Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Latest comment: 3 hours ago by EEng in topic RfC: Use of verbs in biographical descriptions
Learn more about this page

Welcome to the MOS pit


    Style discussions elsewhere

    edit

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

    Current

    edit

    (newest on top)

    Capitalization-specific:

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

    Move requests:

    Other discussions:

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Concluded

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

    Reconsider ellipsis ... vs … preference

    edit
    Latest comment: 16 days ago42 comments22 people in discussion

    Support for … (unicode ellipsis, U+2026) is widespread now. The decision to prefer ... over …[1] was made 15-20 years ago when unicode support was nascent.[2]

    Benefits of … (unicode ellipsis)

    1. More accessible — screen readers can read "ellipsis" properly
    2. more compact & readable. Better line breaks
    3. renders with better fidelity using font glyph
    4. scales better when zooming & with high-DPI devices like mobile phones
    5. easier to parse (distinct unicode representation for character)

    Tonymetz 💬 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

    If we discuss this, we need to discuss the use of typographical quotation marks too! Gawaon (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Eh, I'm not so sure about that. Curly quotes have drawbacks (e.g. being 'keyed', being more frequent to the degree where I would argue the extra byte substantially increases page sizes on average) that U+2026 … HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS does not. Remsense诉 18:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Fair enough. We also use en dash (–) and friends, after all. Gawaon (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I agree with Gawaon's 1st sentiment that curly quotation marks/apostrophes should be discussed in the same vein as ellipses. Both deal with the distinction of ASCII representation vs. extended character maps. I don't think that their multi-byte effect on increased page size is of any concern. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I know! Let's have an RfC on whether they should be discussed together! EEng 15:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The big BIG advantage of requiring straight quotes and period ... ellipses is that it doesn't allow yet another gratuitous style variation for gnomes to slow-war over. It looks fine, it works, it contributes to having a clean readable style instead of a fussy special-character-elaborated one. Why get rid of those advantages? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Though I said the opposite above, I think it might indeed make most sense to limit this to the ellipsis issue for now, since it would be a relatively small change – much smaller than changing the rules for quotes and apostrophes. So if this is changed now, the quote issue could possibly be reconsidered in a year or two, then taking into account the experience with the ellipsis change.
    For the ellipsis, there are two possibilities:
    1. Allowing both ... and … as equally valid options. Very easy change, but with the disadvantage that usage in any given page could then be mixed, annoying the typographically aware. Though the visible difference between ... and … is small (much smaller than "quotes" vs. “quotes”, I'd say – in fact, in our standard font I can hardly see it), so that shouldn't matter very much. Also, to prevent "slow-warring", we could make the rule that changing ... to … is allowed, but changing in the opposite direction is not. In that way, pages would slowly evolved in the typographically correct direction.
    2. Requiring, from now on, that … is used, and deprecating ..., just like MOS:DASH has deprecated the use of single or double hyphens instead of dashes. This would ensure that there is a single standard all pages are meant to adhere to, so totally eliminating the risk of edit warring. The disadvantage, of course, is that there are 100,000s of pages (at least) that currently don't adhere to that standard. I suppose a bot could help with that change, but it would still be a giant task to bring them in adherence.
    Personally I think option 1. would be fine, while 2. daunts me a bit because of the size of the required changes. Gawaon (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    While I'm not opposed on principle, I doubt implementing this change across thousands of articles would be feasible. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Well, option 1 wouldn't have to be "implemented", it would just be an option for editors to choose from now on. Gawaon (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Bad idea. The point of an MoS is to be as consistent as possible. And changes would have to be implemented regardless; if you don't do anything, AWB, bots, and other automated tools will just continue changing them. