Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I made an RFC while back here to change the format "(age X–Y)" to "(age X or Y)". Thoughts? Hddty. (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so it's just to change examples which are immediately adjacent? So "45–46" to "45 or 46", but leave every other possible age range as ""X–Y"?

Yes, only for adjacent age range. Hddty. (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The case posited is that wherein we know that X was born in 2000; on any given date in 2018, therefore, X is 17 or 18 years old -- or I suppose you could say they're 17–18. (Technical note: Actually, on December 31, 2018, they can only be 18.) But turn it around. Suppose we know that on some particular date in 2018 the person is 18 years old; we infer therefore that they were born in 1999 or 2000. How awkward, however, to phrase that as "born 1999–2000", which makes it sound like this person's mother had a very, very prolonged labor! EEng 19:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that anyone's suggesting using that phrase. This is just about a template used in infoboxes, right? EDIT: NO, I guess the template doesn't actually specify infoboxes. Is it really used that much outside of them? --tronvillain (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• At first glance I thought that "or" might be clearer for the cases I mention above, but looking at the RfC there was little support for that, plus there's this pesky "Asian age reckoning" which can lead to a 3-year range, apparently. So I don't see where this is all going. The idea of using "or" seems dead. EEng 04:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Born circa 2000" ?  Stepho  talk  22:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's more imprecise than it needs to be. EEng 00:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it won't work with age-calculation templates. The RfC concluded against the proposed change, anyway. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 07:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meh... nothing says we have to use the template. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But people will, and it won't work right.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what actually constitutes a selected work/publication/film/etc? Many articles have them but very few are prefaced with why each entry is there, and even fewer are sourced. My questions are:

1. What works are put onto these "selected" lists, and is it up to personal preference by the lead contributor (which is how it sometimes looks)?
2. Do these sections need to be referenced to an external list with all of them on it, does each entry have to be referenced in some way or another, or can these sections be left unreferenced if the work is wikilinked?
3. In relation to question two, can these sections be tagged or removed if they lack references (assuming they preferably have references)?
4. Also assuming they preferably have references, should these sections prevent an article from going through DYK, OTD, or any other main page-based venue if they lack references?

I wasn't able to find any guidelines that cover these questions, so if I'm asking them at the wrong place, let me know. Cheers, Anarchyte (talk | work) 14:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a guideline related to this at WP:LISTCRITERIA, which covers embedded lists as well as standalone list pages. I'd say that "Selected X" sections should only be included if some third party source has done the selecting,and preferably the criteria is spelled out. Even in prose we might lost one or two particularly important works associated with someone but again that should be because secondary sources have identified those things as important not on the whim of an editor.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this more of a content than style matter. I would think it's just up to editorial consensus at the article's talk page, and would probably be based on something somewhat objective, like frequency of mention in RS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Marie Kondo uses the word this way, and it kinda bothers me. The book was only published ("made public") once, and has been translated presumably into several languages, with those translations each being sold by one or more international publishers. The phrase It was a bestseller in Japan and in Europe, and was published in the United States in 2014 seems especially weird. Not sure if it applies to the article in question, but back in Ireland, most of the commercially available books were actually printed by UK-based publishers, so if a book is sold by one publisher in both the UK and Ireland, does that mean it was "published in two countries"? Presumably this is also the case with ... well, probably most countries worldwide.

"Printed" would address the former issue but not the latter, and is awkward; would "sold" be a reasonable solution? I'm not sure, so I brought it here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both are perfectly normal English usages:

• "published in more than 30 countries" — the book has entered the national book trade in more than 30 countries.
• "bestseller in Japan and in Europe, and was published in the United States in 2014" — the book was available through the trade in Japan and Europe in 2011, but in the US it would have been a private import until 2014 when the trade carried it.

