Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:50, 14 December 2015

Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:MOS

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, 228Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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, 228Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Template:MOS/R

For a list of suggested abbreviations for referring to style guides, see this page.

Confusing gender constructions

There's been a bunch of back-and-forth just now over the wording of the "avoid confusing constructions" advice at MOS:IDENTITY. The advice to avoid confusing constructions very clearly does reflect consensus, and is an in-context application of the MOS lead's common-sense advice to rewrite around intractable conflicts. Ongoing debate at the Village Pump, in discussions that have not even concluded yet, doesn't change that. Reviewing this, it's clear that the contentious part is the suggestion, in the example, to revise by using a pronoun-based construction that is presently hotly disputed at VP, and has previously been disputed at VP and at MOS, and at other places. The solution half of an example being disputed is not a dispute about the identification of the problem.

The obvious workaround is using example language like this instead: "Avoid confusing constructions (she fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Smith became a parent)." Or not providing an example of what to rewrite to, and only preserving the example of what we mean by confusing constructions. (And, yes, it was pulled from an actual article; in a search during the previous round of debate, I found at least half a dozen cases of "she fathered a child" or "he gave birth" in real articles, and that was long after the advice had been in MOS, meaning there used to be even more of them, that triggered that addition to MOS in the first place and got cleaned up afterward).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  13:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"Smith became a parent" sounds good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me as well.—Godsy_CONT) 16:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like this points towards the idea that transgender people should not be referred to with pronouns at all before the transition. Any clarification on the exact rule?? It says:

Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life.

But this points towards the idea that it should go:

Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification, as long as no confusion can result from wordings. If confusion can result, then try to avoid pronouns.

Any corrections on the wording?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This section was recently discussed. A good point raised in that thread was that part of the problem comes from putting undue emphasis on biology in ways we wouldn't normally do. The phrase "fathered a child" is only used in 244 articles, which appear to mostly deal with situations where there is some doubt as to paternity. However "became a parent" is even rarer, appearing 18 times, many of which are "became a parent figure/company/etc.". By my count, only three of those uses are intended as direct statements about a real person having a child. I think part of what makes this advice stick out is that the language being recommended isn't much of an improvement over what is being proscribed.

A possible rewording could be: "Avoid confusing constructions and placing an undue emphasis on biology (e.g., she fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Smith had a son)."--Trystan (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Trystan, I can't believe that you disagree with the absoluteness of the original rule; you're the one who wrote the Misplaced Pages:Gender identity essay, and included as one of the questions "Isn't it confusing??" Georgia guy (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