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Oppose any "use whichever style you want" option. Gonnym (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I have no real preference for one or the other, but I oppose the change. It wouldn't be too much work for a bot to change all of one to another. Still I see no reason to mess with what's been working. Actually, I do prefer the three dots. Anyone can type ... and the … requires a bit more effort, and … displays differently depending on the font used, so sometimes looks odd. Mixed use looks sloppy and I really want to avoid that. SchreiberBike | ⌨  11:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm wary of creating yet another challenge for new editors who want to do the right thing – we want to keep them. NebY (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    My preference would be to create templates for such things as ellipses and in-line quote[a] and relegate the style arguments to the talk pages of those templates. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I would support mandating the unicode ellipsis. Adding this to the MOS wouldn't create any burden to new users – gnomes would simply bring articles into conformity over time. Graham11 (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    More likely some bot operator is going to get it into their head that this must be done immediately!!1! and make our watchlists unusable for several days while they crank through all the Wikipedia articles at a rate of several per second. How about let's don't. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There's a 200% chance this will happen, because at least two bot operators will try it. Remsense诉 07:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Isn't that a matter that should be addressed at WP:BRFA? Graham11 (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If the Unicode ellipsis is better for screenreaders, we should go for it. Just add an ellipsis option to the usual dash scripts. —Kusma (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Is there any more reason to believe that it is better for screenreaders than to believe that it is worse for screenreaders? One could equally well write, if it is worse for screenreaders, then we should continue to eschew it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    On a quick Google, I have found some accessibility blogs that advocate use of the ellipsis character over three dots. I have no idea how important it is in practice. —Kusma (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Have you considered asking at WT:WPACCESS? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I just brought it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#Is there a preference from an accessibility standpoint for ellipses (...) style? SchreiberBike | ⌨  — Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 21 May 2024‎ (UTC)Reply
    I think we should be ok with either. There doesn't need to be consistency for this. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There seems to be a lot of helpful , ongoing discussion here. Could I ask for a partner to help manage the discussion and determine consensus? I don't know fully how to proceed and it's an important topic to make a decision on. Tonymetz 💬 22:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Apart from the proposer, Tonymetz, I see 1 supporting opinion, Graham11, 2 if banned Justin/Koavf is counted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Hmm? I spoke out in favour of allowing … too, at least as alternative. I think having some kind of formal close on this wouldn't be bad. Of course, Tonymetz and we others involved in the discussion can't do it. Gawaon (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Require semantically/typographically correct ellipsis per accessibility issues. Allow someone to type in three periods for convenience, but keep it deprecated and have semi-automated tools and bots change this as long as they are making other changes as well. Change all page and category titles as well with redirects from three dots. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    As a screen reader user, I've never heard of these accessibility issues ... screen readers can read three dots fine. It really doesn't need a mass change here. Graham87 (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    How mean of you. You've just taken away some gnome's purpose in life. (For those playing along at home, we've now got two Graham's Grahams in the conversation.) EEng 13:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Bold of you to write "Graham's" on this talk page! JoelleJay (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Something like that always happens when I'm being a smartass. EEng 08:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Usually happens to me on Facebook. I'll correct some glaring typo in a meme-post, only to misspell or mispunctuate something in my own comment, and of course suffer a dogpile of derision!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Graham's law says that the rate of hot air escaping from a talk page discussion is inversely proportional to the square root of the weight of the arguments contained within. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)}Reply