Terminology may need to change with the growth of international online booksellers, but publishing is the act of offering the book for sale in a particular country. The case of Ireland is a little different, I suspect that the Irish book trade behaves as a part of the UK distribution system due simply to a numbers game. Also, bear in mind that subsequent editions are also described as being published when they reach market. I have picked up the nearest paperback and on the back of the title page are the legends: "This edition published by Harper Perennial 2005" and just below it "First published by HarperCollinsPublishers 2004". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute—so you're saying a book published by an American publisher and distributed in both the US and Canada is said to be "published" in two countries? I'd like to see a source backing that up, as I doubt most Canadians or Americans would buy that. When Seattle-based Fantagraphics publishes a new book by Jim Woodring, and I pick it up from The Beguiling in Toronto (who probably get it from a Canadian distributor), I can't imagine anyone saying it was "published" in Canada. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about how the book trade in Canada and the US operates, but I'd guess that like Ireland/UK it operates as a single entity. The book is published in both countries, but I suspect that it would be a single act. There are a number of reasons publishers might not want the same edition published in different countries. For instance Schindler's Ark was first published in the UK and later retitled as Schindler's List for its US publication. Copyright may also play a role; many older works of fiction in the UK bear the legend "For copyright reasons this edition is not for sale in the U.S.A". My copy of The Crucible has: "First published in the U.S.A. 1953. Published in Great Britain in 1956. Published by Martin Secker & Warburg 1966. Published in Penguin Books 1968". That's four publication dates for a single play! More modern works can also have an extended publishing history; Cussler's Sahara (2017 paperback edition) claims: "Previously published in paperback by Grafton 1993. First published in Great Britain by HarperCollinsPublishers 1992". [OT: I love going back over old books. The Crucible had a cinema ticket from the 1996 release used as a bookmark and the lighting script from when I lit a performance in the 1980s!] Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers game remark is weird, since probably the majority of countries throughout the world have either a larger or smaller neighbour (the problem applies to both) with the same official or majority language that "shares" its books. The US and Canada is another example (which I didn't want to make without a Canadian doing it for me, since I wasn't sure); France and Belgium, Switzerland and several of its neighbours; all of Latin America outside Brazil (and maybe Mexico?); I would imagine most African countries have most of their books published in one or more of the "official" languages which few natives have as their first language but which is shared with a lot of other African countries. If I publish a book it means ... well, I'm publishing it, I don't know how to put it in simpler words beyond "making it public", which I already said above. Unless a book is banned and all copies of it taken out of circulation, I'm pretty sure books aren't "published" more than once. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A book is published in two or more different countries if: 1. the publisher publishes it in different countries (often for example US & UK) - in this case it says so on the publication information page. Sometimes the same publisher may publish the same book in different editions in different countries - with different artwork, or even a different title. 2. if a publisher sells or trades the right to a foreign publisher who then publishes it in that country - either in the original language or in translation. And yes a book can be published any number of times. In different editions or printings for example. Distribution has nothing to do with it. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that "publish" referred to the physical act of publishing the book, and so can be used for any new printings but would not apply to simple re-distribution. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martin of Sheffield: Yes, I'm totally aware of books being put out in different editions in different countries (many or most books available in Canada are from elsewhere). That does happen in Canada & the US as wel—many large publishers will publish similtaneously in Canada and the US. These books state so explicitly in the indicia. That's not the same as the Canada/US or UK/Ireland examples being given, though. Distribution makes books available in different countries, but distribution is not publication. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally concur with Martin of Sheffield, modulo Curly Turkey's concern. A US-published book that is also distributed in Canada wasn't published in Canada, it was imported to it, exactly as in Martin's first post: "but in [country name] it would have been a private import until 2014 when the trade carried it", i.e. in a new edition actually published in that country. That said, there are publisher with multiple national offices who do in fact simul-publish in two or more countries at once; Oxford University Press is on, publishing from both Oxford and New York. I don't think they do this with every release though, since I have several OUP books I had to import at considerable trans-Atlantic shipping cost. The book itself will say, with something like "Oxford University Press" followed by "Oxford • New York" on the frontispiece. Some publishers have a long string of these (I think Springer and Elsevier publications tend to, but I may be mis-remembering). Anyway, I think that the combined Martin and Turkey take is the correct answer to Hijiri's question: "published" is in fact used of a novel the same was as "released" is used of a film.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Expand MOS:INSTITUTIONS to cover 'act', 'bill', 'resolution' and other items of legislation?
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be consistent with the way we deal with caps more generally. It is not the way favoured by lawyers, but thankfully we don't write WP in legalese (wheretofore, hitherto ... and no commas). Tony (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Party of the First Part (hereafter the OP) agrees to concede to a Stipulation that the conditions expressed in the Memorandum of the Party of the Second Part (hereafter the Respondent) are true and correct to the best of the OP's knowledge but notwithstanding this Stipulation prays that the Court will grant a Motion for Change of Venue to back to the Court in which the Complaint was initially filed despite the Respondent having petitioned the current Court with this Memorandum.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Example addition
This is a small but potentially important strife-reduction proposal (would not change any advice in any way, just clarify).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Clarifying that UCRN is not a style policy. WP:AT and the naming conventions guidelines that cover style (e.g. WP:NCCAPS) have many cross-references to MoS. This is a simple (non-rules-changing) proposal to add one to WP:UCRN to reduce confusion and verbal conflict (especially at WP:RM).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This marched relentlessly towards unproductivity, so it's hard to decide where exactly to hat this; I could arguably have started hatting earlier. But everything inside here is definitely not worth anyone's time reading. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What a fucking joke—all because you can't bring yourself to admit you misread my first comment. Keep digging that hole, and don't forget to leave another slew of PAs. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] All of what you just stated is exactly how I feel about you. Move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Get over yourself—nobody gives two shits what you "feel" about me (or singular they). All that matters in this forum is the substance of the discussion. My first comment stands, and if you don't have an actual rebuttal to that other than PAs, then "move on" and all that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] First you talk about me speaking for everyone, and now you do it. Why am I not surprised. As you so often say in a childish way, "blah blah blah." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] As predicted: all PAs, no substance. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Says the editor who began with personal attacks, is an expert on them, and is desperate to get the last word. Yes, it's entertaining watching you try to get that last word. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] WP:Hounding now too. See you at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Closed without a single editor supporting that there was any hounding. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] And yet the close was clear that you were being problematic, and that if you continue to do what you were doing, you can expect a block. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Do we have to turn the hose on you two? EEng 05:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] LOL! 'Fraid so, EEng. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, back on earth ...