For clarification on what I'm talking about, this is the second question in the "Retroactivity" section of the Misplaced Pages:Gender identity essay. Georgia guy (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a conflict. I do support a presumption of retroactivity when someone comes out as trans (as opposed to the presumption that someone changed genders). The essay also says that clear drafting is the antidote to confusion, and in some cases it is clearest to simply write around the pronoun, rather than going into undue detail about someone's gender identity and gender presentation at a given time. I don't know that I agree with the absoluteness of any MoS rule.--Trystan (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear what "An undue emphasis on biology" is. Dingsuntil (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't like "Smith became a parent" because it's not obvious how Smith became a parent. Did Smith provide sperm? An egg? Did Smith adopt? I don't know of any English word besides "Fathered" which indicates that Smith actually did. "Smith had a child" is better than "Smith became a parent" in that it indicates that Smith is the natural parent of the child. I still prefer "Smith fathered a child." Dingsuntil (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean, for you the Smith we're talking about should be treated like a man for this purpose, not a trans woman?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like you're picking a fight. If you are, don't. If you aren't, clarify. Dingsuntil (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOS says treat trans women like women. "Father" as a verb means become a father, meaning that you prefer the article should treat Smith like a man. Georgia guy (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it needs to be clarified, we'd clarify it with a sentence explaining what happened. It's senseless in this area to attempt to rely on hotly disputed pronouns to do this for us. Especially given that it's physically impossible for a transwoman, born biologically male, to have provided the egg in the process for forming a baby. The question simply doesn't arise. If you adopt, you aren't becoming a parent, you're become and adoptive parent, and regardless, we'd say "The Smiths adopted a son", or "Smith and Jones adopted a daughter" or whatever, anyway, using prose that doesn't read like it was written by a robot. :-) I return to the MoS lead's common-sense admonition: Rewrite to avoid confusion and conflict.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  10:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Adoptive parents are parents. Also, you can't solve this problem by assuming other people will write their articles a certain way. Consider saying Smith had/fathered a child vs Smith became a parent in an article where it isn't obvious when Smith transitioned. Dingsuntil (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Anything that states or implies that transgender subjects should never be referred to with pronouns should be chucked. Yes, most of the time we just use the surname for any subject, but requiring it in all instances requires poor writing. Does it need to be obvious how Smith became a parent? "Smith's son was born," "Smith had a daughter," etc. are also good in my book. As for the text of the guideline proper, that's under discussion at the village pump and currently awaiting closure. We should probably wait for that to finish before making any other changes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I support including advice to prefer "became a parent" or "had a child" to "fathered a child" for reasons I outlined in last month's discussion; I oppose bringing a preference for names vs pronouns into this, especially since it contradicts the guidance earlier in the paragraph to use (gender-identity-based) pronouns. Let's stick with the wording we currently have ("name → name"), or else go back to the "pronoun → pronoun" language which had been in the MOS, unless there's consensus specifically to switch from those to a construction that deprecates pronouns. @Dingsuntil, noting who provided sperm would generally be undue, in Misplaced Pages parlance, if sources only consider "A is B's parent" important and not details of how " used her sperm to become the father of B with an ovum from C via penis-in-vagina sexual congress". -sche (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur with -sche on this, in the interests of "cleanness of consensus". We need to address this one part at a time, or more flamewarring will surly erupt. While I dispute recent changes that seem to suggest rewriting history, and dispute that they represent consensus more specifically, it's clear that there's a consensus to advise avoiding constructions like "she fathered a child" and "he gave birth", and we can fix that independently of any other questions, and come back to those separately. The less we commingle these issues, the more stability we'll achieve.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  10:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not that it was important that Smith used sperm to become the father of Biff, which I agree will often be undue, but that Smith is Biff's natural parent, rather than his adopted parent. That Smith is the natural parent of Biff is highly likely to be considered relevant by sources in cases where Smith subsequently changed genders. Hence my opposition to an instruction which directs editors to use language which obscures this fact. To do so would be that language activism we're supposed to avoid. Our description should be as obscure as our sources. Dingsuntil (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I say "Smith had a child" is, I hope, what we can all agree on, even though it has female-specific connotations when used in respect of an individual (as opposed to a couple). These connotations are why I prefer "Fathered." If we have to use a word with biological connotations, we should use the term with the right biological connotations. But "had a child" is more ambiguous, so I guess we can live with it. Dingsuntil (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to prescribe any allegedly perfect wording that won't please everyone, just proscribe really poor wording that confuses readers (or which is pushing some kind of language "reform" WP:SOAPBOX and misusing the encyclopedia as a soci-political messaging platform). "Smith's second child was born in ...", "Smith became a parent for the third time in ...", "Smith's second daughter and fourth child was born in ...", etc., etc., are all just as good (provided the context works for the details) as "Smith had a child", which, yes, does potentially imply motherhood to some readers, but even that is better than "she fathered a child". Basically, zero imaginable options are worse than that (or the gender-flipped version, "he gave birth"). It's shades of "Early one morning, late at night, two dead boys got up to fight ...." I'll quote (in sidebar) a recent summary of what style is all about, by Bill Walsh, the style guide editor of (and regular writer for) The Washington Post, also one of the best-selling authors of grammar and style books; he sums up perfectly why we need to get this right. Which means do it in a way that makes WP look collectively sane, intelligent, and competent (or at least not look like any of the alternatives; when writing is done well, it's essentially transparent to most readers, just as the typical moviegoer is not thinking about lighting or camera angles unless the director's doing something poorly, or intentionally distracting the audience to make some kind of point that chips away at the fourth wall).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  04:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw "Smith became a parent" as an example, not a requirement. After all, not every article is about someone named "Smith." But in general, I agree with SmC's point. If the issue is that people are doing something that causes a problem, then just make a rule against that thing. They may find other affirmative solutions that have not occurred to us. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Supports

Template:Formerly

See also: Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 105#Guideline-by-guideline citation of sources (November 2008)

I have started Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Sources, and I invite editors to populate it with sources.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

If you mean to list sources that support existing MoS content, then I'm pleased to say that we've gotten started. If you want the actual sources that were used to place the rules there in the first place, that might be harder.