    Oppose any change - three dots is fine and easier to write. Then again, if it's not onerous to make a bot that turns every instance of ... into … after every single edit that includes ..., I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. BoldGnome (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Notes

    1. ^ In some cases the obvious name is already taken, e.g.,
      {{ellipsis}}
      This template should not be used in Main namespace; it will instead display an error message.
      {{quote}}
      A wrapper for <blockquote>...</blockquote>.

    Allow either ... or …. I agree with the (minor) advantages of using the unicode character, but changing it everywhere seems like a huge waste of time and effort. We should just be agnostic about it, IMO. Nosferattus (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    The problem with "allow either" is that in some fonts they look very different from each other. Having "..." and "…" near each other looks pretty bad to me. SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    The … glyph is virtually illegible to many of us with poor eyesight, and offers zero advantages of any kind. It's not something easily typed, it saves no space/bandwidth that we actually need saved, it will not be consitently treated in searches, and it is vastly worse for legibility. It also doesn't look consistent in all typefaces when combined with .: …. It really has nothing going for it at all. Just because the Unicode Consortium for its own internal reasons decided to create a codepoint for something doesn't make it magically the best thing for WP to use for its own purposes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    PS: The "more accessible" claim could be "something going for it", but if and only if there is actual proof that screen readers have some kind of problem with "..." (the three periods version). I've never encountered any evidence to suggest this, much less any to suggest that the pre-composed "…" character is superior in this regard, but that's a question for which the MOS:ACCESS regulars should be consulted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    When you say "virtually illegible", you mean in monospace fonts, right? In other fonts, … and ... should (and do) mostly look fairly similar. Gawaon (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Pointless distinction, since monospaced font is what most users will get in the editing window.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Improvement to advice about embedded section anchors