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

• Singular they was good enough for Shakespeare and Jane Austen. If anyone takes issue with that, could they say so now? Tony (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Tony1: They do—they want to revive the battle against singular they to get at genderqueer folk, who have begun using it to refer to known antecedents (which indeed has not yet become a common, natural part of the language—I'm talking about sentences in the vein of "Kelly said they'd call back tomorrow", where they refers to Kelley; this usage is both not universally familiar and potentially confusing, as even those familiar with it can assume they, whether singular or plural, refers to a third person or persons). Voices against the traditional singular they have become particularly shrill and numerous in the past several years in reaction to the rise of this new usage. Whatever Wikipedia decides about the new usage, such arguments should be kept clearly separate from discussion about singular they's traditional usage. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks; that's a good clarification (and was actually something I had not caught onto, this new linguo-political squabble and its known-antecedent source).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Japanese name

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

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

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

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

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

As for whether these three uses should appear in Wikipedia articles, my votes are a: yes, b: no, and c: possibly in a few, clear-cut cases (with explanatory footnote). Cheers, gnu57 00:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

A should be left uncommented, as it is unremarkable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd say that it's best to avoid pronouns altogether for this subset of C, or else consider using the preferred one, since it's not clear to me that 'they' is the "default" gender-neutral pronoun. Cheers, gnu57 22:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Sorry for any confusion—those were the first unknown-gender people who occurred to me, and I was pleased to see that their articles handled pronouns so well. I have come across a number of articles that use B or otherwise mishandle things: I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration uses 'they'; aXXo and Satoshi Nakamoto switch from 'they' to 'he'; John Doe (Panama Papers' whistleblower) uses 'he', even though the sources I checked don't. Cheers, gnu57 05:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

It makes sense to me for unknown authors, serial killers, and the like—if the person's gender is unknown/disputed among scholars, then it's reasonable to avoid 'he'. Cheers, gnu57 22:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

This article refers to its subject with the pronoun they.

This article refers to its subject with the pronoun she.

etc. It's in my user space, but anyone who think they know what they're doing is free to modify it (including renaming it or moving it into template space). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Dangerous joking for a politician from Queensland. EEng 02:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I recently ran across an editor who was moving pages to add hyphens to their titles, citing their belief that the compound modifier concept described in MOS:HYPHEN is an "objective" part of the English language. However, the moves contradicted the real hyphenation practiced by people who use the names of these groups and concepts products. For example, they desired to move "free software movement" to "free-software movement" and Tesla's "Standard Dual Motor AWD" to "Standard Dual-Motor AWD." I believe this prescriptive approach is inappropriate because it is not Wikipedia's role to tell outside groups that they have "various grammatical errors in their English pages."

For a more complete description of both sides to this debate, you can look at the DRN discussion. It fizzled on my end because of my personal issues last week, but the moderator pointed out that an RFC leading to a clarification of WP:HYPHEN is a better forum for this discussion anyway.

