta-comment where WP itself has added the ellipses points; and with comment to the effect that the ellipsis points are in the source, where that is the case. What do you think? Tony (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
    The meaning of the quote shouldn't be altered so long as it is faithfully reproduced. So if this is primarily a matter of sourcing and verifiability, perhaps that would be better handled through a footnote or using the |quote= parameter of the citation template for the inline citation required at the quote? – Reidgreg (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree with any solution involving [ellipsis in original] or similar. I frequently add quotes from primary sources quoted in secondary sources, often translated and/or with ellipses. Although I can see the justification, for the vast majority of readers it's an ugly and annoying intrusion into the text. The bracketing solution in MOS:ELLIPSIS seems fine. buidhe 21:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what's being proposed here, but I oppose requiring that ellipses be bracketed routinely to signal words removed by us. In case it helps, the Chicago Manual of Style (13.58) recommends against it. It says that in some languages (French is offered as an example, 11.32), ellipses are regularly used to signify broken thoughts, and therefore bracketed ellipses are needed to signal missing words in quoted text. That isn't the case in English. When ellipses are part of the quoted text, the CMOS suggests adding "ellipses in the original". It recommends using bracketed ellipses when shortening long titles in citations. New Hart's Rules also prefers ellipses without brackets (4.7 and 9.3.3), unless there are ellipses in the original, in which case place the new ones within square brackets (9.3.3), as MOS:ELLIPSIS recommends. SarahSV (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I would keep, or make, brackets the default, with unbracketed ellipsis marks allowed. Using brackets for all editorial summaries or interpolations is logical and makes unambiguous what text is part of the quotation and can best be searched on (although I suspect most search engines can handle ellipses gracefully), a consideration print publications don't have to as readily take into account. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Omit the brackets as often as possible. The use of three dots is proof that the removal of text has taken place, so there is no need to use a second piece of formatting; the addition of the word needs the square brackets as the only piece of formatting to signify it. In both cases the change is alerted to the reader by the use of one piece of formatting - they don't need to be confused with too much in the way of dots and dashes. - SchroCat (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
    If we require that editors omit any ellipses in the original and replace each with an ellipsis to show that omission, then we can safely say that all ellipses were added by Wikipedia editors. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not entirely sure if that's helpful or moves the conversation along, but whatever. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
    It was humor, SC. Humor. EEng 16:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • To answer the OP's "why" question: it's because doing [...] is redundant when ... will suffice. Secondarily, it's because most off-site publishers also use the simpler style (that is, the non-WP style guides that have informed our own lean away from the longer formula). There are some academic style guides that demand the [...] syntax, but they are few and far between. The only need on WP for [...] is when the quoted passage contains its own ... and ours has to be distinguished from it. In such a case, it might actually be better to divide it into two quotes to avoid having to use the potentially confusing inconsistent ellipses. PS: I strongly concur with Tony1's point: "square brackets around ellipsis points are ungainly and disruptive, where the whole point of ellipsis points is to make a direct quotation smoother and more digestible through the omission".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Gaol vs. jail[edit]

This RFC is asking if "jail" should be used in articles written in British English, Australian English, etc. as an accepted variant of "gaol" in those dialects, per MOS:COMMONALITY (only "jail" is used in American English); if proper nouns with Gaol in the name make a difference; and how to handle links and direct quotes. (MOS:COMMONALITY is part of WP:ENGVAR; this is not proposing changing the variety of English used, only what vocabulary from a given variety to use.)

UPDATE: Proposed change to MOS:COMMONALITY distinguishing spelling differences from terminology differences. -- Beland (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Apparently there is some controversy or confusion about these words and how Wikipedia policy applies to them, which I need some clarity on to help guide cleanup efforts. (Long discussion on Talk:Winston Churchill#Gaol, revert on Adelaide, revert on Norfolk, revert on Adventures of Tintin, complaint on my talk page.) @Find bruce: @Bahudhara: and everyone else...

1.) According to Wiktionary:

  • wikt:gaol is used in Commonwealth English, but is otherwise obsolete (i.e. not present in American English), and most newspapers in Australia and most writers in Canada use jail. (Wordnik says that gaol is preferred in Australia and Ireland.[2])
  • wikt:jail is used in all varieties of English, including the UK and Australia.

Are these claims correct?

2.) If the answer to 1 is "yes", then does MOS:COMMONALITY, part of MOS:ENGVAR, mean that even in articles written in British and Austrian English, the spelling "jail" should be used in normal article text?

3.) If the answer to 2 is "yes", I assume that means per WP:NOTBROKEN, we'd write [[jail]] in regular article text where a link is appropriate? (Not [[prison|jail]] as I was changing to on Adelaide.)

4.) Does the answer to 2 and 3 change at all if there is a proper noun in the article that uses the spelling "Gaol" or the title of the article includes "Gaol", like Old Melbourne Gaol, which I changed to say "The Old Melbourne Gaol is a former jail..."

5.) If the answer to 2 is "yes", how should MOS:COMMONALITY be applied to direct quotations of written text where we need to retain the original spelling of "gaol", should we write:

  • "gaol [jail]" - following the examples at MOS:SIC where minimal clarifications are allowed, clarifying for both web and print readers without jumping to a different article or dictionary, and avoiding linking in a direct quote following MOS:LINKQUOTE
  • "[[jail|gaol]]" - minimizing visual disruption, not following normal practice at WP:NOTBROKEN, but clarifying for web readers with a hover (not having to jump to a different article) and not clarifying for print readers
  • "[[prison|gaol]]" - minimizing visual disruption, seen in several articles, similar to gaol but without hinting to the reader that "jail" and "gaol" are pronounced the same
  • "[[gaol]]" - requiring readers that need clarification to jump to a different article or use a dictionary, but minimizing visual disruption and following WP:NOTBROKEN strictly

Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

This mature aged Australian still pedantically writes "gaol", and I wouldn't be alone, but I acknowledge that the battle is largely lost, and most of my fellows and probably all the media write "jail". So the answer to 1.) is Yes for Australia. However, as you've observed, there are old buildings in Australia with "Gaol" in their proper names (e.g. Adelaide Gaol), so they must stay as is. This unfortunately leaves us with the inconsistency that in one paragraph, your proposal would have two different spellings in use. Maybe this is all educational for those unfamiliar with older spellings, but it just doesn't feel right to me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah Plimouth Plantation in Plymouth, Massachusetts causes similar proper noun problems. Maybe with languages that won't stop changing it's just inevitable that old things will have funky names. -- Beland (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I think I am with HiLo48. When I was (first) learning to spell, over half a century ago, it was most definitely "gaol". Now days it is a bit of a free for all, and "jail" is taking over. Regardless, proper names must stay as they are. I have no problem with "Proper Name Gaol" is a prison/correctional centre/facility in Metroplis Town . I do think "Proper Name Gaol" is a jail in Metroplis Town looks out right ugly. I would suggest as long as the proper names are kept as they should be, then things should be left as they were written, because that in itself is informative. Aoziwe (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
PS I think I could confidently say though, that no Australian Government, state or federal, would ever officially name a new correctional facility using "jail". IF they named it using a word pronounced, /dʒeɪl/, it would always be spelt "gaol"? Aoziwe (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I believe they're all Correctional Centres etc now.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
FWIW or perhaps some general interest have a look at the Australian Writers’ Centre and the ABC. Aoziwe (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The example of "Parramatta Gaol" is a bit strange. It's still used in the current Macquarie Dictionary. However, Parramatta Gaol hasn't been called that since 1991, when it became Parramatta Correctional Centre, and it's now closed. How is that really relevant to Australian usage? However, I agree that with Aoziwe's comment in favour of using proper names and avoiding a gaol/jail clash. However, I think in Australia there would be very few cases where this is an issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Unrelated question: is there any difference in pronunciation between "gaol" and "jail"? Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
No, even though it looks like "gaol" sounds kinda like Goa'uld, all the dictionaries I've consulted say they are pronounced the same in any given dialect. -- Beland (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Why do you think "it looks like "gaol" sounds kinda like Goa'uld? I'm guessing you may be in a minority of one there. 86.187.233.7 (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Why? Because in english, a "g" generally can only sound like a "j" when followed by an "e", "i", or "y" (and even when followed by those letters, there are plenty of words like "get" or "give" where it's still a hard "g"). In fact, according to Hard and soft G, "gaol" was changed to "jail" precisely because of this confusion. In addition, "ao" is not a standard english dipthong. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
And to think there are people who say English spelling and pronunciation are confusing. EEng 21:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
That was a joke; Goa'uld was a notoriously hard word to pronounce in the Stargate universe, partly because it's from an extraterrestrial language. But what Ahecht said does explain why when I first encountered this spelling who knows how many years ago, I could not sound it out. -- Beland (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • While acknowledging that the "gaol" spelling (which autocorrect keeps wanting to make into "goal") still has some currency in Britain and Australia, it's essentially unknown elsewhere, and the other spelling, "jail", is known everywhere, so WP:COMMONALITY leads me to think we should use "jail" pretty much universally outside of proper names. oknazevad (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment: looking at the "long discussion" at Talk:Winston Churchill#Gaol, which seems to have triggered the questions here, it's a special case, as it relates to the use of that word in a direct quote from a speech by Churchill, in 1910, in the UK House of Commons. So I assume it's also in Hansard. We have to remember that was 110 years ago, so historical usage? 86.187.233.7 (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
If it was in a speech, how do we know how he was spelling it? :-) --Trovatore (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
If it was only spoken out loud, it would actually be OK to just change it to "jail". But if there was a prepared written version, maybe not. To find out would require going to the library, and I've already done that once this month for the above discussion, so I gave up on that line of thinking. -- Beland (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I was wondering how that was going to work. I added one; thanks for the explanation. -- Beland (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely certain I can follow the serpentine set of conditions laid out by the OP, but near as I can figure out, they're trying to sort out how to handle things like "gaol/jail" terminology in various articles. I would say that this is no different than other WP:ENGVAR variations such as "aluminum/aluminium" and "petrol/gasoline" and I would say that we should default to WP:ENGVAR guidance: for topics with a strong national connection, use that standard English variety from that nation. For those that don't, default to the existing variety already in the article. --Jayron32 19:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jayron32: That doesn't really answer the question. It appears that both "gaol" and "jail" are part of UK and Australian English, so saying "use Australian English for articles about Australia" doesn't decide whether one or both of these spellings should be used. MOS:COMMONALITY is part of WP:ENGVAR, so I'm asking, if we're following that, isn't "jail" preferred in Australian articles, too? -- Beland (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • If they're both in use in those varieties then there's no need to change from one to the other at all. Problem solved.--Jayron32 20:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment on point 5 While I reserve judgment on the extent to which the gaol spelling is useful outside direct quotes and proper names, my preference among the choices given for direct quotes in a context where the audience is likely to be confused by the spelling is the one that glosses it as gaol [jail]. The NOTBROKEN considerations go away if we simply don't wikilink the word, and I'm really not sure why you would wikilink it; in most cases that would be WP:OVERLINKING. --Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I am reminded somewhat of the discussions (mostly involving Iridescent) concerning the article Daniel Lambert, which was a DYK in July 2010 (discussion) and TFA a few months later (blurb). These discussions may be found not just at Talk:Daniel Lambert, but also at User talk:Iridescent/Archive 13 and User talk:Rlevse/Archive 19#Daniel Lambert for Did you know?. The point was that gaol and prison are not synonyms. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Use jail rather than gaol, because the former is common to all, unless there's a particular reason to use the latter (e.g. quotes, names). The MoS already recommends "If a style or similar debate becomes intractable, see if a rewrite can make the issue moot" and "Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed." SarahSV (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Use jail except in proper nouns and direct quotes. The term gaol would be completely indecypherable to the vast majority of North Americans, while jail is universally understood. I personally don't see any problem with a sentence like "Proper Name Gaol" is a jail in Metroplis Town. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 18:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
    I would have thought the jail would be for improper names. EEng 21:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Use jail except for (im)proper names. "Gaol" is charming but olde-worlde, and "prison" is not a full synonym in some dialects. --The Huhsz (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with using "jail" in modern topics (although it should rarely arise; there are no gaols/jails left in the UK which is the primary place where the "gaol" spelling survives). The problem is that in the context of historical English topics (such as the Daniel Lambert article mentioned above), a pre-1839 gaol isn't synonymous with what people usually understand by "jail". A pre-1839 gaol was a (usually privately-run) facility that took the place of what in modern British usage would be called "police custody" or "detention", a place where people who haven't been convicted of anything are held between arrest and trial. "Jail", on the other hand, is synonymous in modern BrEng use with "prison", a place where people are sent for punishment after conviction. As I said to Rlevse a decade ago in the thread referenced above, the situation is complicated because we don't have a decent article on the distinction to which we can direct readers to explain the difference other than the highly unsatisfactory explanation at Lock up. "Daniel Lambert was a jail keeper" makes it appear to readers like he was some kind of prison warder, as opposed to the owner of what was effectively a very specialist hotel. On these historic topics the archaic spelling isn't an affectation, but an intentional indication that we're talking about the archaic meaning of the term. ‑ Iridescent 18:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Not to mention the calaboose, of course. Or are you just telling us that the writers of Hansard spelled it wrong (and that Winnie was using an old-fashioned word anyway, even in 1910)? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that the meaning of "jail" is clear in most variants of English, and that "gaol" should be reserved for proper names and specialized historical contexts. I also should point out that at least some English speakers make a clear distinction between "jail" and "prison" ([3]). Essentially a "jail" is used for temporary detention of those who may yet be or have been accused of a crime, or are serving short sentences, while a "prison" is used to detain those who have been tried for a serious crime and sentenced to a longer period of imprisonment. Reify-tech (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Those are US definitions and as such not relevant here as the US doesn't use the "gaol" spelling in any context. As I've said above, gaol (or jail) doesn't have that meaning in the UK where "jail" and "prison" (but not "gaol") are synonymous. ‑ Iridescent 18:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed, us Australians will talk about a prison sentence that leads to jail time. We recognise gaol as ye olde time spelling but will almost always write it as jail (I'm 50+ years old). We've inherited a lot from both UK and American usage and made our own mix. I'm happy if UK editors write gaol, as per WP:ENGAVR.  Stepho  talk  09:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • EngVar, per Jayron32. ——SN54129 12:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Serial Number 54129: What does that mean? The dispute is over how WP:ENGVAR applies to this word, since both "jail" and "gaol" are present in UK and Australian English, and MOS:COMMONALITY is part of WP:ENGVAR. -- Beland (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • EngVar: GAOL is fine for the countries that need it. We don't need to micromanage every word we use on WP, and we don't need to only use words current in the US (which is how commonality always 'seems' to work). This is an encyclopaedia: users can learn more than the topic, they can learn that other places use different words too. - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:ENGVAR clearly applies, and should continue to apply. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Peter coxhead: What does that mean? The dispute is over how WP:ENGVAR applies to this word, since both "jail" and "gaol" are present in UK and Australian English, and MOS:COMMONALITY is part of WP:ENGVAR. -- Beland (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • EngVar: I concur with the two writers immediately above. I write "jail" myself, but have no problem with "gaol". (Point taken about the assumption that commonality = AmE. The rest of the English-speaking world doesn't insist that Americans should drop the antiquated "-ize" endings in "criticize" etc that we all dropped decades ago – except for the OUP, which hasn't caught up with the 20th century yet). I'd be happy for "gaol" to be permissible, and I'm quite sure it won't perplex anyone. – Tim riley talk 13:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Well I was certainly perplexed by it the first time I encountered it; I had to look it up in a dictionary. -- Beland (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
So the encyclopaedia has taught you something you didn't know before. That's a good thing, yes? - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
No, it wasn't the encyclopaedia that taught him/her the spelling, and I imagine whole point of MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:COMMONALITY is that articles are understood by everyone without them having to look words (or even spellings) up. Adam9007 (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Obviously it did. It wasn't a term s/he knew before; it is now. There are several US words I see that don't immediately know, and I've often thought 'oh, if only there were some online encyclopaedia or something I could look that up in...'. As I've said above, it's funny how COMMONALITY seems to be a small number of US readers demanding other language variants change to fit some mid-Atlantic sludge. Let things be and try not to strait-jacket the language people in. - SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Commonality goes both ways; Wikipedia uses the metric system in some places (like scientific articles) without translation into American units because they're universally understood, and avoids "transportation" where "transport" would do. -- Beland (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
In terms of most prose, no: it all seems to be one-way traffic. - SchroCat (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@SchroCat: Could you explain how you would distinguish cases where MOS:COMMONALITY should vs. should not be applied? Would you rather see it deleted from WP:ENGVAR? -- Beland (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Thise are entirely different questions that go quite far from the point of deciding if people should change the spelling of one word they commonly use. Please don't ping me back to deal with things that are not relevant to the use of gaol. - SchroCat (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@SchroCat: Well, if the consensus coming out of this discussion is that use of "gaol" should continue, then it would be helpful to amend the MOS to explain why, so that we don't end up in the same discussion in lots of similar cases. If you want to keep to the specifics of my original question, it would be helpful if you could explain why MOS:COMMONALITY doesn't apply to this particular case, or if you think MOS:COMMONALITY shouldn't apply in any case. For example, I'm wondering if anyone thinks MOS:COMMONALITY shouldn't apply in this case because it's a spelling difference and not a completely different word, even if the spelling difference is unusually confusing compared to say, "honor" vs. "honour"? Or does it have more to do with say, the relative dominance of "goal" vs. "jail" in UK English? -- Beland (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I am sure that in my last comment I asked that you didn't ping me back to deal with things that are not relevant to the use of gaol. I'm now going to widen that to: don't ping me at all. I have given my reason and my explanation, and you continuing to bludgeon me and others is not going to get me to change my mind (This is your 17th comment in this thread and it's becoming very noticeable, particularly as your opening statement is neither brief nor neutral). This ain't broke, so don't try to fix it. - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • A) WP:ENGVAR per Jayron and B) WP:NOTBROKEN. I also agree with SchroCat that "We don't need to micromanage every word we use on WP" - I've never had a problem with the two words and no evidence has been presented that readers have a difficulty distinguishing between the different terms. We certainly don't need to be changing articles like the The Ballad of Reading Hoosegow. MarnetteD|Talk 18:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • We don't need to micromanage every word we use on WP Lol, tell that to the people who insisted on micromanaging the word 'mediaeval'. Adam9007 (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I wasn't party to the discussion of medieval-v-mediaeval, but it is getting on for 100 years since Fowler recommended the shorter form. I have a sneaking fondness for the longer form, but in truth I think it's had its day, which "gaol" hasn't yet, I think. Tim riley talk 21:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, if using 'mediaeval' goes against MOS:COMMONALITY, then using 'gaol' certainly does. If either of these words word need micromanagement, it's 'jail/gaol'. (by the way, I personally have no problem with 'gaol'). Adam9007 (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @MarnetteD: Well, I had a problem figuring out that "gaol" was the same word as "jail", since it looks like it's pronounced completely differently. Not sure if readers were being confused what further evidence would be created? MOS:COMMONALITY specifically addresses article titles, and it just says there should be a redirect from the alternate spelling. So I made a redirect from The Ballad of Reading Jail, which is what I would have typed into a search engine had I heard about it on the radio. -- Beland (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "I had a problem figuring out that "gaol" was the same word as "jail"" I have frequent trouble (generally minor) having to translate American English language usage into my version in my head when I read it here, but I make the effort and generally cope. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I would assume that going from "jail" to "gaol" would be relatively easy because you can sound out "jail"? Did you have to look up "jail" in a dictionary? -- Beland (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

*Jail unless it is a quote (like on the Churchill example you gave) or it is part of the name itself like Old Melbourne Gaol since Jail is common across all varieties of English.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC) Striked my comment becuase I realise it does not really answer the question in regards to linking.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I made the revert because this edit seemed pretty crass - given the context (dealing with South Australia's 19th century colonial history), the word "jail", as a cultural anachronism, stuck out like the proverbial dog's balls.
(Beside Boland's edit, this particular paragraph contained three other instances of "gaol", as well as a link to Adelaide Gaol, there being nothing to explain the spelling variance, and the reader still left to deduce the connection.)
Are U.S. readers really so naive or culturally illiterate as to need being spoon-fed in this manner?
The "gaol" spelling is not going to disappear from the Australian lexicon, far from it, long gone are the days of Australians feeling a cultural cringe (due to feeling that Australian history is boring or uninteresting) or fear of a convict stain (which didn't apply in South Australia, as this was a free and progressive colony!).
On the contrary, the annual South Australian History Festival has grown from a week-long to a month-long event staged across hundreds of venues, including the Adelaide Gaol (which closed in 1988, and is now a popular state government-owned heritage-listed tourism site); and Ashton's Hotel: The journal of William Baker Ashton, first governor of the Adelaide Gaol (published in 2017), as well as numerous other recent works of historical non-fiction which refer to this period, all continue to use the "gaol" spelling.
Ah, if I had noticed the other instances, I would have changed them all to "jail" for consistency. I'm not proposing to change "Gaol" to "Jail" in proper nouns, nor am I saying "gaol" isn't understandable to Australians. Whether or not a word is going to disappear from a given dialect is not something we can predict, nor do I find it particularly relevant to the current question, and I certainly don't want to have an emotionally charged argument about it where people from different countries stomp the ground and defend their national dialect. I'm much more interested in clarity for readers and having orderly style rules I can clearly interpret. Sticking to the present facts, I don't think it's a particularly likely that say, an American high school student, would have read any books or web sites with the "gaol" spelling. If you want to stigmatize that as naive or culturally illiterate, then that's an opinion. I wouldn't say the same about Australian readers for whom MOS:COMMONALITY says we should translate "trunk" as "boot", even though they could theoretically look it up in a dictionary. -- Beland (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Depends on context. If we take the Adelaide example, which seems to have been one of the triggers for this discussion, then I believe it should be all "gaol" in that article. The proper name uses "gaol", the historical period in question used "gaol", and the relevent modern day references use "gaol". To change any of these to "jail" does not make any sense. If it ain't broke, do not fix it. Feel free to pipe the first appropriate occurance of "gaol" to "prison". If it is some modern day period under discussion then use "jail" if contextually appropriate. But mostly now days it will be either "correctional facility/centre", or "prison", the latter to which "jail" redirects to anyway! So (in Australian articles?) we should be using either "gaol" or "prison" but not "jail" at all (unless it is part of a formal or informal proper name or quoted or referenced text)? Aoziwe (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • [[prison|gaol]] doesn't work, because in American English, "prison" and "jail" are not synonyms. --The Huhsz (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Yep. I did write if appropriate. "gaol" redirects to "prison" too. So perhaps this whole discussion is moot. IE If the context directs one towards "gaol", as per Adelaide, then stick with that. If it directs one towards "jail", then use that. WP (ie the consensus of the editor community) by redirecting all to "prison" means that the "universal" term (for WP) is actually (currently) "prison", so where the subject does not direct to either "gaol" or "jail" then just use "prison". Aoziwe (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • (Bangs head on desk.) A prison and a jail/gaol are not the same thing and if a redirect is pointing to the wrong place then that's a sign the redirect needs fixing, not a sign that we can redefine the English language. ‑ Iridescent 15:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Well that is my point isn't it. If we are to properly determine when to use "gaol", "jail", "prison", "lockup", etc. then the MoS needs to be consistent with what the editing community currently accepts as encyclopedic definitions, and thence, yes, the redirects would need to become separate article in their own rights, or probably better, redirects to clear distinct definitional sections in the current "prison" article. But we cannot say one thing in the "encyclopedia" and then something different in the "rules/guidelines for editing the encyclopedia"? Aoziwe (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary so far and request for clarification[edit]

By my reading (please correct me if I'm wrong)...