I was against the MOS:REGISTER when it was first proposed, but it's quite won me over. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Sources that support existing MOS content are adequate. (The external links at User:Wavelength/About English/Adverbs and hyphens#Google Search may be helpful.)

—Wavelength (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I am considering the shortcut "MOS:SOURCES", but I have found that "MOS:SOURCE" is already in use.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC) and 05:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I have applied the shortcut "MOS:SUPPORT".

—Wavelength (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I have renamed the new subpage as "Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Supports" and I have revised the shortcut to "MOS:SUPPORTS". I am revising the heading of this section from Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Sources to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Supports, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Now it looks like "things that the MoS supports." Given that we're on Misplaced Pages, the word "sources" is a little more recognizable. EDIT: I think it's the plural that's knocking the meaning out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The word "Supports" is a noun (not a verb), as it is in "Misplaced Pages:Supports".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a plural noun. Still sounds funny. Both here and in this page you've cited, it would work better as "Support." Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

As I explained in June 2015 (User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 189#Misplaced Pages:Supports), English readers might initially be alarmed by what appears to be a command ("Support!"). Also, English "sources" is like English "supports" in being both a noun and a verb. Do you prefer the singular form "Source"? If you or I change it back to "Sources", what would be a suitable shortcut? Alternatively, what other one-word options are available for the name of the subpage? If this issue is important for you, I can try to find another name, possibly with more than one word (such as "Supportive style guides"), and a corresponding shortcut (such as "MOS:SSG", in which "SSG" is unfortunately close to "SSF" in "WP:SSF" on a QWERTY keyboard).

When I changed the name to "Supports", I actually anticipated that you would find it to be better than "Sources", as I found it to be. Not all the MOS guidelines are necessarily supported by outside sources, because in a few cases MOS guidelines are based on the unique needs of Misplaced Pages.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

In case this isn't clear, this is a "huh, sounds funny" objection and not a "no no no no no!" objection.

"Sources" is clearly not being used as a verb in "Manual of Style Sources." "Supports" does look like a verb in "Manual of Style Supports," while "Manual of Style Support" looks like it means "Support for the Manual of Style." Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

"Manual of Style External Support"? "Manual of Style Independent Support"? "Manual of Style Third-party Support"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Skillful reading is like skillful driving, inasmuch as one needs to pay attention to all the important signs. (Commercial billboards are not important.) Ignoring a virgule can have undesirable results, and ignoring an important traffic sign ("Stop", "Slow", "Merge", "Yield", "Detour") can have undesirable results. The article "Non-restrictive clause" illustrates how the meaning of a statement can be affected by the presence or absence of a comma. The virgule in "Manual of Style/Supports" is a sign performing an important function, and it should not be ignored.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

"Should not be ignored" is one thing. "Will not have an effect during a new reader's first impression of the phrase" is another. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is a point-by-point analysis of the situation.

• The word "supports" can be a plural noun or a singular verb (a third-person singular present indicative active verb).
• The word "support" can be a singular noun or a verb (a third-person plural present indicative active verb, a first- or second-person present indicative active verb, an infinitive verb, a subjunctive verb, or an imperative verb).
• The plural noun "supports" is valid as a reference to various sources supporting WP:MOS guidelines.
• The singular noun "support" is valid as a reference to those sources collectively.
• The verb "supports" can be a problem for a reader who ignores the virgule.
• The verb "support" (especially the imperative verb "support") can be a problem for a reader who pays attention to the virgule.
• Tailoring the subpage name for readers who ignore the virgule disadvantages the readers who pay attention to it, and vice versa.
• How far should we go to accommodate the less competent readers? I believe that, in matters like this one, accommodating incompetency tends to promote incompetency. On the other hand, accommodating competency tends to promote competency.
• At this moment in the history of the World Wide Web, many readers (possibly most readers) are already familiar with virgules in web addresses, so they are accustomed to paying attention to them.
• Therefore, the form "supports" in the subpage name is the preferred option for the benefit of readers who pay attention to the virgule, and also even for the benefit of readers who ignore it (briefly at first).