In short, I think Wikipedia's MOS should reflect its descriptive nature in order to prevent further controversy. One way to formalize this would be to add a section to MOS:HYPHEN that says something to the effect of Some names (in these examples, concepts and products) are treated by their constituents as essentially proper nouns although they remain not capitalized, and that usage should be respected by Wikipedia. If the common usage is to not hyphenate, Wikipedia should not hyphenate. For example, the "free software movement" should not be the "free-software movement," a "public domain novel" should not be a "public-domain novel," and the "Standard Dual Motor AWD" should not be the "Standard Dual-Motor AWD" That said, synthetic constructions from these names such as "public-domain-equivalent license" should be hyphenated.

Thoughts? lethargilistic (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia's style should be consistent across all words and phrases. If we hyphenate compound modifiers that are not proper nouns - I mean actual proper nouns - we should do it for all of them. Preventing controversy comes from establishing consistent rules - if we say the hyphenation rule is different for each phrase, we're setting up for endless controversy, with a separate debate over each phrase.

I also don't think there is a distinction in compound modifier hyphenation between modifiers. I think people who hyphenate free-software movement hyphenate all non-proper-noun compound modifiers and people who don't don't.

I can't think of another case where our punctuation varies according to the common usage for the particular words being punctuated. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are valid points, though I don't think it's as black-and-white an issue as a choice between those who do hyphenate compound modifiers and those who don't. It probably has more to do with domain knowledge, which I would liken to articles like Doctor Who using British English as a variation from the typical MOS even if a distinct national dialect has an obviously higher priority over a subculture's spelling. Similarly, there's the nuance to WP:DATE that allows different date formats on different articles as long as it's consistent within the article. Most any dispute over hyphenation could be solved with a quick survey of the literature of that subject, as it is likely handled currently in the absence of one rule.

I also want to get ahead of one thing for other people reading this: my specific terming of them as "essentially proper nouns" is just how I thought the idea made the best sense as a first draft. I'm not married to that description. Simply "hyphenation varies according to the common usage" is probably a better way of putting it that doesn't potentially confuse terms. lethargilistic (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And do you think the uniform rule, if adopted, should also apply to specifically named products? lethargilistic (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really follow the domain knowledge/Doctor Who/WP:DATE point, unless you're suggesting that hyphenation should follow the custom in the community that's involved with the modifier in question. I'd like to point out that Wikipedia makes a special case out of national variations of English, and I think it's just out of patriotism. Where an article has strong ties to a particular nation, we use that nation's variation of English, even where the nation doesn't even have a well recognized variation. But for all the other ways English varies (such as subnational region, profession, or education level), we don't care if an article has strong ties; we apply a universal style. So if it were the custom or even a formal rule in the plumbing industry to capitalize "plumber", we still wouldn't in a plumbing-related article.

MOS in a few cases, such as WP:DATE without strong national ties, explicitly specifies multiple styles, and it's editor's choice. (I don't personally think a manual of style should ever do that, but it is what it is). There's a within-article consistency rule and a prefer-the-status-quo rule with respect to those ambivalent styles, but other than that the choice is arbitrary. I don't see how that applies to some compound modifiers being hyphenated while others aren't.

As for the question about specifically named products, I don't know what that means. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The point of hyphenating compound modifiers is to reduce ambiguity, right? Does it even really apply to "free software movement"? I suppose one could read it as "the software movement that is free" rather than "the movement about free software", but that seems unlikely. --tronvillain (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... or "the free movement of software". EEng 22:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is also "free-software license" that was part of the dispute that hadn't yet been included here. Here is the relevant snippet of my argument from the DRN: Regarding a license for free software (free-software license), "free software" is being used to modify the improper noun "license", hence the compound modifier should contain a hyphen. Note that the usage of "free" in this context refers to freedom, not pricing—this means there exists "free free-software licenses", and "non-free free-software licenses" (not "free free software licenses" and "non free free software licenses"). LordOfPens (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Using "free-software movement" is perfectly fine and well-attested in reliable sources. I wouldn't insist on it in that exact case, though, because "X Y movement" constructions are typically unhyphenated in RS (whether they capitalize them or not); e.g. "civil rights movement" [6], "women's liberation movement" [7]. The construction itself makes confusing ambiguity unlikely. (Contrast "free-software license", where the hyphen is important – it means licensing that fits the free-software model, not an expensive software license you get as a "free gift", nor an as-yet-unused license among your purchased pack of licenses.) Since so many cases of "free-software foo" do need to be hyphenated, we're left with a consitency conflict: either hyphenate "free-software movement" and be inconsistent with "civil rights movement", or don't hyphenate it and be inconsistent with other free-software something pages. These kinds of conflict just happen, and we have to pick one. I'd be included to be consistent with other movements because of the lack of genuine ambiguity at the movement level. Anyway, the fact that geeks tend to drop hyphens when writing for other geeks is immaterial; it's not blanket license to drop hyphens in tech-related topics on this site. Same goes for car journalists in Car & Driver writing for people who subscribe to car journalism publications; they have their own special lingo, though it turns out the Tesla Model 3 Long-range doesn't even qualify, since they don't render it consistently between publications even in the same market.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The purpose of any house style manual is to be prescriptive (do this, not that) and consistent. Why would hyphenation be mystically different, alone of all style matters? It has jack to do with notions about "objective" truth about what is "right" in English. MoS is not an article, does not exist for describing English usage patterns, and is not even a style guide for anyone else or any purpose else in the world but Wikipedians consistently writing Wikipedia articles. It's an internal checklist, not a public textbook. It literally is not possible for it to serve a "role to tell outside groups that they have 'various grammatical errors in their English pages'", since it isn't telling outside groups anything, ever, under any circumstances. WP doesn't care how Tesla writes their own materials. If you write a letter to The New York Times to criticize their spelling or punctuation and cite WP:MOS as your basis, then you're making a silly mistake and people are going to laugh at you. (Same goes if you try to cite The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage as a rationale for defying our MoS when you write here.) It's akin to trying to rely on Nigerian law while in court in New Zealand.