  • On 1, do both "jail" and gaol" exist in UK and Australian English? It seems the answer is "yes" for Australia, and some sources say "jail" is preferred, including the Macquarie Dictionary (which is considered authoritative) [4] and the ABC.[5] Some Wikipedia editors still prefer "gaol".
  • On 3 and 5, [[prison|jail]] does seem to be disfavored since "prison" and "jail" sometimes have different meanings. Other than that no strong opinions on linking? For direct quotes, Trovatore and I prefer "gaol [jail]" and in the Talk:Winston Churchill discussion DuncanHill preferred linking.
  • On 4, sounds like Aoziwe and HiLo48 are uneasy mixing "Gaol" in proper nouns with "jail", and there are the folks who prefer "goal" generally based on their answers to 2. Ahecht and I explicitly said it's OK to mix "Gaol" and "jail", and everyone else who supported "jail" in general didn't say one way or the other.
  • The strongest split seems to be on the fundamental question 2, which is whether to use "jail" or "gaol" in general article text in UK and Australian articles:
    • "jail" - oknazevad, SarahSV, Ahecht, The Huhsz, Reify-tech, Beland
    • "gaol" - SchroCat, Aoziwe, possibly others
No, I do not believe this is what I am meaning. I am saying it depends. Aoziwe (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Also not me. This is why it's a terrible idea for the person who opens an RfC to try and summarise it: it ends up too biased to be of any use and is only ever designed to push a closing admin down an incorrect path. - SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks to both of you for the clarifications. -- Beland (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Retain either: Jayron32, Tim riley, SN54129?, Peter coxhead?, MarnetteD? (some of these comments may have in fact just been supporting "gaol")

It seems like there's not a particularly strong consensus to interpret MOS:COMMONALITY to require "jail", though there's also not a strong consensus that this is an incorrect interpretation.

If we're going to land on "no consensus" for converting "gaol" to "jail", it would be helpful to more clearly define what MOS:COMMONALITY does express consensus for. I've asked about this in the section above, but either gotten angry non-answers or no reply so far. Since the obvious difference between the glasses/spectacles and trunk/boot examples given in the existing guideline and the gaol/jail case, is that this is a spelling difference and not a completely different term. If that's what people are reacting to and it's not just angry nationalism, then would something like the below be an accurate clarification?

  • There is no need to gloss or use a common variant for small spelling differences where it's obvious the pronunciation is the same, for example harbor/harbour, license/licence, or sterilise/sterilize.
  • For large spelling differences that do not follow a pattern and where it is not obvious the pronunciation is the same, for example jail/gaol, there is no consensus on whether using the most widely understood term should take precedence over consistency with proper nouns, and whether the most widely understood variant should be used to the exclusion of other variants in the national variety.

-- Beland (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  • It's always a bad idea for an OP to try and summarise people's positions and the summary of where the discussion is going. You're not seeing it from a neutral point of view, particularly given your "neutral" opening statement. - SchroCat (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm not neutral on the question, I'm in favor of it. I am, however, trying to work toward agreement with folks with different views, by establishing what we do and don't agree on. In that vein, did you find my conclusion that there is probably not consensus in favor of the proposal to be incorrect? -- Beland (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Use jail consistently (except in a proper name with Gaol in it), per MOS:COMMONALITY and WP:CONSISTENT. Do not confuse jails/gaols with prisons (duh!). Do not make a "magical exception" for Australia, since the leading Australian dictionary (Macquarie) prefers jail. This isn't difficult. See also WP:SSF; any time someone is demanding some kind of topical exception to MoS, they are probably making a mistake, of exactly the same kind we've been over a thousand times before.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on abbreviation of judicial offices[edit]

Should legal abbreviations for judicial offices, such as "Smith J" for "Justice Smith", be used in the text of articles? Examples can be seen in Court of Disputed Returns (Australia) and Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This was briefly discussed at MOS/Biography. Pinging those involved: @Find bruce, Errantius, Izno, and The Drover's Wife:.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No: I accept this is standard legal practice, but we should avoid technical jargon — see MOS:JARGON. This is not a legal text, but an encyclopedia for everybody. These abbreviations are not normally used by the news media. I do not accept that anything is gained by shortening "Justice" to "J". "MR" for "Master of the Rolls" and "B" for "Baron" is simply arcane. The result is the ordinary reader is baffled and bemused.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No: I agree with the Associated Press Stylebook 2019 ("judge" entry) which would put the full title before the name on the first mention of the person, and omit the title later in the article. Some examples: "U.S. District Judge John Bates", "Superior Court Judge Robert Harrison". I think this will be understandable regardless of which variety of English the reader is accustomed to. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    I agree with that too.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: this is a misleading request for change as the proposer is not requesting that change - they are opposing it, such that it is hard to distinguish the proposal from a strawman argument. The proposer is not requesting any change to an existing policy that prohibits such use. What the proposer is in fact requesting is to introduce a prohibition on the use of an extremely common convention for referring to judges in Australia in articles discussing legal propositions and cases. See the Australian Guide to Legal Citation at 1.14.4, 2.9.1 and 9.2.8. As I said at the discussion linked to above, it is used in some WP articles discussing decisions of the High Court of Australia, while other articles refer to them as Justice, Chief Justice etc and there is nothing wrong with that. To me it is essentially the same as referring to a judgment reference by the extremely common convention of CLR rather than the full title of Commonwealth Law Reports. I cannot agree with the proposal as put as that would mandate the use of a particular style when there is more than one acceptable style. The choice of the appropriate style remains a matter for any particular article. --Find bruce (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    Abbreviations and other short forms are more often used in citations than in running text. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Use what the sources use. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    I agree. Most sources do not use this abbreviation.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    Judging from The Drover's Wife's comments at the previous discussion on this, TDW means "Use 'J' because legal writers do it." But no. We write in plain English. We absolutely do not write WP articles about the law the way a law journal article would. That's the WP:Specialized style fallacy and is the root cause of about 90% of the style-related strife on Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Smith J" is easily confused with a person's name (first name starting with J). Tony (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No, do not (as someone opined above) "use what the sources use". We've been through this ten thousand times: we don't adopt specialist jargon and formatting that will confuse our readers just so we can show we're part of the in-crowd. Writing that "Smith J found that plaintiff failed to etc etc etc" should, perhaps, be our marquee example of what not to do. (I see one of the linked articles uses bigquotes too, so there's a lot to answer for.) EEng 10:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No The "Smith J" for "Justice Smith" is only understood by a particular group of people. I would have been puzzled by it, was it not explained above. To me it could have meant there was more than one Smith on the bench? It looks too much like "Smith J" for "Justin Smith" or "John Smith". Unless it is direct quote, then we in we at WP should spell it out I think. Aoziwe (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No Wikipedia is is aimed at the general reader. I notice Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co refers to "Lindley LJ and Bowen LJ". I see no problem with giving such judges their full "Lord Justice" titles on first mention, and with "Lord Lindley" and "Lord Bowen" for later mentions. William Avery (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Just a note: "Lord Justice Lindley" and "Lord Justice Bowen" cannot be shortened to "Lord Lindley" and "Lord Bowen". "Lord Justice X" and "Lord X" are distinct styles held by different groups of people. I'd say that the appropriate encyclopaedic style after first reference would simply be the relevant judge's surname. "Lord Justice Lindley and Lord Justice Bowen heard the case. Lindley said in his judgment..." Proteus (Talk) 10:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No. I'm an English lawyer, so I use this shorthand all the time. In a legal document, I would write "Smith J". But in a document intended for a non-legal audience, I'd use "Mr Justice Smith". In my view, shorthand is only appropriate if it's universally understood by the intended audience. Proteus (Talk) 11:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Although "Smith J" is used when judges write legal opinions, when writing about legal opinions for an encyclopedia, we should avoid jargon not understood to a wider audience, and possible confused as Smith, J(ohn). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No, as its WP:JARGON. We have no need to save space or indulge in unusual abbreviation or word order not used in general English. oknazevad (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Concurring with all the Nos above. (As Ko-Ko says in The Mikado, "Never knew such unanimity on a point of law in all my life".) Tim riley talk 14:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No, per MOS:ABBR, MOS:JARGON guidelines, and for reasons explained in detail at WP:SSF. While MOS:ABBR covers this in a very general (not law-specific) way, if people are not understanding that, then we probably need to include this as a specific example of unhelpful abbreviation, just to prevent further rehash of the matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No in a general context as per everyone else. This is a general encyclopedia, and we don't need to go over basically the same topic again. If it referring to the term rather than using it then it should be used of course. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 05:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No for all the excellent reasons discussed above. There are only two contexts in which an American lawyer would write "[name], J." rather than "Justice [name]." Either they are an appellate justice signing an opinion, or they are citing an opinion in formal legal writing.
  • No, outside of formal first citations to U.S. Supreme Court opinions, and any other courts in the English-speaking world in which those abbreviated honorifics are commonly used in citations. Daniel Case (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Depends - I'd say it depends. Ordinarily for a non-legal writing, no, but I wouldn't have any concerns with it in a infobox for a case, for example. Bookscale (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Arb brk[edit]

So it/she meanders on, and jail/gaol is still simmering, but here there's perfect harmony. MOS:ABBR is too confusing for me to decide where in it this might be addressed, so I've added a bit to WP:Manual_of_Style#Do_not_use_unwarranted_abbreviations [6]. My esteemed fellow editors are invited to opine on my humble effort. EEng 21:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

That seems fine. It's not necessary for every abbreviation-related example in MoS to appears in MOS:ABBR; the purpose of the latter is to lay out abbreviation principles in more detail than we get into in the main MoS, not just to regurgitate the main MoS points about abbreviations. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks everyone!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • While it hasn't been 30 days, consensus seems clear, and was implemented more than a week ago. Is there any reason not tto close this discussion? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Putting <blockquote> to pasture[edit]

At WP:BLOCKQUOTE, can we get rid of the rather archaic recommendation to use the HTML blockquote tags directly? Right now it says

Block quotations can be enclosed in {{quote}} or <blockquote>...</blockquote>.