    edit
    Latest comment: 23 days ago22 comments8 people in discussion

    I just made this edit to MOS section § Section headings to add this explanatory note (name="many links") to the portion targeted by MOS:SECTIONANCHOR:

    To find out how many inlinks there are to the old section title and what articles have them, you can execute this advanced search this advanced search, changing article to the name of the article, and oldsection to the old section title. If there are only a small number of links to the old section title, it's better to just update them..

    I recently noticed that a bunch of users have added unneeded embedded section anchors after renaming a section header, presumably because they don't know how to find out if there are any articles that link to the old section title or not, and if so, how many of them there are. Imho, embedded section anchors should only be added when necessary, as they create squirrely wikicode which may mystify other editors, or discourage them from making further changes to the section header which may be warranted. To reduce the scope of this issue, increase transparency about section inlinks, and limit the number of unneeded embedded anchors being created especially when there are no incoming links at all (a good proportion of them), I added the note. (A secondary problem, much less serious imho, is users using the problematic, unsubsted version identified at MOS:SECTIONANCHOR as resulting in undesirable behavior.)

    I would appreciate additional eyeballs on this note, both the wording as well as any comments on the generic advanced search terms. I am aware that the search doesn't include everything (notably, will not find links from articles using {{slink}} to target it) or exclude (nowiki's, html comments) but I am trying to keep the input search term field simple-looking enough that a user unfamiliar with advanced search won't be afraid to try it, so it's kind of a balancing act how complex to make it. That said, if there's anything egregiously missing or wrong with it, or if it can be significantly improved without degrading usability, please do comment, or just adjust it. Adding @PrimeHunter, Sdkb, Trialpears, Qwerfjkl, Colin M, Quiddity, and Rjjiii:. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Thanks for adding this tip! Marginally related, is there some way to find all broken section anchors pointing to some article? I would find that extremely helpful in order to improve the integration of a page that has underdone a lot of reorganization over time so that this method of looking for broken section links by name is not practical. Gawaon (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This would be better handled in its own section. Please see WP:VPT#Finding broken section anchors. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Look great, thanks! Better than my usual method, clicking through every page of the "What links here?" results and Ctrl-F-ing the old section title. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Good info! Thanks for researching, documenting, and pinging. Quiddity (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Note: updated the advanced search link (new link) to also handle templated links like {{slink}}, {{Further}}, {{Main}}, etc., without making it longer or scarier-looking. Mathglot (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    @Mathglot: If you go to the link and then change the terms to what you want before clicking search it finds all links to that section in articles, but if you edit the link and go to it directly, it searches in all pages. Is that fine? – 2804:F1...A9:64C1 (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Not entirely sure I understand; are you trying to draw a distinction between searching only articles (i.e., main space) and searching all namespaces (articles, Talk pages, User pages, Wikipedia project pages and so on)? If so, we can do that by adding search term :all and perhaps we should. I've updated the search link in the explanatory note to search all namespaces, pending any objections or other comments on this aspect of it. Mathglot (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I meant that the link included profile=all, so editing the link itself would result in searching all pages (any namespace), but going to the link and then editing the terms and clicking search would result in searching only in articles.
    Anyways, now the :all is not* doing anything, try for example, searching for :all linksto:"Banana" insource:/[[|]Banana\#/ vs without the :all (but with all namespaces selected).
    Edit: *It is doing something, if you select all namespaces it ignores them and searches only in article space. Hm. – 2804:F1...A9:64C1 (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    (edit conflict) The problem is not in the link, but in your example. If you choose an article name which has no links outside mainspace, like Banana, then the correct behavior is that there is no difference with or without the :all search term. Try an example like "Vichy France" which has some inlinks from mainspace, as well as other namespaces.
    Secondly, although that will actually work correctly, even without a section name, this whole issue is part of the clarification of section § Section headings in the MOS, so really applies more to that case. For that, you can try examples like "Vichy France#Collaborationnistes". (ec) Mathglot (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It has links outside of mainspace, that's why I said to remove the :all and select all namespaces. – 2804:F1...A9:64C1 (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for that; I must've been assuming the wrong functionality for :all; I need to look at that again. Your workaround works, but should be doable without it, assuming there is a search prefix or pseudo-term that activates that; let me check. If you know what it is, please post it. Mathglot (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Ah, I found it, it is all:. – 2804:F1...A9:64C1 (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Oops, of course it is; the colon goes at the end in every search term, don't know how that happened. Will go fix that. Mathglot (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Okay, colon is in the right place now; try "Banana" again. Mathglot (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It works, behaviour is consistent now, thank you, and for the info :). – 2804:F1...A9:64C1 (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for your efforts, which have helped improve it. Mathglot (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I made this edit based on recent observation. Correct me if I'm wrong. Biogeographist (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Adding that sentence about searching redirects as well looks like an improvement to me. Even if there's a way to do that via advanced search (instead of What links here), Cirrus doesn't support alternation, so you can't have the union of two searches in one query, afaik; plus, that might get into "too complex" territory even if we could, so I think your approach is the right one, here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There is also Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken section anchors that could be checked, though only afterwards (and with up to one month's delay). Gawaon (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Working out the best cross-namespace way to do this will be good, as would including advice about it somewhere. I would suggest making this be a "Help:" page or a section at a pre-existing one, and then cross-referencing it from MoS, rather than making it part of MoS (how to search for links of various sorts is not an MoS matter in and of itself). After it is worked out, using it to fix all links to MoS and other guideline and policy sections, and then removing no-longer-needed anchor tags and anchor spans inside headings in these pages would be a boon.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Maybe, but the body text in the MoS is already pretty technical: "Before changing a heading, consider whether you might be breaking existing links to it. If there are many links to the old title,[i] create an anchor with that title to ensure that these still work."
    This is at least more clear and actionable than the linked instructions at Help:Link#To_a_section Rjjiii (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Tense of verbs referring to current, ongoing events