  This specific case: "Standard Dual-Motor AWD" wouldn't be right, anyway. Either "Standard Dual Motor AWD" or "Standard Dual-motor AWD", if that's even a proper name and should be capitalized at all, and we would only use the former if RS were overwhelmingly in favor of it, which they are not. Google proves that in seconds. This long string as a whole is not any kind of proper name. It is not a model name or title of any kind, usually does not have any capital letters except in headings/headlines, and the exact phrase itself is rarely used. It's just a descriptive phrase, a list of key features. It does appear that some shorter phrases are model names (or sub-model names), including (in Tesla's rendering) "Standard", "Long Range", and "Mid Range" (which is actually an outright error: "mid-" in English is a prefix not a stand-alone word). However, the RS that are independent of Tesla are utterly inconsistent on how to render these: you find "Mid-range", "Mid-Range", "Mid Range", "Midrange", "mid-range", "mid range", and "midrange", all in the first two pages of Google News results.[8] We thus have absolutely no reason not to do what MoS says, which is "Mid-range" – capitalized because it is actually a brand name in this particular case; do use the hyphen since it's a compound adjective; but don't capitalize after a hyphen unless what follows the hyphen is itself a proper name (as in "post-Soviet Russia"). MOS:TM already has this covered: Use a style in a trademark that is divergent (like "Mid Range") from MoS's prescribed defaults only when independent sources do so consistently, which they provably do not for these cases.

  From the perspective of "how to write WP", yes, the Tesla company's website does have "grammatical errors" as LordOfPens imprecisely put it in the edit summary diffed above; that is, patterns of usage that do not comply with how we write WP. This doesn't magically dictate that WP has to change to write [terribly] like Tesla's website. Have you not noticed that our articles on skateboarding are not written like Thrasher magazine pieces? That our articles on surgery are not buried in impenetrable medical jargon and ponderous academicians' circumlocutions like a paper in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine? WP has its own style manual for a reason (actually a whole bunch of reasons, but being a general-audience encyclopedia is the central one). The "free-software movement" case is adequately covered above already.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble reconciling your statement that Wikipedia has its own house style with statements above that the hyphenation of compound modifiers that we find in article sources should inform how we hyphenate them in Wikipedia.

My own position is that Wikipedia gets its facts from Reliable Sources, not its style (or spelling or grammar). When we choose a style for Wikipedia, we do look at what is prevalent in the whole body of English writing, but that's got nothing to do with Reliable Sources.