Can we change this to just

Block quotations can be enclosed in {{quote}}, which indents the quoted text.

or something like that? Here we're not forbidding the use of the raw HTML tags if you really want, just not recommending them or mentioning it one way or the other.

Or it could be changed to "Block quotations can be enclosed in {{quote}} (which is a just a wrapper for the HTML <blockquote>...</blockquote> tags)" or something else.

(There are a couple-few reasons to prefer the {{quote}} template over the raw HTML; they're not deal-makers, but just better formatting hygiene IMO: 1) makes global change possible, 2) makes counting transclusions easier, 3) {{quote}} has a built-in mechanism for adding citations, 4) {{quote}} has some other fields too.)

Also, this would require appropriate tweaking of other text in the section, e.g.

Line breaks and indentation inside a {{quote}} or <blockquote> are generally ignored...

would become just

Line breaks and indentation inside a {{quote}} are generally ignored...

and so forth.

What say you? Herostratus (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I think this a good idea. How to use quote templates instead of <blockquote> was added back in 2007. You can still mention that it is a wrapper for the HTML. Also replace the poetry example with {{poemquote}} now that we have that template. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
    Looks good, but don't mention both quote and blockquote or "wrapper" (anyone who understands that term can quickly work that out). As Herostratus says, the guideline would not be forbidding or even deprecating blockquote; instead, the guideline would guide editors towards use of quote which is consistent, cleaner and flexible. Poemquote should be mentioned as well. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I generally oppose removal. "Is a wrapper" or similar is reasonable, but ends up being longer than just saying "use X or Y" (which we use in multiple places in this MOS; this request seems targeted at other disputes rather than a sincere desire to take care of the supposed issue in general). --Izno (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Izno: Could you be more specific about these "other disputes"? Colin M (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Colin M: I was speculating, but it appears that it's coming from discussions like #RfC: Use of Large Quotes in article space, and the Cquote template and its preceding discussions. --Izno (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. This seems like an easy win, in that it makes the MoS's advice just a little bit shorter and simpler to follow, and at seemingly no cost. Colin M (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Much ado about nothing. Some people (um, looking in the mirror here) have been using good ol' blockquote terminology for a long time, and I suspect there are others who are not privy to this conversation. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    In other words, please don't change the instructions we have now. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to change this. Personally, I generally use raw <Blockquote>...</Blockquote> tags, and see no reason not to continue doing so. I therefore oppose the suggested change. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above. Doing this would also have major implications for other use of HTML. There is no policy or common-sense basis on which to forbid the plain-HTML version of something we can also produce with a template or wikimarkup; all it would do is impede varioius HTML-experienced but Mediawiki-new editors' ability to contribute. As advanced editors already know, there are various cases in which Mediawiki markup for complex lists (as just one example) will not work as intended, requiring HTML list formatting. The basic principle here is to output the proper HTML, at the browser end, for the semantics of the material. How (at the source-code level) that result is reached is primarily a factor of editorial habits. As another example, it matters more that "Mexican–American War" have an en dash (not a hyphen, em dash, or other horizontal line) in it than it matters whether you do this with a template, with a Unicode character, or with an HTML character entity code. They all resolve to the same thing upon display. So will <blockquote>...</blockquote> versus basic use of {{quote}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    I think this is arguing against something stronger than what is being proposed. Herostratus wrote above Here we're not forbidding the use of the raw HTML tags if you really want, just not recommending them or mentioning it one way or the other.. Colin M (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Template styles[edit]

Not sure if this is the right place, but I have some questions regarding style. I encountered an editor who spends a lot of time capitalizing the first letter of various templates, like this: {{convert|}} --> {{Convert|}}. To me it seems like completely pointless work. They also spend hours changing {{ubl|}} to {{unbulleted list|}}, which IMHO adds clutter and takes up space needlessly. The only discussion I can find is here. The editor in question responded very rudely/not at all, so I am not sure what the favored style is. Template:Convert uses lowercaps throughout. I do not really care one way or another, and am happy to do whatever the consensus is. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Capitalizing template invocations is a complete waste of time very much in parallel with the behavior deprecated in WP:NOTBROKE. There may or may not be good reason to change the type of a list, but running around doing it on a blind mass basis cannot be helpful. Same goes for churning synonym names for templates. Feel free to point him/her to this discussion, where I'm sure others will similarly opine. If the behavior keeps up let us know. EEng 17:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. I wouldn't object to such changes in principle as part of some other edit, but doing them on their own is pointless at best. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with using the full names of templates to make them more clear for others, who may not know what they are by their short name. I personally would not go hunting for them, but as this does not break any policy or guideline, I find starting this discussion be much more of a waste of time. --Gonnym (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Right... on the merits, changing {{ubl|}} to {{unbulleted list|}} does help any future editors to quickly suss what the template does without looking it up or being a Fifth Level Wikijargon Master. Why is that so pointless. There are downsides -- increases the size of the article (but so?), pollutes the article history, bothers editors inclined to be bothered by such things -- so it's not pointless, although it may be a net negative, which is different (and worse). I wonder if it is, tho.
Changing the capitalization, tho, could be seen as different. It's just undoing how another editor did it, which is slightly annoying and with no upside, and pointless roiling of the article history. I sometimes do and sometimes don't let this go if it's article text. But if an editor went on a crusade to change (let's say) "graduated from" to "was graduated from" (either is correct), no... that'd be too annoying to allow. Dunno if metatext should be treated differently. Herostratus (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
If blindly expanding template names was desirable we'd have a bot to do it. As the wise Ritchie333 put it (see User:EEng#Museum_of_Wise_Words):
One area the hit and run editor gets involved in is the formatting ... The quality of work has increased in some areas, which makes it harder to contribute without good knowledge in the subject matter and sources. Fiddling with the formatting seems to be a suitable alternative passtime.
This kind of mindless gnoming is not helpful, period. EEng 19:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Disagree. Or should I end it with "period" to make it seem like the argument had any substance? --Gonnym (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
If you argument was pointedly and obviously valid, that could be appropriate. If you think the shortened form of a template shouldn't be used, take it to RfD. EEng 19:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
There is no need to take anything to RfD. Any user can replace any piece of text in an article, including a template name. Until you can show any guideline that prohibits it, you can continue this pissing contest with yourself. But just to give you a little bit more of information on this subject, which seems you are lacking by your edit to your original comment. Redirects, that differ in more than capitalization make it much more harder to code templates and modules. Take for example Module:Is infobox in lead (which I've never edited). It checks for an infobox template in the lead. How can it know if an infobox template is in the lead? Well it "reads" the text and checks if a template which is using the same name as the one passed to the function is found. However, this fails when the article uses a redirect instead of the standard version. So looking at Template:Infobox album which uses it, it looks for "[Ii]nfobox [Aa]lbum". An article like The Choice (EP) which uses {{Infobox EP}} fails here. You'll notice that it does not produce a short description. Try adding another Infobox Album below it and see that it too won't add a short description as it does recognize the "Infobox" in it's name. Now replace "Infobox EP" with {{DVD infobox}}, another redirect to it. You will now have both templates producing a short description. This is one easy to understand example of why redirects to templates are indeed harmful. But from experience, nothing will be changed in guidelines in support of either argument, which takes me back to my original position, any editor can change any text and there is no reason to go to RfD. --Gonnym (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
What you are describing is design incompetence. Obviously the check for existence should resolve any redirects and then check. As for the original issue, the community has consistently rejected systematic tinkering with source text that doesn't change what the reader sees; see WP:COSMETICBOT, and bot policies apply to bot-like editing even if not automated, so yeah, this behavior is contrary to PAGs. EEng 20:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • If I have a comment, it's that this is not the right page for this discussion. Template invocations are more-or-less entirely outside the MOS's remit. If this behavior is concerning, I'd try WT:Redirect or WP:VPPOL. --Izno (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
    True, MOS is about user-visible style, while the issue here is under-the-hood style. Anyway, this capitalizing template names needs to stop, at the very least. EEng 20:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@Izno: - okay, should I paste the entire conversation at WP:VPPOL or start over from scratch?  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Give some time for experienced editors to review the contributions history and, if COSMETIC indeed applies, drop some friendly advice on the editor’s talk page. This is far from needing a community discussion at this point. EEng 01:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Much of what he does is useful, but it's really true, much of it is fiddling with capitalization, bypassing redirects, and -- haven't seen this one in a while -- tinkering with ==SECTIONNAME== vs. == SECTIONNAME == . I've left him a reasonably gentle (for me, anyway) message [7]. EEng 09:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am not in any way looking for a sanction, I was mostly wondering what was the correct style and whether I should change my own habits. Best and merry christmas or festivus to all!  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Mixing italics and roman[edit]

Copied from WT:MOSTEXT#Mixing italics and roman, no responses as of this writing.

Pluralizing or possessiv…izing an italicized word leads to mixed formatting, as In Othello's first act…. I've seen some style guides recommend rewriting to avoid this, but can't find anything in our own. Do we care? —96.8.24.95 (talk) 02:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to say we have arrived at the critical point at which there is no topic arising on Wikipedia for which there is not some germane section on my user page: User:EEng#Museum_of_Possessive_Rabbis. EEng 02:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Ha! I’m not sure that’s a good thing. But thanks! —96.8.24.95 (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Though that doesn’t address whether it would be preferable to rewrite to avoid the situation (e.g., In the first act of Othello…). So… I’m afraid at least one such topic remains. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
It does indirectly, in that it shows serious writers apparently use the construction. I wouldn't worry about it. EEng 10:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Our style guide does not recommend doing that, so we'd use "Othello's". Some other style guides (I think The Chicago Manual of Style is one, but I would have to look it up again) that do recommend extending the formatting to include the entire string, are concerned only with typesetting appearance and do not take into account semantic markup, metadata, behavior of templates and other scripting, among other technical considerations that matter at Wikipedia. Nor are offline style guides generally in favor of doing this; only a few of them are. As with any MoS matter, apply WP:Common sense; as MoS's own lead says, if something is problematic, try to write around it. That may be the case when pluralizing something italic in a way that would result in such a mixed-format construction (and there is very rarely any good reason to do so). Judging from on- and off-site writing and style guides in the main, few seem to consider the possessive case (as in "Othello's") to be awkward, so it's simply not an issue. PS: Please do not open duplicate threads (WP:TALKFORK, WP:MULTI). I closed the other one and soft-redirected it to this one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Do words on a header all need to be capitalised on the first letter?[edit]

As an example, is 'Early Life' or 'Early life' correct? I have seen both in articles, and it is not mentioned in MOS:HEAD. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 12:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

See MOS:SECTIONCAPS: "Use sentence case, not title case, capitalization in all section headings." Doremo (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Doremo, what about proper nouns? Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 13:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Sentence case capitalizes proper nouns. Also at MOS:SECTIONCAPS: "... leave the rest lower case except for proper names and other items that would ordinarily be capitalized in running text." Doremo (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Use of Large Quotes in article space, and the Cquote template[edit]

The Cquote template is used in many articles to set off quotes with large quote marks. The MOS says not to use it in articles and the template also contains that instruction.

Thus, rule and practice are not in good alignment. How should we fix this (if we should)? Should the quote marks be removed from those articles that use it by modifying {{Cquote}}? Or should the MOS be changed?

-- DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC) and Herostratus (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Additional background material

This is {{Quote}}:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Sit amet porttitor eget dolor morbi. Scelerisque mauris pellentesque pulvinar pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus.

And this is {{Cquote}}:

DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC) and Herostratus (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Specific proposals[edit]

DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC) and Herostratus (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Proposal 2: Change the MOS to match the usage.
    • Proposal 2A: Remove the proscriptive clauses from the MOS etc. and replace them with nothing -- neither encourage, nor discourage, use of {{Cquote}}; just don't mention it. (This entails removing "(and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template)" from the third sentence of WP:BLOCKQUOTE, and "also" from the fourth sentence. And remove similar proscriptive language from the documentation of {{Cquote}} and any other appropriate language.)
    • Proposal 2B: Remove the proscriptive clauses from the MOS etc. and replace them with explicit allowance of {{Cquote}}. This entails editing the beginning of WP:BLOCKQUOTE to something like along these lines:

Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides. Block quotations can be enclosed in {{Quote}} (which just indents) or {{Cquote}} (which adds large quotation marks). Do not include text quotation marks at the beginning and end of blockquoted text. Block quotations using a colored background are discouraged.

And making appropriate edits to the {{Cquote}} documentation and elsewhere as appropriate.

Herostratus (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • As proposer, I support proposal 1 , converting all uses of {{cquote}} into MOS-compliant blockquotes without needing to edit thousands of articles. The MOS on this issue has had consensus for years, the need is to bring articles into compliance. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    • The original proposal 1 was renumbered as 1A. I nevertheless object to anyone rewriting a signed individual statement of mine, as Herostratus did here and below. WP:TPO is relevant here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support proposal 1C. I think it's going to cause confusion for the typical editor when one expects the template to render a decorative block quote but it doesn't, so I would rather the template trigger the visual cue that it is not to be used in the article namespace. The benefit of it doing that outweighs the cost of running the bot to replace it in the article namespace. I prefer proposal 3 over 2 because it continues to display the content to minimize the impact of accidental use on the readability of the article. But I would support using proposal 1 until that replacement process is complete, so the immediate compliance can be had right away without obtrusive error messages. --Bsherr (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Template documentation exists for a reason, and will explain the differential output.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support proposal 1C as per Bsherr. A one time run on ~16000 articles is not a massive replacement, and makes things clear for editors. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    Oppose 2: if quotation marks are needed around a quotation, they do not need to be the massive, decorative (and IMO ugly) quotes of {{cquote}}. Consistency in presentation (i.e. using blockquote for all quotes) makes things clear for readers. Also per the overemphasis arguments below. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Proposal 2. 2A and 2B are fine, for my part I support 2B. Here're my reasons:
  1. Change the documentation on merits of reader experience: Quotation marks are the universal signal to English speakers that the material contained between them is a direct quotation. {{Quote}} uses only indentation, familiar to readers of serious texts but not everyone.
  2. Change the documentation on grounds of staff gruntlement: like it or not, a lot of editors seem to continue to want to present quotations using {{Cquote}}. In spite of the MOS's flat-out prohibition, and occasional outbreaks of people "fixing" these "errors", we have about 17,000 articles that use {{Cquote}} to present quotations -- 10% of articles, as opposed to 85% for {{Quote}} (the other 5% is {{Quote box}}), in spite of the fact that it's explicitly prohibited, and also people keep deleting it because "the rule says so". Generally, rules here are supposed to codify common practice, within reason. Micromanaging editors by imposing an order to stop using a tool they find useful and superior as they write and present material -- that is, the actual work of the project -- for insufficient reason is not a good way to grow and nurture a group of volunteers.
  3. Change the documentation on ground of upholding Wikipedia process. The admonitions not to use {{Cquote}} in articles was put into the MOS in 2007 by an editor on his own initiative, after an extremely short discussion ([Quotation marks around block quotes (ie: cquote template) here]) which if anything told him not to. Nobody noticed, or cared enough to roll it back, or whatever; it happens. So that editor "got away" with making this new rule. As you all know, once a rule is put in place (however it's done), it's very hard to get the supermajority necessary to remove it -- it's a weakness of the Wikipedia that if you can sneak something it and get away with it for a while then you have the whip hand. So we're stuck with this editors personal rule, which he (and others) continue to enforce on grounds of "fixing format to follow the rule". It stinks, it stinks to high heaven. Exploiting our constitutional weaknesses is not usually looked on kindly and is not how rules in the Wikipedia are supposed to be made. I don't want to reward or valorize this sort of thing and I hope you don't either.
  4. Change the documentation on merits of the aesthetics: There's no need to present the reader with a wall of text. Section breaks help some, and images break up the layout, but sometimes you don't have these in your toolbox. {{Cquote}} (and it sidebar version {{Rquote}} can help with this.
Herostratus (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 1A The current Cquote is used normally to ovr-emphasise a cherry-picked quotation. This proposal will have the effect of educing it to a more appropriate display. for an encyclopedia These of the current cquote is editorializing--appropriate to newspapers and magazines, where editorializing is expected.. It hanse real use in an encyclopedia , at least not in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 1A as the least obtrusive of the solutions. Oppose any variant of 2 as setting up another long nightmare of multiple styles that don't add any value to our articles but waste a lot of editor time converting them back and forth or setting up policies to prevent them getting converted back and forth. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 1A—quick and unobtrusive way to bring articles into MOS compliance, to be replaced by 1C after all uses of the box in mainspace are gone, to help editors who are adding quoteboxes pick the right template per Bsherr. Oppose any variant of 2 because these quote marks do nothing to add to encyclopedic value and just clutter the page, while overemphasizing certain points of view. Quotes (even quoteboxes, IMO) have their place on Wikipedia but we have to be careful to keep them to their place lest we endanger NPOV. buidhe 10:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Proposal 2 per the good reasons listed by Herostratus. Quotation marks are not decoration; they are punctuation. Changing the punctuation of thousands of articles in a broad-brush way without inspecting the effect on their meaning would be outrageous. As the supposed rule never had consensus in the first place and it is widely ignored, it should be voided per WP:NOTLAW and WP:CREEP. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose any of proposal 2–A or B: MoS is just fine. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 14:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support proposal 1A: Kill the C-Quote in articles. It's distracting, ugly, and serves no purpose which is not already handled by the much more professional looking {{Blockquote}}. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 14:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 1A, Oppose both 2A and 2B - Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support proposal 1A, agree with what GenQuest and other have said. MB 18:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support prop 1 I would prefer 1B and deprecate its use entirely, but I would not oppose 1A either which seems to be most popular. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 1C per MOS.--Srleffler (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 1A/1C. This is a fantastically small aberration in consistent usage we can easily remove with very little fuss, so let's do it. (I'd say that {{cquote}} should ultimately be dumped entirely so it can't inadvertently be used anymore anyhow, but that's neither here nor there.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support proposal 2 for the reasons described by Herostratus. The entire point of cquote is to draw attention to the quote and the large quotation marks help with that. Otherwise, we may as well just keep quotations in regular body text. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
    You're quite right that the purpose of cquote is to draw attention to the quote. The template is designed for pull quotes. The problem is that editors often ignorantly use the template for block quotations. That is not what the template is for, and block quotations generally should not be highlighted in that way. This incorrect usage dominates the use of cquote in articles; cases where cquote would actually be appropriate are rare.--Srleffler (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
    It was not designed for, and was never used for, pull quotes. We don't use pull quotes here, basically never. At some point in the template's history, somebody just wrote into the documentation that it was for pull quotes. Probably just the whim of a single misguided editor, so basically near to vandalism (I haven't checked, but it's hard to imagine any kind of serious discussion ending in the idea that pull quotes should be supported, since we don't use them and shouldn't.) Herostratus (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
    Balderdash. Its style is borrowed completely from pull quotes as used in various magazines, and in my sporadic cleanup sprees, I have found it used both for actual pull quotes (which repeat material, in showy form, already found embedded in the regular prose) and fake pull quotes, in the sense of not being found already in the main text but serving the same encyclopedically inappropriate purpose of drawing undue attention to a particular party's statement.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Coolcaesar: The "reasons described by Herostratus" are demonstrably wrong.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 1A, then 1C after all extant uses are corrected, per Buidhe's reasoning. The in-mainspace behavior change proposed for {{cquote}} should also be done with the other "decorative quote" templates (borders, boxes, centring, sidebars, etc.), though we should fork one to Template:Document excerpt for a sidebar containing a document excerpt (i.e., something that is serving the same function as an image, but is presenting wiki-formatted text from a document rather than a facsimile of it). This is a well-accepted use of quotation sidebar templates. I would simply take the features from the extant quote sidebar templates and combine them into a single template (with output and parameter names consistent with the majority of the other quote templates – one of them is markedly divergent and should be deprecated), and document it as only for use with document excerpts.
    Strongly opposed to any variant of proposal 2, which is just 'shopping to try to get a different result than what MOS:BQ says, and is not responsive to an RfC about how MOS:BQ should be implemented. Its premise is false as are Herostratus's rationales in support of it, as I'll lay out in the discussion section below. MoS implements a single standard for a reason (since 2006 if not earlier). The fact that we didn't actually get around to implementing it because of a technological hindrance to doing so (and 1A will fix that) has simply led to "monkey see, monkey do" additional uses of {{cquote}} and other decorative quote templates, because editors mostly do not read the style guide or the template docs, they copy-paste what they find in one article into another and fill it in with different content. It does not indicate a consensus against what MoS says, just an implementation drag. So remove that drag.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC); revised 12:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 1A is my first choice, and 1C is my second choice. Also, I like User:Buidhe's idea of doing 1A now and 1C later (possibly much later). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose all proposals here. This template resembles a pull quote, which as described in that article is a design element like an image rather than being part of the running text. We use images relevant to the article and section to break up the wall of text, and pull quotes should be acceptable in the same way when the section is about a specific quote rather than something that is represented in graphical manner. Uses of {{cquote}} may need review for cases where <blockquote> or {{rquote}} is more appropriate, but IMO neither a total ban (proposal 1) nor a blanket approval (proposal 2) is appropriate. Anomie⚔ 12:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Anomie: That's really off-topic. Pull quotes (an unencyclopedic style found mostly in magazines) are no longer sanctioned for use in Wikipedia articles (per two RfCs or other such discussions several years ago; one to deprecate them, and one to stop even suggesting they could sometimes be used). Whether something "resembles" a pull quote is neither here nor there (except this: the fact that the purpose of a pull quote is to psychologically manipulate the reader into continuing to read, and with a particular idea or emotion in their head, means that pull quotes or anything masquerading as them are a WP:NPOV problem, by definition). Whether you think MOS:BQ should or shouldn't call for only <blockquote> (or its {{Quote}} wrapper) is also basically irrelevant to this thread; it does, and it has since at least 2006. This RfC isn't about changing the guideline, it's about how best to technologically implement it. If you want to change it, that's a very different kind of RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: Err, proposal 2 is explicitly about changing the guideline. I find the rest of your dismissal as similarly incorrect, but I'm not going to waste time arguing with you about it. Anomie⚔ 18:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    "Proposal 2" was tacked on after the RfC opened, as an "anti-RfC", and has virtually no support. What you just wrote is a dismissal (i.e., an empty, handwaving refusal to engage); what I wrote is a point by point rebuttal of your OP, which is in no way dispelled by ignoring it. The point of it wasn't even to argue with you but to get you to reconsider what you've posted (whether you want to talk about it or not).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 1A. These big quote marks do not match other elements of our house style for articles. Sandstein 16:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 1A now and actually not 1b or 1c. Just silently pass through the parameters. --Izno (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, just silently pass through the parameters until such time as a bot can replace the templates in mainspace, at which time I prefer the 1B approach (and not 1C still, as I would prefer not to render anything correctly whatsoever, so as to avoid tempting innocent or otherwise users into using the template anyway). --Izno (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 1A There is no need for the large quotation marks as flourishes; they merely take up space and interfere with nearby images. Much simpler than forcing fixes in its uses. As punctuation quotation marks are needed to set off a quotation within running text, but when the quotation is already set off in an indented paragraph they are not mandatory. Reywas92Talk 21:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 1A per existing consensus not to use {{cquote}} in article space. Strong oppose 1B and 1C which would cause a massive and immediate influx of confusion and complaints from editors, and also would be damaging to our readers' experience. If we did have an error message of some sorts—which I am opposed to—then I would strongly advise that it should mention that {{quote}} is the template to use in place, so that people who came across the error message would know how to fix it. Also, whilst we should be getting rid of pull quotes, lengthy quotes and other misuses of quotes where we see them, I oppose editors going through usages of {{cquote}} and changing them to {{quote}} en masse, as it would not be an improvement if 1A was adopted, it causes unnecessary disruption and it would do damage if consensus ever changed in favour of {{cquote}}'s current version. — Bilorv (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 2A. I would amend the MOS to allow the use of {{cquote}} the way I prefer to use it, for quotations used epigraphically (see two sections in 2017 Los Angeles Measure S and this section of Disappearance of Tiffany Whitton for examples. But only that ... the quotes are a distraction when used with inline blockquotes. Also I totally second Herostratus. Daniel Case (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose 2A and 2B – Support 1A – best to continue to work toward phasing out the big decorative quote marks. Dicklyon (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 1A and Oppose others There is already consensus to deprecate. 1B and 1C have a deficit for readers (as opposed to editors). I acknowledge the concern that 1A may cause confusion to some editors but believe that the deficit of the options (1B % 1C) outweighs this IMO but it does not mean that potential editor issues might be otherwise addressed. There probably needs to be something in big flashing letters at the documentation. A bot run (or two or three) to convert occurrences. An edit summary for the bot run that has big letters - preferable flashing. Later runs could even add hidden comments. Eventually the message will get through. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Pleased to see this issue being addressed/revisited because, to my mind, the large quote marks add undue emphasis to the quoted content when in fact any sort of block quote treatment is based purely on word count. Support 1A, if it's the most committed measure, and Oppose others. Not wanting to distract from this point, but it's reminded me that there is still an option to include quote marks (that is, "Fat-quotes") at Template:Quote box, which would seem inconsistent with moves to phase out decorative quote marks, per Dicklyon above. JG66 (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 2A or 2B as per User:Herostratus. The speech marks look better and make much more sense. Wikipedia should move with the times. (WP:5P5) TBH anything works as long as it's one or the other... >>BEANS X2t 17:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussions[edit]