    edit
    Latest comment: 26 days ago24 comments11 people in discussion

    Greetings, all. The Manual of Style contains this direction: "By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering works of fiction and products or works that have been discontinued. Generally, use past tense only for past events, and for subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist."

    Yet, a number of biographical articles about living peopleuse the present perfect tense when referring to persons currently serving in various capacities of public life. E.g. "George has served since July 10, 2024," which, at the very least creates confusion between an ongoing situation and a past one.

    I propose we move to the use of the present perfect continuous tense (also known as the present perfect progressive tense), which would result in a clear and unambiguous presentation:

    "George has been serving since July, 10 2024."

    Opinions? -The Gnome (talk) The Gnome (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    • Personally, I think the first option reads much better than the second. Not confusing or ambiguous in any way. Perfectly normal English. No idea if this is a WP:ENGVAR issue, but that's certainly what I'd write (I write in British English). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I write in American English and I agree that for the example provided, "has served" is preferable to "has been serving". Either would be acceptable, but I don't see a reason to encourage the latter, nor do I see how the former is ambiguous. If it was a past situation, would it not be, "George served from July 10, 2024 until..."? DonIago (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    What do you mean "it reads much better"? This is not about aesthetics, but about clarity. We're talking about current, ongoing events, exactly what the relevant MoS section is about. "Have [verb in past tense]" is unnecessarily ambiguous. Simple present would suffice. But since it has through some back handed way become the norm to use "has served" for people in public life, a turn that smells of puffery, as well, I'm suggesting something simple and sensible. It's a compromise between the simple present tense and the peacock. -The Gnome (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "Has served" is not in the past tense and creates no ambiguity. Someone who has served in a position since February is unambiguously still in that position. There is no need to change "has served" to "has been serving", and parsimony weighs against it. AlsoWukai (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I really have no idea why you think there is a lack of clarity or any puffery in "has served", which is completely normal English. Mystifying. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • While we're talking specifically about "persons currently serving in various capacities of public life", how about dropping the whole "serving" idea entirely? It's meaningless excess:
      • "George has been serving as chairman of Globcorp since 2014" --> "George has been chairman of Globcorp since 2014"
      • "George has served as chairman" --> "George has been chairman"
      • "He served as" --> "He was"
      • "He serves as" --> "He is"
    See the brilliant and justly celebrated essay WP:AREYOUBEINGSERVED. EEng 15:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • This is addressed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Statements likely to become outdated (MOS:CURRENT), which begins Except on pages that are inherently time-sensitive and updated regularly and has among its examples "not she is the current director but she became director on 1 January 2024". Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Relative time references has the example The information that "The current president, Alberto Fernández, took office in 2019", or "Alberto Fernández has been president since 2019", is better rendered "Alberto Fernández became president in 2019". Saying that George was appointed, elected, took office or merely became foo on 10 July 2024 will remain correct even when George eventually suffers termination or promotion, and works without any value-laden terms such as "serve" or "tyrannise". NebY (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
      All great points. EEng 20:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I wholeheartedly agree with all the points you made, NebY. -The Gnome (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I concur also. At some point, we probably do need to directly address the "served as" language in particular, because disputation about this has been frequently recurrent for many years (i.e., it passes the WP:MOSBLOAT test). But it's something that belongs in MOS:WTW, not the main MOS page or MOS:BIO, because it's not a general editing principle, really, but a trivial matter of a particular biased and unhelpful wording choice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • The Gnome, were you perhaps thinking that "present tense" in this rule meant "specifically and exclusively the simple present"? It doesn't. Any present-tense form is acceptable under this rule. That means you can – when appropriate to the content – use the simple present, present perfect, present continuous, or present perfect continuous and still be in compliance with this rule. Perhaps a more accurate rule would be "use the verb tense that accurately reflects time; do not say that 'He is born in the 19th century' or that 'He will be born in the 19th century'; also, do not say that 'Algebra was a branch of mathematics', as if that's not still true at the present time." We aren't trying to restrict brilliant prose with this rule; we're trying to get people not to use the present tense for long-dead people or the past tense for still-living ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The mere fact that you are, rightfully, trying to clarify the application of the proper tense shows that interpreting the "meaning" of the term "present tense" leads to speculation. There is no endorsement of "any" present-tense form; if it were so, the definition would be different, i.e. "any present-tense form." All we have is simply "present tense," which leads to the simple present-tense.
    Nonetheless, interesting proposals have been submitted above that could allow us to escape the vagueness. What do you think? -The Gnome (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    For reasons already given above by others, several of these present variants are not desirable because they lead to "and this continues to the present moment" implications which may not actually be true except in an article that is being very actively edited on a daily basis. And the WP:MOSBLOAT sniff test is not passed by verbiage like WhatamIdoing suggested; editors are not actually likely to write something like "is born in the 19th century" or "will be born in the 19th century", so we have no reason to include such example verbiage in this guideline (in fact, we have a clear rationale to exclude it). No one seems to be confused by the meaning of this section other than one editor, and other editors here have already clarified to that person what the meaning really is, so there is no actual problem to resolve.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I have added wikilinks to Present tense and Past tense#English to reduce the risk of confusion about what these terms means. I agree that otherwise the text of the section doesn't need to be changed. However, maybe the examples could be extended to include a few cases of the present perfect and other non-simple tense forms? Gawaon (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    My comment is I don't see what the problem is. Use present tense the mos says, and so why the complaint when the present tense is used? Perfect simple or perfect continuous would be decided by the context, but they are both present tenses. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I agree with that. My point was that the examples in MOS:TENSE use the simple present six times and the simple past four times (if I counted correctly). Other variants such as perfect or continuous/progressive forms aren't used at all. Adding a few reasonable examples of their usage wouldn't hurt. Gawaon (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    By default, write articles in the present tense applies most of all to the opening of an article, as the examples demonstrate. It doesn't mean we write the whole article in the present tense. Elsewhere we have The Ford Model T is an automobile that was produced ..., and our BLPs are almost entirely in the past tense after the initial "<Subject> is". NebY (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Would the participants in this discussion find worthwhile a Request for Comments on the issue? I'm thinking that the matter of the peacock verbiage, e.g. "served," which was pointed out here, is important enough to lend support to an RfC. -The Gnome (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Can we add this to WP:LANGVAR

    edit
    Latest comment: 28 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