The existing documented style, by the way, does simply prescribe that we hyphenate, which is why this post suggests changing MOS to prescribe something more complex where we hyphenate or not depending upon what is customary in English for the particular modifier. I believe you advocate something of that sort where you say you prefer that compound modifiers of movements not be hyphenated. Do you think MOS should be changed to accommodate that, and if so, how? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're having trouble reconciling because you are not actually reading what the style guide says.  :-) Start at MOS:TM and let me know when you get to the sentence that starts "When deciding how to format a trademark". Hint: fourth sentence, in the very lead. The fact that the style guide lays out default "style this thing this way" rules doesn't mean it's the only kind of rule it contains, including rules about when to override those defaults. Your general feeling of how MoS operates isn't too wide of the mark; it actually takes a nearly uniform showing in the sources to override our defaults. But, in the end, WP isn't going to impose a style that damned near no one in the world actually uses (e.g. "Ipod" for iPod or "Three-M" for 3M Corporation), because it's a recognizability problem. The "here we go again" issue, of tediously recycled "gimme an exception because I say so" demands, is that people misunderstand MoS in both directions; various editors appear to assume that any style appearing in 50.0001% of sources is necessarily to be imposed on Wikipedia (it is not) or that a style favored in all of a company's own marketing is forced on us (it is not). We would simply not bother with a style guide if these ideas were true. PS: If you want talk about "free[-]software" rather than these Tesla things, the same "vary from MoS's default if and only if nearly all sources do so consistently" thing is found throughout MoS in various places, in various not-quite-identical wording. It's a general principle.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I generally agree with what SMcCandlish has written here. Tony (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: A concurrent WP:TALKFORK over at 'Talk:Tesla Model 3#"grammatical errors" in Tesla products and branding' indicates that Tesla itself isn't even consistent on this stuff. Someone wants to use, e.g. "All Wheel Drive" in mimicry of some Tesla materials because it's supposedly "official" and allegedly a trademark, yet Tesla themselves have been caught out inconsistently hyphenating the compound adjective. So, there is no "official" anything here. Not that WP even cares what's supposedly official anyway. We care what independent sources are doing; when they are not consistent, we do what MoS says to do by default (since the real world is clearly imposing no hard rule about the case at hand), and the sources on this stuff in particular simply are not consistent. The end. Let's move on and bicker no further about Tesla's iffy writing habits and whether through some mystical, unseen force it compells us to write as poorly as they do.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists#Propose merging WP:Manual of Style/Embedded lists into WP:Manual of Style/Lists
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Section headings should:

• Be unique within a page (otherwise section links may lead to the wrong place, and edit summaries may be ambiguous).
• Not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked.
• Not contain images or icons.
• Not contain <math> markup.
• Not contain citations or footnotes.
• Not use ";" (description list) markup to create pseudo-headings.

These restrictions are necessary to avoid technical complications, and are not subject to override by local consensus or WP:IAR.

In addition, as a matter of consistent style section headings should:

• Not redundantly refer back to the subject of the article (Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life), or to a higher-level heading, unless doing so is shorter or clearer.
• Not start with a number (other than a year).
• Not be phrased as a question.
• Avoid use of color or unusual fonts that might cause accessibility problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This fails to do what it sets out to do. E.g., not using color is a technical accessibility matter just like not using links in headings. "Not start with a number (other than a year)" is an over-statement. What it really means is "don't number the headings". There are other reasons a heading might start with a number, the most obvious being a proper name that begins with one such as 3M Corporation. There is no reason for a WP article's heading to be phrased as question, ever. Implying that's just some optional "style" concern for people to fight about is wrong. Not abusing description-list markup for headings is a technical matter and a style matter but is not a "hard" technical restriction, it's just ignorant (or willfully stupid and lazy) abuse of the wrong markup. And so on. I share J. Johnson's Izno's concern that this is basically time- rather than venue-shifted WP:FORUMSHOPPING; the previous discussion of this doesn't show support for the idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @SMcCandlish: I think you mean my concern, as JJ is the one putting forth this proposal. --Izno (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, yes. My eyeballs are in revolt again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am copyediting Krishnalal Jhaveri and the lead starts

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree. I see nothing wrong whatsoever with

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

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

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

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

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

In the case of referring to, say, the ext2, ext3, and ext4 filesystems, which are often shortened to something like "ext2/3/4", should those slashes be spaced? The example seems logically to fall under the "NY 31 east / NY 370 exit" example, but somehow "ext2 / 3 / 4" doesn't look right to me. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is something like the reason the ndash is unspaced in 1900–1987, but spaced in February 1, 1900 – March 3, 1987 -- it depends on whether the endpoints of the range themselves have spaces. February 1, 1900–March 3, 1987 looks wrong because 1900 binds too close visually to March. So I would say ext2/3/4. EEng 04:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. As a techie in the field in which "ext2/3/4" is a frequent expression, I also know that's the typical rendering in off-site materials.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Command/Service Module caps