Threaded discussion re merits of the proposals[edit]

  • I should note the policy basis for these proposals. Any quote marked off as cquote or rquote does is inherently given significantly greater attention, and distracts from the article as a whole. In almost all cases, that will give such a quote Undue Weight, thereby violating WP:NPOV. In theory such a template could be used only in the few cases where a quote deserves very heavy weight. There are a few such cases. But that hasn't happened in the past, and I don't think it would happen in the future. So I think the tool of cquote must be removed from article space, not just to comply with the MOS, but to avoid NPOV violations. Editors who disagree with that view will no doubt not support any of the proposals I have made, and will prefer the current situation, or perhaps some different proposal. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 07:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I Will will mention, for the record, that I strongly oppose both 2A and 2B, and would rather that the current situation be retained than that those be implemented. I note that there is no mention of the NPOV issue or how these proposals would, as it seems to me, only make that worse. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

So, something you hear is that {{Cquote}} ought be removed because it is used for POV purposes, to overemphasize some point. This is reasonable but not really a strong argument in my opinion, because:

  1. I haven't seen that. Probably happens, but I haven't seen evidence of {{Cquote}} used for toxic POV purposes with a greater frequency than plain block quoting.
  2. If it's a problem, it's mostly block quoting itself that's the problem. A {{Quote}}d quotation is (let's say) 3/4 as prominent as a {{Cquote}}d quotation. Most of the emphasis is is calling out the quote as a blockquote, the large quotation marks only add a bit of extra emphasis. And the 2016 RfC didn't show support for banning block quoting altogether.
  3. Anything can be used for POV purposes. The main source of POV is article text. Categorization is commonly used for spin... going around putting people in Category:Catholic American writers when they never went to church as an adult, to valorize Catholicism; you see this all the time, and rolled back all the time. For U.S. Grant, an editor has to choose between a picture of his birthplace (promotes Ohio) or where he lived (promotes Missouri). The solution is not to ban text or categories or images, but to fix specific problems when they arise.
  4. I mean, after all, emphasizing certain things is what we do. Right? I'm writing about Pinckney Pruddle, I choose to write a long section on his political career and a short section on his sporting career, emphasizing the latter and de-emphasizing the former because I think that's the best service to the reader. Is this wrong? If I blockquote Franklin Roosevelt's "We have nothing to fear..." quote rather than something else he said, is this wrong?

Herostratus (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

If you "haven't seen" PoV-pushing uses of it, then a) you are not looking, even a little bit, and b) you cannot be in a position to evaluate those uses. "I have never seen an elephant. But I bet it is just like a squid." No, it's not block-quoting itself that is the problem, it's using colorful, decorative gimcrackery to practically force the reader's eye to something an editor wants to unduly emphasize. The style was borrowed directly from magazine-style pull quotes, the sole purpose of which is to catch readers' attention and cajole them into reading more out of an emotional response to the unduly highlighted material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

On Herostatus's "Proposal 2": This RfC is about how to implement the extant wording of MOS:BQ (the "use <blockquote>...</blockquote> or a template wrapper for it" core meaning of which has not changed since 2006) through templates. The counter-proposal is a forum-shopping attempt to relitigate, to try to say that MOS:BQ is "the wrong version" – 14 years late. So it is not actually responsive to the RfC question, but is just a bunch of FUD. And its premise is just false. It's not the case that lots of editors prefer {{cquote}}, it's just that after consensus arose to use <blockquote>...</blockquote> / {{quote}} consistently and to discourage (later to just disallow) pull quotes, we failed to actually implement the removal of {{cquote}} from mainspace, which in turn led to "monkey see, monkey do" spread of it to new articles as editors copy-pasted the first quote template they encountered to another article and just changed the content inside it, without reading template documentation or MoS.

Other, hyperbolic claims by Herostratus in support of the idea are also bogus. "Quotation marks are the universal signal to English speakers that the material contained between them is a direct quotation" is just false on its face, twice over: Quotation marks are not used around block quotations in any major style guide. Ever. And quotation marks are used for a variety of other purposes that have nothing to do with quotations, such as titles of minor works, and "scare-quoting" dubious phrases. There is no "lot of editors" who prefer to use cquote; there's a tiny handful of editors who've ever spoken up with a preference for using it, and a larger number of editors who just willy-nilly reuse whatever templates they run across in other articles. Combined, they're still a small minority. All told, the total number of mainspace uses of {{quote}} dwarf by those of {{cquote}} (by about a 5:1 ratio and climbing), even before you factor in raw <blockquote> usage. Finally, it is not possible to "sneak" something into the most-watchlisted guideline on the entire system. Even a minor tweak to MoS is examined by multiple people. MOS:BQ is the result of multiple discussions over many years, not just one, and has been refined further since then with even more discussion (e.g., to remove grudging acceptance of pull quotes).

There's also the WP:Fallacy of the revelation of policy at work here. "So-and-so editor wrote this and added it" isn't a rationale against anything, since everything on WP was written and added by someone. MOS:BQ has stood the test of years – over a decade – and this is intrinsic evidence of its consensus, which need not be unanimous (see WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). Consensus can change but on this is hasn't, and it won't. Use of cquote in mainspace has declined, not risen. More than once, I've randomly picked about 100 articles and converted all their uses of cquote to quote (or to an inline quotation, when the template was wrongly used for a very short quote), with less than a 1% revert rate. What do you think Herostratus's revert rate would be if he changed 100 articles to use cquote instead of quote? Besides, MoS has said to use <blockquote> for block quotations since at least 2006.

And none of this is news; I'll quote Mzajac from December 2006: "It is chronically misused: the MOS calls for HTML <blockquote> elements. Proponents say this template [Cquote] is only for special call-out quotes [i.e. pull quotes], but that is just BS: everyone knows it has been placed for thousands of in-line long quotations. Novelty typographical treatments like this make the encyclopedia look like a bad joke. Replace it with template:Bquote [i.e. what today is Template:Quote], which is 100% compatible, and provides semantic, accessible output." What changed a few years ago was we realized that MOS:BQ said to just use <blockquote>...</blockquote> while {{Quote}} was directly equivalent but not mentioned, so we added it as an obviously acceptable replacement. Waaay back in 2007, and based on WT:MOS discussions, accessibility discussions, TfDs, and numerous other threads, I added to MoS that {{Cquote}} should not be used (since it is not equivalent to <blockquote>, and many concerns had even then been raised about its misuse in mainspace). In the intervening years, various people tried to editwar it back into MoS as permissible and did not get consensus for this. Along the way, we explicitly deprecated pull quotes, and then when they all seemed to be gone, removed mention of them about a year later (though we may need to put it back in; I've run into at least two pull quotes in recent editing). We also built MOS:ICONS, and over time it has evolved to discourage not just little pointless decorative images, but misusing Unicode, dingbat fonts, CSS tricks, emoji, etc., to achieve the same decorative effects without strictly using images – and that obviously includes (and was specifically intended to include) things like giant-quote-mark decoration. (I would know what the intent was, since I wrote much of that guideline material, as well.) Efforts by Herostratus to portray any of this as some kind of conspiratorial coup are simply nonsense. The only "bullshit" that "stinks to high heaven", to turn Herostratus's words back onto him, is his failure to see that MOS:BQ is the product of at least 14 years of consensus formation.

TfD has been deleting MoS-noncompliant quote templates for over a decade. See, e.g., WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 8#Template:", the deletion – on MOS:BQ grounds – of a template that did the same thing as what is now {{Quote}} but put quotation marks around it. The only reason {{Cquote}} survived TfD a few months before that was respondents' confusion about its legit uses in project and user namespaces versus its misuse in mainspace (back then, the idea of having a template do different output on a per-namespace basis was novel and would not have occurred to most editors.) See also WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 11 for a whole raft of deletions and mergers of quotation templates; note especially deletion of {{Quotation1}} because it used table markup instead of <blockquote> (i.e. because it was contradictory to MOS:BQ). Then see WP:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 25#Template:Selective quotation, deleted on the basis that it "causes harm to the appearance of articles that is much greater than any benefit it might provide .... with a very large and intrusive inline marker." That's exactly what {{Cquote}} does, except with four intrusive markers (two at start, two at end). Next, see WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 20, another entire page of quotation template deletions and mergers. At WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29, {{bq}} was merged to {{Quote}}. (Though {{Quotation}} was not at that time, it was later, after some parameters were made compatible.) This is just a sampling of the relevant TfD discussions. In short, the entire and quite long history of these things on WP is continually toward fewer templates, with more consistent output, more compliance with MoS, and fewer dubious formatting options (many unencyclopedic output formats were dropped in the course of these mergers). And TfD has explicitly deferred to MoS as where we decide how block quotations will be formatted in Wikipedia articles [8].