    This comes up all the time with association football. Can we put it in to formalize that articles written in Canadian, American, or Australian English will use "Soccer" while those in British English will use "football". I see it changed back and forth so often, so while it technically is covered through LANGVAR, having it listed as a specific example can make it cut and dry. RedPatch (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    The problem is that Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia with an international audience. When I (Australian) think of "football" I think of Australian rules football. Australians from some other states think of rugby. Americans think of grid iron. Brits think of association football. We are all utterly convinced that our local name is the correct name and that the others are all wrong. So, calling it "football" is simply not feasible.  Stepho  talk  21:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Names for association football has a fairly good overview. While I agree that this is a MOS:ENGVAR issue, the MOS doesn't generally take a stance on the usage of individual ENGVAR-specific words and I don't think we should start here. Gawaon (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    ArbCom quote on changes between styles

    edit
    Latest comment: 25 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    I'm inclined to agree that we shouldn't overtly cite ArbCom in-text, since policy is set by a consensus of editors and not by ArbCom; but I think that the When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change quote reasonably expresses current consensus, so we can just move it to the voice of the MOS. I also think that a footnote about the ArbCom cases is useful for historical reasons. (Also, I forgot to mention, I added "generally" to it because I feel that the voice of the MOS should generally be less rigidly declarative than an ArbCom decision and because having it as a quote put it at a remove - just changing it to the MOS-voice without adding that would have seemed like it was being made into an absolute red-line requirement, which I don't think it was or is.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    MOS:SLAVE?

    edit
    Latest comment: 21 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion

    Per discussions like

    should we put a MOS:SLAVE somewhere, possibly at MOS:WTW? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Could you spell out what would it say? I had a quick look at the discussions you linked to which were quite long. 2 had closings. They seemed to br inconclusive. DeCausa (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    How about something like
    In general, WP should follow the vocabulary of RS. Per a 2022 Rfc, "slaves" are more widely used in RS than "enslaved people". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That may not be as good and workable a principle as it seems. In other situations, we've had accusations that sources were selected so that their terminology would be used. In this one, we may also find that RSs on slavery/enslavement in general have shifted to a different extent than sources on specific areas and/or periods eg Ancient Greece or Rome. NebY (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not sure that that is what those threads say. It seems more open that that. DeCausa (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I should mention that the question was inspired by this discussion: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#I_don't_know_where_else_to_ask_this_&_this_might_be_a_hornets'_nest_but_here_goes.... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah… Not sure if this is a case of “venue shopping” (the two threads were started by different people), but it is never productive to have two threads about the same issue at different venues at the same time. Suggest we close this thread and continue over at VP(p). Blueboar (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Confusing lead images

    edit
    Latest comment: 19 days ago7 comments5 people in discussion

    Hello! I was recently made aware that there is a consensus within the Middle-earth WikiProject to not use lead images in certain articles unless the images were created by J.R.R. Tolkien. (Please see the character pages Gandalf, Saruman and Frodo Baggins for examples). The reason is that they do not want to give undue weight to one particular interpretation of a character that originated in literature and was therefore not depicted visually.

    This (in my view) goes against the MOS guidelines to (A) "give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page" and to (B) "avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there." (For example, I feel that the lead image on the Gandalf page violates both of these guidelines.) Additionally, the MOS states that lead images should be "technically well-produced" and that it is "common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page." I find some of the Middle-earth articles to be problematic in relation to these guidelines as well.

    I'm also wondering why the WikiProject is allowed to make this call. Other pages for literary characters that have film versions use lead images from the films, such as Harry Potter, Katniss Everdeen, and Jay Gatsby. In the case of Gandalf, a film still could be used, or one of the paintings created of him by a professional artist. It strikes me as strange that a WikiProject can dictate such an important part of article content and presentation, especially because lead images are not exclusive to Middle-earth articles.