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

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

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

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

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

Again, there an inconsistency across the bios of US governors & lieutenant governors, when it comes to capitalizing (i.e Governor/Lieutenant Governor) or de-capitalizing (i.e governor/lieutenant governor). Is there ANYPLACE on Wikipedia, to have an RFC that'll settle this once & for all? GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That should be settled already, at MOS:JOBTITLES. Dicklyon (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not. Right now, you reverted at Bill Walker to governor. Yet, it's Governor in all the other bios of Alaska governors & all bios of Alaska lieutenant governors. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So work on those, in the direction indicated by guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could help out. Meanwhile, I'll likely bring this topic up at the Village Pump. Try & create more awareness. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Helping on these, GoodDay says (at User_talk:GoodDay#"Not_the_info_boxes"?) that I did OK except that they should remain capped in infoboxes where they say things like "3rd Lieutenant Governor of Alaska". Seems odd, as we always use sentence case for headings and such. Is it somehow a proper name in this context? Seems unlikely. Same as template title "Lieutenant Governors of Alaska". Comments? Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• They should be capitalized in the infobox title. But more importantly, whatever's decided? consistency needs to be enforced & definitely awareness of this problem should be increased. GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to raise awareness, is to mention this topic on the most highly trafficked bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for raising awareness. "Enforcement", on the other hand, is not a concept in Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly will get the community's attention, though :) GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Dicklyon, I would say they are capitalized and proper nouns. From MOS "Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper names (David Cameron was British Prime Minister; Hirohito was Emperor of Japan; Louis XVI was King of France)." PopularOutcast^talk2me! 03:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe caps when referring to the office that way, like in the Template title. But for "3rd Lieutenant Governor of Alaska"? I don't think so. Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see a difference between ran for lieutenant governor of Alaska and is the 3rd Lieutenant Governor of Alaska. Lieutenant governor (United States) seems to differentiate between those two things as well. But, I am new here and may not understand the nuances so I will defer. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 03:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The intent of this section appears to be the resolution of two questions. One of those questions comprises the section's heading and the other appears in the first paragraph. But they are both leading questions. This is akin to the stock interrogation question and instruction:

"Have you stopped beating your wife? Just answer yes or no."

It does not allow for the possibility that you were never beating your wife in the first place.

Similarly, the assumed premise of this section is that the capitalization of job titles is somehow not settled. But as was already observed by Dicklyon (talk), this is not the case. The Manual of Style is very specific in this regard, and provides several examples that are directly applicable to the cases quoted above. The observation that some article editors do not adhere to the Manual of Style does not "unsettle the situation".

If the actual intent is to change the specific guidelines, I respectfully suggest that this would be unlikely to succeed. This is one of those rare rules of English grammar that is consistently applied both inside and outside Wikipedia and across all national variations. If the intent is to gain greater understanding of those guidelines then may I respectfully suggest a review of the specific set of examples about Richard Nixon in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, where one can learn that the following are correct within Wikipedia article text (including Infoboxes):

• Bill Walker is Governor of Alaska (capitalized because it denotes the specific title of a specific person and is not otherwise modified).
• He is the 11th governor of Alaska since statehood (not capitalized because the job title is preceded by 11th, which is an ordinal modifier).
• He lived in Anchorage before becoming the governor (not capitalized because the title is preceded by (and therefore modified by) the definite article.
• Bill Walker will cease to be the governor of Alaska on December 3, 2018 (because he didn't win last month's election).

Sorry! I couldn't resist that last parenthetical explanation. More to the point, when it refers to a specific person and is not otherwise modified, a job-related title such as Governor is capitalized, but the governor is not. This is not just a guideline within Wikipedia, the same rule and interpretation can be found in style manuals from Chicago to Oxford to Fleet Street. And it is good to note that Richard Nixon did have some political usefulness, after all. ChrisJBenson (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I support your interpretation, and have done this edit to apply it to the article in question. Let's see if others agree. Dicklyon (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• ChrisJBenson, That's a great explanation. I was confused about the ordinal modifier. Does the infobox assume is? Does the infobox ignore the ordinal modifier? I was looking at the Richard Nixon article and the infobox does not match the text in the Richard Nixon example in the MOS. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 15:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• When it's in the info box its his title the ordinal is just to let you know what number he is Bill Walker Governor of Alaska with 11th not a modifier just letting you know what number governor עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11th is an ordinal modifier. Maybe I made it sound too complicated. The most likely candidates for modifiers of a job-title are adjectives (e.g. youngest, previous, eleventh, or tallest governor of Alaska), along with the words the and a. Eleventh is described as ordinal (or an ordinal number) because it refers to one item by its position within many items in some particular order.