Finally, there is no aesthetic problem with block quotation, or with a work mostly consisting of text. Our block quotation style is the same as that used by all major publishers, for centuries. And most books that are not written for children consist primarily of text, including other encyclopedias. Under no excuses should we violate WP:UNDUE to draw especial attention to some party's wording just to tweak the layout. WP:NOT#WEBHOST; you can use your own website to engage in whatever webpage design ideas strike your fancy. The last time someone tried to do that with quotation templates in mainspace, it was promptly nuked at WP:TFD [9].
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I find the comments by SMcCandlish above quite persuasive. Indeed they put the ideas i had in mind more clearly than i had fomulated them, no doubt based on that editor's long and extensive MOS work. I still do not find the arguments of Herostratus at all persuasive. The suggestion that most editors who have used {{cquote}} in mainspace have done so because they read the MOS and disagreed, or even looked throguh the available quotation templates and chose cquote as the best for that article is at best without supporting evidence. Many, perhaps most, editors work by seeing tools and techniques used in one or a few other articles, and imitating what seems to work. People assume that anythign sued in mainspace is approved and appropriate. This is often incorrect, which is why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is usually not a persuasive argument in AfD and similar discussions. This is, I think, what SMcCandlish means by "Monkey see, monkey do" editing. And there is nothing wrong with it, as a first approximation. But when another editor points out things that do not comply with the MOS, or better yet edits to bring an article into MOS compliance, the response should not usually be to revert, unless ther is a good argument why a particular article is an exception. Nor should one try to change the MOS just out of personal preference. I still have not seen any response that I consider persuasive to the argument that large quote marks lend themselves to cherry0picking and unduse weight to a particular quotation. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    To clarify, virtually all of us learn WP by the same imitative process; I know I did. Finding and absorbing the P&G and /doc material is a very slow process, and also absorbing corrections and hints from other editors is a major part of the process. I was also virulently opposed to some of what MoS said when I first started editing (and I still disagree with about 50 things), but figured out after a while that its value is in its stability and its function of setting a/some/any rule where the absence of one leads to chaos and conflict; it's not what the specific rules are in most cases (except where there's a very strong reason to prefer one option over another, e.g. for MOS:ACCESS reasons). Anyway, we've seen the monkey-see-monkey-do effect in action, in sweeping and bad ways, before. The insistence of one wikiproject on capitalizing the common names of species of one type of organism led inevitably to a perception that capitalizing species vernacular names was "just the Wikipedia style", and imitative application of it to any/all other organism, until the attempt to capitalize "Mountain Lion" and a few other such things finally broke the camel's back and lead to a lower-casing shift that took another 4+ years to resolve and clean up in the mainspace, after intense levels constant conflict about it (pretty much the worst WP:DRAMA I've ever seen). Similarly, the ability in the 2000s to have dates auto-format (for logged-in users) to match their preferred date order, if the date was linked and it was a complete date, led to people wikilinking every single date they came across, complete or not, until the community couldn't stand it anymore and had this functionality repealed; that also took years of drama and drudgery to resolve (and was the proximal cause of MoS being put under WP:AC/DS). People just obsessively lose their shit over MOS/AT matters, too intensely and too often.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I want to call attention to the discussion at Talk:Factorial#quote vs cquote. In this edit on Factorial, I changed an instance of quote to cquote. Herostratus reverted that change, and a talk page discussion was stated. Another editor reinstated my change after some discussion, and Herostratus reverted again. After further discussion, during which there was pretty clear consensus for my change (as I read the discussion, but check it out), yet another editor reinstated the change, which has remained stable since then. At the same time that I made the edit to Factorial I made similar changes to 9 other articles, and to another group of ten a couple of days later. All were chosen from the first page of the what-links-here list of {{cquote}} (after limiting to mainspace trasclusions). I believe that Herostratus reverted two other articles, and that no one else objected or reverted any of the changes. A micro-sample of what working editors feel is worth reverting, as one data point in judging current consensus on the issue. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    That should have read "I changed an instance of cquote to quote", as the linked edit plainly shows. My editing error here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah, my I-got-reverted rate of under 1% when converting Cquote to Quote wouldn't've been possible if {{Cquote}} were an actual preference of many editors, nor if my edit-summary citations to MOS:BQ as my rationale were citations of a bogus guideline that consensus didn't really accept.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion re techical aspects of implementation, and meta-discussion of the RfC itself[edit]

  • There's currently a proposal 1A listed, but it looks identical to #1B, and the sandbox and such are red links. What's supposed to be here? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    Proposal 3 is a late suggestion. It is essentially a combination of 1A and 1B. I will have the sandbox template and test cases up and working shortly. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
The examples for proposal 3 are now working. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
The original proposal 3 has been renumbered to 1C, but I object to the editing of my existing commetns, and have reverted the changes to them. I will not further edit the comments of others, as per WP:TPO. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
@Deacon Vorbis: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • See also recent discussion at Template talk:Cquote § Proposed changes re .7Bcquote.7D and subsections under that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Do I see correctly that there are only 9 transclusions in the article namespace right now? --Bsherr (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    You do not, Bsherr. What links here showing only transclusions for article space, shows it used on over 16,000 articles (32 pages of 500 plus a partial page) counted just now. X!tools shows a transclusion count over 39,000, but I think that includes all namespaces. I have myself edited to remove it on more than 20 articles, just as examples. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    The monthly report linked in the sub-section below shows Page count: 16069; Transclusion count: 24168 DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    Ah, I see my misstep. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I could wish, Herostratus that you had just added proposals, not renumbered existing ones, to which Bsherr and Galobtter had already refereed to by number, not to mention myself. Wouldn't they have done as well as just 4 and 5? In any case I ask any eventual closer to note that those comments, if not later revised by their authors, refer to what is now listed as 1B and 1C. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Pinging User:Bsherr, User:Galobtter, User:DESiegel: In all instances (including your comments under your signatures, I edited the text to match the changed numbering system. This, "1" became "1A", "2" became "1B", and "3" became "1C". Begging your pardon, and done only in the interests of clarity.
Given permission to add proposals, I judged that 1,2,3,4,5 numbering system was inferior to a 1,2 system with 1A, 1B, and 1C and 2A and 2B as subsidiary values. It's hard enough getting a decision in a binary question, and impossible on a 5-proposal one. 5-proposal ones are fine for RfC in the manner of "What are people's thoughts on this, so we can move forward with further discussion". But we had one of those in 2016 and actually many such discussions over the last decade-plus. It's time to put paid to this ten-year running sore and a binary question's the way to do it.
A 1,2,3,4,5 system is only going to end up with roughly 10-30% of "votes" given to each proposal. People voting for 1, 2, and 3 are going to be counted differently. With this system, votes for 1A, 1B, and 1C can all be ascribed to "1", and Bob's your uncle; which specific technique (A, B, or C) to use can be then adjudicated on plurality, or strength of argument, or something.
I'm prepared to "lose". That's the Wikipedia way. We all win when the feeling of the community is engaged with a good quorum and the result is an actual decision backed by community consensus. I can't even care that much anymore on the merits; I'm worn down; but I'm still standing because I refuse to be bullied and see my colleagues bullied and harassed and worn down based on bullshit like this. But either way, let's just end this twelve-year nightmare. Herostratus (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Of course I am happy to oblige the edit to my comment. I am a bit disappointed that we are combining the policy and implementation questions, however. I am inclined to agree with "2B" on the policy question, but if the result is no change to policy, I prefer "1C". But I'm not confident an all-in-one RfC will account for such nuances. --Bsherr (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, the more I think about this, the more I want to ask that the RfC as written be aborted in favor of deciding the policy question ("1" or "2") first. Is there any objection to that? --Bsherr (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Me too. So far this is shaping up to be like what the she for ships discussion might have been if English had seven genders to choose from. EEng 21:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Right... well, the RfC was published, and there were some issues, so we fixed it quick while in flight. It's better now; 1A,B,C are all just "1" and same for 2A,B. It's not like seven genders, it's more like "Vote for She or It for ships, period. If you vote for She, you may optionally also specify whether amphibious vehicles should be She or Xe, whether ships that are called boats (e.g. submarines) should be She or Ze, and whether former ships that have transitioned to a sunken state should be She or Ve." Anyway, it's here now, it's better than it was, and it's live and it's WP:CENT, so... I dunno. Anyway, only User:DESiegel could do this. Herostratus (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
And I would object to Bsherr and EEng's idea, even if this were not already CENTed. It would be an illegitimate bait-and-switch to train-wreck a simple and straightforward RfC (about how to implement a guideline in some particular detail), by sticking in a "down with the guideline" noise proposal and screwing around with the proposal numbering multiple times, and yadda yadda, then try to claim that the guideline itself was somehow in question just because the RfC was derailed. Fourteen years of guideline stability isn't erased with a quick WP:GAMING stroke, sorry.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Template mechanics[edit]

(edit conflict) Sorry in advance for all the dumb questions, but template code tends to be a bit unreadable for me if I didn't write it myself Face-sad.svg. Looking at the test cases for #1, they seem to use the most basic parameters of {{cquote}}. If there are so many uses out in the wild, do any of them use the weirder formatting parameters that aren't supported by {{quote}}? What's the intended behavior for these? (Just saw the pointer to discussion in the edit conflict, will go see if any of that discussion answers my questions). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  • My intent was to use and allow for all the parameter supported by {{cquote}} which have rough equivalents in {{quote }}. Thje parameter specifically intended for formatting the large quote marks, or positioning the quote in non-standard ways, such as bgcolor, float, width, quotealign, wide, and qcolor are intentionally ignored and will have no effect in mainspace. In userspace (indeed everywhere but mainspace) they will continue to function e3xactly as before DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Deacon Vorbis There are far too many existing article-space invocations of cquote to determine what parameters have been used in them. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    Re There are far too many existing article-space invocations of cquote..., please see the Template Data monthly report, which tells you exactly how many articles use each parameter, including unsupported parameters, as of the most recent monthly analysis. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you, Jonesey95 I didn't know about that. Based on that there seem to be no more than about 100 uses of any of the parameters I am ignoring in the modified version, a volume which would would be easy enough to modify individually one way or another. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Some above are suggesting that a bot be created to directly convert cquote calls into quote calls, aftt an initial change in the template. That could be done. But because of the difference in parameters, i think the logic would be a bit more complex than some might assume, making that more trouble and perhaps take longer. But it could surely be done. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 07:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Using "British" vs "English" to describe a person/company/work[edit]

I've run into a fair question from a relatively new user and though I understand the core complaint, I thought we had guidance on this.

The case is in point is for several articles related to video game studios in London or the England part of the UK (as opposed to Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland). Generally, in such cases, I have seen these called "British", but this user believes it should be called an "English" studio as to designate that it sits in England rather that anywhere in the UK.