    I would love to hear thoughts on this. Thank you for your time. Wafflewombat (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    On the narrow question of whether a Wikiproject can "make this call", a Wikiproject is a collection of editors interested in a particular topic or set of articles. They have no unique competency to "dictate" anything, but they are nonetheless appropriate places for a consensus among editors to be formed, and that consensus can be referred to support article editing. WP:Consensus can change of course, either at that Wikiproject or through a wider community process, but it is quite normal for Wikiprojects to work out some standard editing expectations among their particular article scope. CMD (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for sharing this perspective. Wafflewombat (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Wafflewombat: Without actually looking into the history here, I would imagine that at some point there was a lot of dispute, even edit-warring, concerning which image should be the lead image. Sometimes, people can't agree, and it falls to a neutral observer to assist on determining a consensus upon which all can agree - even though, for some people, such consensus won't necessarily be the desired outcome. So it may well be that a firm decision was made to permit only the Tolkein images. Naturally, some people will have objected, and may still do so, but at least we can point to a particular discussion and say "it was agreed here". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. Wafflewombat (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think many of the same considerations as in Wikipedia:Historical portraits and pictures (on ahistorical interpretations of people for whom we have no contemporary image) apply. Illustrations and portraits should not be included merely to decorate articles; they should serve an encyclopedic purpose by informing readers. When we have reason to believe that an image is vacuous, misleading, or uninformative, we should not use it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Using images from major interpretations of the LOTR (such as films or illustrations from official editions) doesn't seem likely to be vacuous or misleading. Restricting illustrations to only those by Tolkien himself seems to me to be grounded in a purist/proscriptivist approach, that there is only one correct interpretation of these characters, rather than neutrally describing the character as it has been portrayed. The result is that the articles linked above either have no depiction of the character or one that is not well-suited to a lead image, and the informative value of the lead suffers.
    WikiProjects do good work, but this an issue that could benefit from broader discussion and consensus. I don't see anything unique about LOTR characters that would require a fundamentally different approach than any other article on a fictional character with myriad interpretations.--Trystan (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Section headings that begin with years

    edit
    Latest comment: 14 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

    MOS:HEAD says that sentence case should be used for section headings. But I'm never sure what to do with section headings that begin with years - should the first letter after the year be capitalised or not? e.g. should it be

    2000 season

    edit

    or

    2000 Season

    edit

    ? DH85868993 (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    The first one would be correct. Remsense诉 09:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Remsense: Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The first. For this purpose, "2000" is the first word. Maybe it would help to illustrate this application of sentence case with a sentence that starts with a number (though it breaks the rule against doing so)? 24 flamingos escape. 24 Flamingos escape. NebY (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Text produced by templates

    edit
    Latest comment: 6 days ago10 comments9 people in discussion

    I can't figure out if the MOS applies to text produced by templates, and if so, what special provisions exist. Most templates do not produce full grammatical sentences rather abbreviated text. For example the large corpus of external link templates. Like {{IMDb name}} produces "Marlon Brando at IMDb" and not "Marlon Brando at the IMDb" which is the recommended way per MOS:INSTITUTION, and to be grammatically correct. There are 100s if not 1000s of examples like this producing abbreviated text.