And finally, the office-holder infobox template is usually used for governors. Under normal browser conditions, the first line of an office-holder infobox is the value of the name parameter (along with any honorifics). The next line (after the image) joins the values of two parameters: order (a number expressed in its ordinal form) and office (which is the job title). This is a potential source of confusion because the office is governor of Alaska (not capitalized because it refers to the job and not the person). But here it seems to apply to one specific person, so editors are tempted to capitalize the job title. But it should not be capitalized here because it will be preceded by a modifier (the value of the order parameter). So you have to know how this template works in order to follow the Manual of Style (which is awkward, to say the least).

{Infobox officeholder
| name = Bill Walker
| order = 11th
| office = governor of Alaska
...
}

P.S. I see that the edit to correct this by Dicklyon (talk) lasted just four minutes before it was reverted. I am too old and too tired to embark on an edit war, but is anybody else up for it? ChrisJBenson (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The practice (for years) has been to capitalize in those cases. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the root of the problem... our guidance is not in sync with actual practice. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That reasoning requires that the actual practice have some basis beyond "It feels right." or "That's how they do it at ________". If the guidance is the result of community-level close examination, discussion, and consensus—regardless of individual experiences outside that process—the actual practice should be in sync with it, not the other way around, no matter how much work is required to get there. (Wikipedia guidance should be the result of careful and thorough consideration, not an aggregate of personal and largely uninformed opinions.) I believe that's the case here, or close enough.
If I'm mistaken, then it's time to have that community-level close examination, discussion, and consensus on this question. When it's completed, no editor should stand in the way of compliance edits even if they disagree with the outcome or didn't participate.
By your reasoning as an illustrative example, we should make major modifications to MOS:FLAG because of the rampant disregard for it. It should now read: "If you feel it makes articles more attractive, you may use flag icons to decorate lists that include the names of countries."
Also by your reasoning, we would never be able to reach a community consensus to change existing guidance and then widely modify articles to reflect the new consensus. Instead we would be required to win local consensus for the change, one article at a time, against arguments in each case that we should be consistent with long-standing treatment at other articles. That simply is not workable. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you, yet BlueBoar is right that "our guidance is not in sync with actual practice" in this particular corner of Wikipedia. The answer is not to encode this exception into the guidance, but rather to go ahead with edits to move toward compliance with the guidance. This is an ongoing process. Every time we find a little corner of Wikipedia that would rather cap what's important to them than follow the consensus guidance, we have work to do; and every time, BlueBoar and few others will object. But why? Overall the encyclopedia is stronger if caps can be interpreted an meaningful; this overcapping gets in the way of that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No, we can't settle it once and for all. Consensus is generally to use capital letters for titles like governor and senator less than we currently do, but not to replace all uses. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Support the ChrisJBenson interpretation as above. There is nothing I could add to it so that's it from me. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is being had at my talk page over this edit [[9]] over whether or not it is common practice to add ellipses to incomplete quotes [[10]]. So what is the correct MOS?Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Re: leading and trailing ellipses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am currently in an edit war with another editor and I don't really want to be in an edit war as that is disruptive to editing overall on Wikipedia. It's over at Lil Peep and it's on his "nationality." He is listed as an American rapper even though the source I linked has his father as Swedish. The person I am in a dispute with claims that Freddie Mercury isn't Indian despite Indian parents cause he was raised outside of India and is "English" though a quick look at the article and it's sources it would appear that Freddie Mercury was actually born in Zanzibar and never stepped foot in England until he was 17. He is just commonly referred to as English by the media and it appears that he most identified as English because of his parents being white people born in British India.

In Peep's case though he commonly talks in interviews about his Swedish father, the Swedish-American page says that Swedish-Americans are people of ancestral descent and clearly Peep has a lot stronger connections considering he has spoken on social media about his Swedish passport and citizenship, even using it to enter the UK via the EU. He also identifies as half Swedish.

need a third opinion and some help on manual of style hereCoughingCookieHeart (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Mercury's parents weren't white. They were fully Indian and therefore, ethnically, so was he. But he clearly identified as British and had British nationality (since he was born when India was a British territory and Zanzibar was a British protectorate). If Peep was born in America merely of Swedish descent then he'd be simply "American". However, if he also held Swedish nationality (although I can't see any reference to that in the article) then Swedish-American or Swedish/American is acceptable. But you do need to provide evidence of his nationality and self-identification. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to ask whether the subject’s nationality/ethic heritage/etc is relevant enough to mention. Quite often it isn’t. Blueboar (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's also frequently the case that our articles' claims of nationality or ethnicity do not meet our standards for reliable sourcing. This is particularly a problem for biographies of living people. If we can't find reliable sources for the person's ethnicity or citizenship, we shouldn't guess based on related information. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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