There is a clear inconsistency on WP spot checking around: bios tend to use "English" where things like films, TV shows, companies, may likely use "British".

My question is if this is spelled out somewhere in the MOS explicitly, and if not, should we be more explicit about it? --Masem (t) 03:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, the ethno-cultural sense of a nation and nationality makes sense in a biographical context, and may also in various other contexts, such as cultural output. That will often be a factor in a TV show or film and maybe even a video game, but is not likely to matter when it comes to, say, calculator software, or manufacture of car parts. If we're consistently describing all things in/from Scotland as Scottish and all things in/from Wales as Welsh, even if there's no culture-related reason for it, then we should do the same with things in/from England with the designation English. But only a) if we're sure we want to be doing this with Scotland and Wales, and b) only for article subjects essentially confined to that jurisdiction (if a company has offices in England and Scotland, then call it British; if it's a product used all the time all over the UK (e.g. HP Sauce), then call it British even if the manufacturer's HQ is in England). That's my initial take on the matter. It's always been left to editorial discretion (and I can recall sporadic edit-warring about it at various topics), but if it's leading to a confusing level of inconsistency, or to protracted, cyclical editorial conflicts, then we might need to address it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Masem, you are probably thinking of this essay which I have saved somewhere. Its a handy guide for *people* but not really applicable to companies, except where you may have some strong national ties in a similar way to people. I'm thinking in the food and drink area, or anything else thats region specific. Describing scotch producers as 'British' companies, while technically correct, would be wrong. But otherwise, just being located somewhere specific doesnt merit an 'English/Scottish/Welsh' label, unless there is a reason for that label. Functionally, UK companies are registered at companies house as a British company. But biographies of people will have a much easier time of identifying a national preference. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
This makes sense, in that at least for companies, we are talking their place of registration, which can only be the UK, and I can see how that can then distinguish from people where the nationality is a different factor (wholly separate matter, I see the new RFC on infoboxes and nationality that is tied to this for people). --Masem (t) 15:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The United Kingdom is a single sovereign country, and the registration of all UK companies is handled by Companies House[10]. However, due to the complex history and relationship between the UK's four constituent countries, there are three separate company registers maintained: one for companies in England and Wales which operate under English law, one for companies in Scotland which operate under Scottish law, and one for companies in Northern Ireland which operate under Northern Irish law. Whichever register a company appears in though, they are all ultimately British Companies in the international context, as the UK is the only sovereign country that contains them. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
That we use English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, Irish instead of the proper British for UK-related articles, simply annoys me to no end. This special treatment isn't given for articles related to other sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, most other sovereign states don't consistent of "constituent countries" with varying degrees of sovereignty rights retained. Even the "states" of the United States (and various other countries with "states" or cognates, like the estados of Mexico) do not mean state in the classic sense. The US states retain some limited rights of self-governance on various things, but they're really unlike, say, Scotland within the UK. The UK is just unusual, and in more than one relevant way. E.g., Northern Ireland is part of the UK, but is not part of [Great] Britain, so it's not British except in strained, extenuated senses, in about the same way Puerto Rico "is" American (though at least PR has its own flag, and isn't being claimed by another nation-state). But N.Irl. also isn't like Wales and Scotland nor even politically extinct Cornwall, in being a former nation and in various (especially cultural) respects still treated as one; it's simply territory occupied from another nation-state, and culturally more attuned to that one in many ways. Anyway, we have WP:POV and WP:ABOUTSELF issue, in that various "British" people don't identify as such but as something more specific, and may have deep-seated, even defining, socio-political rationales for it. It's not WP's job to tell them they're wrong. (Same goes for, say, a Scot who firmly self-identifies as British rather than Scottish.) I don't think consistency is going to be possible, so the question is probably what the default should be (just British, or the more specific terms?).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
A little off-topic, but I actually think that's pretty much exactly incorrect as regards US states. US states don't have "some limited rights of self-governance"; they are the primary jurisdiction for most individual-on-individual issues. --Trovatore (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I would have agreed with that in, say, 1940. The US federal government has turned into a behemoth in the interim, and overrules state law all over the place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Note: Essentially the same issues were recently raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Nationality of people from UK, and at Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. I've directed both to this discussion in an effort to centralize, per WP:TALKFORK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
As I've posted. I'm annoyed by the special treatment for the UK-related articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I would say the idea that it constitutes special treatment is mistaken, although I can see how it would appear like that. The relationships between personal identity, sovereign states and constituent sub-national entities are just more complicated in Europe than in most of the Anglophone world outside of the UK. Because this is the English-language Wikipedia, with coverage (and contributors) naturally skewed towards Anglophone countries, the UK stands out like a special case in this regard when compared to countries with a more settled and perhaps less knotty set of identities. If instead you compare us with continental European contexts you will see the same issues arising all over the place -- Catalans, Basques, Serbs, Croats (who never accepted being Yugoslavs), people who were born in Poland but are now Ukrainian, Greeks whose families lived in Turkey, and so on. The policies we adopt should reflect this reality, as indeed do the sources which we base our work on. FrankP (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
This situation is a bit complicated. My question is: Does the use of "English" in terms of location come across the same way to all other english-speaking regions? There is such a thing as Italian (language) and Italian (originate from Italy) same with Spanish, and French. There is Irish, and Scottish as well. Or is there a way to avoid using the word "English" in terms of geographic origin and instead use another sentence structure. For example "From England".Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 17:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I would say that to describe an organisation as English would tend to emphasise its Englishness more than to say it is based in England. One of the game studio articles mentioned by the OP begins "Rockstar London Limited is a British video game developer and a studio of Rockstar Games based in London, England". That seems to me to get it about right. FrankP (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Though we don’t usually tell our readers that London is in England. EEng 16:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, London is in Canada (Ontario, to be precise.) SportingFlyer T·C 14:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, we will just have to add this to the long list of things that annoy GoodDay. Some here may not be aware that there is or a has been a small but dedicated band of editors who go round changing British to Scottish whenever there is the slighest excuse, no doubt muttering lines from Braveheart as they go. Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so; Mel Gibson is an Australian.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I suppose (to be generous) you've never seen the film. His character William Wallace is Scottish; very much so. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
We really need to get rid of the nationalist "language territory staking" templates like "This article is written in Scottish English". I've said before that we probably only need Commonwealth English, US English, and Canadian English, since there are only three dialects with multiple reputably published style guides, and most of the Commonwealth uses the British ones. There's virtually no difference in an encyclopedic register between most variants of the Commonwealth English dialect continuum.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
This is a red herring - I don't believe any editors have ever attempted to tag for "Scottish English". But Scottish editors have been very agressive, at least in the past, in changing "British" to "Scottish" in first lines and infoboxes, and setting-up Scottish categories for people - Category:British scientists has 38 sub-cats, while its sub Category:Scottish scientists has 34 (the Welsh have 19, and N Ireland only 10; 35 for English). User:Mais oui! was one of the most energetic and combative, but now retired "as of February 2018 due to bullying by rogue admin over many years", his user page says. To see how much actual "Scottish English" WP contains, this search is useful. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. British English and American English cover the major differences.. As an Australian I would support that, even if it means saying "lorry" when I want to say "truck". At least I get to spell "colour" with a "u". Fragmenting into dozens of specific countries is just asking for nationalistic arguments that really aren't helpful.  Stepho  talk  10:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, this is something that is difficult to coherently codify in MoS. A company that soley operates in England can be English or British. In general, for companies we should default to British unless the company or highly reliable sources say explictly otherwise. In regards, to people that is an entirely different situation in which it should be determined from page-to-page consensus. One example I have found is that article related to politians usually favour British over English/Welsh (although Scotland seems to favour Scottish, Northern Ireland is a bit more complicated, related pages: England, Wales, Scotland Northern Ireland). However articles related to actors favour "English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish" over "British" (Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. This has also been noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There are almost no cases when it's problematic to describe someone as "British" when "English" would have been a possibility. It's not wrong, but nor is it a necessity. GoodDay will just have to resign themselves to this.
There are certainly problem areas on WP within the "British" scope. Ireland or Northern Ireland is an obvious one, and worse for some periods of history than others. Anglo-Irish is one which WP persists in getting wrong. Scottish much less so, rarely contentious on WP, as Scottish is accepted here as distinct. Cornish has been a problem in the past as WP doesn't recognise this as a distinct group. Wales is largely a problem of inaccuracy, and WP tends to keep describing subjects like Lloyd George or Julian Cope as "welsh" although neither are.
For companies, it's English, Scottish or Northern Irish. Wales comes under England. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
It is actually very simple. If something is good, positive and to be proud of it is British; if to the contrary, English. However in Scotland or Wales if it is good it is Scottish/Welsh, otherwise British. ;-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
You're right it should be simple. I can offer a slight correction though: if it's bad, evil and imperialistic, it's English. If it's inventive, radical and original, it's Scottish Irish or Welsh, as appropriate. If it's undeniably good, but can't be sensibly assigned to any of the outlying nations, let's call it British. ;-) FrankP (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
If its tail is missing or it has four horns instead of two, then it's Manx. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Truly there's nothing which WP won't edit-war over. On SS Nomadic, trying to put 1911 Belfast into Ireland. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't really care which term is used. The union is entering its final phase, anyway, after which we'll be using "English", "Welsh", and "Scottish". Tony (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • When there's more than one perfectly reasonable option, just leave whichever one has been chosen. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd have to agree with the above. The situation with terminology of nationality in the UK/British Isles in general is complex and not something that aligns to simple solutions that may work for other countries. The UK gets a unique treatment because its political and historical context is unique, and like what Dicklyon said, there's no reason to change between British and English in situations where both or either are correct. That's the guidance at WP:ENGVAR (don't arbitrarily change between two functionally equivalent terms) and I think that works well here. If someone could be described as both English or British, and the article uses only one of those terms already, default to just keeping that, excepting in rare cases where a person may demonstrated NOT self-identify as one or the other (for example, some English nationalists may not self-identify as British, and it would be inappropriate to use such terms to describe them). However, for the vast majority of cases where one could use both terms, use either and stick to the initial choice. --Jayron32 15:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
There does seem however to be some useful advice I could pick up from the above:
  • Unless the nationality is a defining factor for the entity (to not describe Monty Python as British would be omitting a key detail of the group), try to avoid the nationality and instead establish the nationality via location. "X is a British game studio..." can be written as "X is a game studio based in London."
  • There probably should be something akin to DATERET for this - switching between British and English/Welsh/Scottish should not be done without consensus discussion. (Obviously, completely inappropriate labels should be fixed. An Amercian actor that moves to Scotland suddenly should not be labeled a "Scottish actor".)
  • Follow RSes if there's a question of which term to use, with a bit more weight given to non-British/English/Welsh/Scottish sources.
I don't know if we need to codify these but they seem consistent with the above. --Masem (t) 15:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I think those are really good guidelines, but still the "don't fight over it" is the best guidance. The whole "is it a defining characteristic" is good guidance, but there are far too many editors for whom national/ethnic/racial identity is the most important thing one can say about a person, and will fight tooth-and-nail over the issue. The other point about rephrasing to avoid controversy ("John Doe is a British/English footballer" would be written as "John Doe is a footballer from the United Kingdom" or "John Doe is a footballer born in London") is probably the best advice where there is likely to be controversy. --Jayron32 18:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20200105113633/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style

Leave a Reply