    I'm not currently seeking opinions, but am looking for help to find existing MOS, guidelines or discussions. -- GreenC 02:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    On which logic should the MOS not apply to template output? Gawaon (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think the "full sentence" would be "Marlon Brando at IMDb.com" which is why it why it was shortened without the ".com" part. Gonnym (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    a) Neither ("MB at" or "MB at the") are full sentences, and whether they are or not has no bearing on the matter the OP raised. b) MOS:INSTITUTION doesn't require "the" before the name ("… at the Yale University"?) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Re: b): Unless it's part of the name: "The University of Calgary". Though I see that it really addresses capitalization, not grammatical articles. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The general point, however, that templates should be configured to generate output that conforms with the MoS is an entirely sound one. MapReader (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Of course templates should conform to the MOS. This is the first I've ever heard of somebody suggesting that they not conform. That probably explains why, at least AFAIK, nowhere do we have some explicit statement that "this all applies to template output, too". It's simply generally assumed that it's the case, so there's nothing to cite for you.
    I don't see what's so grammatically correct about "Marlon Brando at the IMDb"; I think most people wouldnt talk or write that way. If you are trying to say that the "the" is required because it's the Internet Movie Database, then maybe, maybe if it were written out like that, a preceding "the" might be cool. But surely few people call IMDb by the original, long name. Otherwise we'd have to talk about "the NASA launching another rocket". — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, the use of "the" depends on common usage. People say "the BBC" but they don't say "the NASA", even though both "the British Broadcasting Corporation" and "the National Aeronautics and Space Administration" use "the" when written in full. So just "at IMDb" is fine because no one (I think?) says "the IMDb". Popcornfud (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It can be confusing whether or not to use the definite article before acronyms. Sometimes it's very subtle: when writing about railway companies in the UK, pre-1948 railway acronyms usually take the definite article, post-1948 railway acronyms don't. So we might have "the GWR", which refers to the Great Western Railway of 1835-1947, and "GWR" which refers to Great Western Railway (train operating company), created in 1996 but which only adoped that name in 2015. Similarly, there are "the LNER" of 1923-1947, and "LNER" of 2018 on. I don't think that we can (or should) write a one-size-fits-all rule. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yep, like I said, common usage. Why is it "the White House" but just "Bush House"? Why is it "the Eiffel Tower" but just "Tokyo Tower"? No reason, no logic, just common usage. Popcornfud (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    RfC: Use of verbs in biographical descriptions

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 hours ago41 comments21 people in discussion

    In many articles about living persons, and particularly about persons in positions of authority, e.g. member of parliament, corporation CEO, city councilor, etc, the lead paragraph often uses the verb "to serve" in denoting the person's work." E.g. "Ms Smith serves/has been serving/has served as member of the XYZ Board of Directors." In this related discussion, the issue was raised about the potential for meaningless excess in that term's use. (Here's a useful essay on that.) This, of course, applies to biographies about persons no longer living.

    Comments are invited on the following options:

    • A Use any simple form of "to be," e.g. "Smith is Acme Ltd auditor."
    • B Continue to use "serve" in biographies, e.g. "Smith serves as Acme Ltd auditor."

    -The Gnome (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    So, me saying to someone Thank you for your service, for example to a veteran soldier, denotes nothing positive whatsoever; it is an abject expression of thanks for wearing a uniform, and nothing more. And, logically, I could express the same thankful sentiment to a traitor soldier. -The Gnome (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    A traitor would supposedly not be thanked. How is this relevant for this discussion, though? Gawaon (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Really you are making my point for me. Your quoted phrase does, but not because it includes the word “service”. It is positive because of the “thank you”. Had you said “I confirm your service” or “I note your service”, your comment wouldn’t have been received as positive despite the word ‘service’. Whereas, had you said “Thank you for your time in the army” or “Thank you for your work”, that would be received as a positive comment without any need to refer to serving. MapReader (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Either, see wikt:serve#Verb, particularly entries 1.2, 1.4, 8, 12. There are contexts where the word "serve" is non-neutral, such as smiling politely whilst putting meals in front of customers in restaurants despite a torrent of verbal abuse, but the original post gives "Ms Smith serves/has been serving/has served as member of the XYZ Board of Directors." as an example, and that is different from plate-juggling. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Neither Both are acceptable Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • A or some other neutral alternative that suits the context. "Serves/served/serving" is a WP:NPOV failure, in being promotional and (positively) judgmental language. An argument could possibly be made to retain those terms for military and maybe even governmental functions, but even those uses have their long-term opponents. It's entirely inappropriate for corporate and other misc. organizational (school, team/squad, nonprofit/NGO, etc.) roles. PS: The fact that we have a bunch of articles doing this just means we have a bunch of articles to clean up. Cf. WP:FAITACCOMPLI and WP:NOWORK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment Sorry to say, but this is yet another RfC out of the blue, with no discussion on how to frame it. There certainly should have been an option C -- a new rule saying either A or B is OK, and D -- meaning nothing new added to MOS at all. This RfC is already a complete mess out of which nothing useful can possibly come. EEng 20:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=1240323079"