—Wavelength (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

"Competency" vs "incompetency" might be a little extreme for this situation. I've been using the Internet for as long as it's existed, and that's how I parsed this title when I saw it, and I already knew what the page was for. Misplaced Pages is known for flippant and non-standard use of essay titles. "Things that the MoS supports" is a reasonable first-impression interpretation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

A better exercise would be trawling the archives to identify where consensus was established for each particular !rule. A listing of external sources for particular items does Misplaced Pages zero good IMO. --Izno (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

We already have that, Izno. It's MOS:REGISTER. As for what good this new page does, it establishes that the MoS is not entirely based on the whims and arbitrary personal preferences of a clique (though it is partially based on them; we've got to work on that). Think of someone coming to the MoS and saying, "Why should I follow this rule if you guys just made it up because you felt like it? What makes you so much better than I am? I just don't feel like it, so it all cancels out." Even if you don't think that sourcing is necessary, I don't see how it does any harm. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't work that way. It doesn't work that way anywhere on WP, so there's no reason to expect it to work that way at MoS. The fact that MoS is sometimes approached as if it were specially different, as if normal consensus operation doesn't or shouldn't apply here, and as if WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy doesn't exist or somehow doesn't apply to a particular wikiproject or pet topic, is the #1 reason that WT:MOS flares up in perennial flamewars and WP:MOS and its subpages are subject to perennial bouts of editwarring. Maybe MoS's lead needs to just be clarified a bit more.

Fixing the Register: It would be useful if it were well-developed, but it's very incomplete, and is cherry-picked too much to highlight particular threads that a small number of editors want to highlight about particular style points (a natural result of someone taking the time to dig through pages to settle some question, but a strongly biasing factor nonetheless). Large segments of it have nothing at all, and those that do are gappy as to their inclusion of the actual discussions that took place about the topics in question (people tend to stop digging and cataloguing when they find what they're looking for).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  07:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• WP:MFD (perhaps to userspace) Merge to MOS:REGISTER, what little material there is in there. I disagree with the rationales for such a "/Supports" page (however named), I do agree with Izno that it would be a better expenditure of "process editor" energy (and agree with Darkfrog24 that the Register is where it belongs) to improve the indexing of consensus discussions in the Register, than to start up an essentially competing side project for the pointless exercise of trying to externally source every single thing in an internal, consensus-based document. However, a list of point-by-point pro and con sourcing is a WP:POLEMIC that belongs in userspace or deleted. The more obvious problems with such a diversion of volunteer labor:

Tl;dr version: This is not what we're here for. Given that the articles badly need work, the Register is incomplete and renders the proposed page redundant anyway, while the proposed one would likely just perpetuate the same perennial disputes, and is based on fallacious argument to authority, there would seem to be no point in launching it. It looks like WP:MFD fodder, especially if (as is likely) it would primarily be bent to the end of campaigning against various long-standing consensuses at MoS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  07:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Updated after I changed my mind about the Register being a good place for this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  21:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

SmC has just demonstrated something very important: Some people care about sources and other people care about discussions. I guess MOS:REGISTER and MOS:SUPPORT(s/etc.) could work as one page, but since there are two such different mindsets, maybe two pages are best. I was originally thinking that they'd be heavily cross-linked.

Even though you don't think the MOS needs sources, SmC, surely you don't think that proving that we're not making things up does any harm. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"surely you don't think that proving that we're not making things up does any harm." is a non sequitur. The only thing, and I'll echo SMC here, that we should care about here is whether or not there is consensus for a change. That's it. Bringing sources to bear in the context of those discussions can help us make a decision, but is not what we have PAG for. Having a separate page just for us to "add sources to" (a document that doesn't need them) places the wrong focus/understanding of utility on those sources rather than the decisions that we have come to consensus on. That's why the "MOSSOURCES" page is not useful and MOSREGISTER is. Also like SMC, I'll echo that there are likely a large number of mainspace pages that could use this proposed sourcing. Comma, full stop, and diacritic await your sourcing. --Izno (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

So if I were trying to convince you personally that you should do what the MoS says, I should steer you to MOS:REGISTER because you find discussions more convincing than sources. I'm not seeing how it's harmful to create a document that people who give more credence to sources would find convincing. (My assumption here is that "Here is why you should follow the MoS" is one of the purposes of both of these pages.)

Which suggests to me that MOS:SUPPORTS could be a useful resource to anyone seeking to improve those pages. I've used sources that I found in MoS discussions on such pages, and a whole page listing them would have been more convenient. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"So if I were trying to convince you personally that you should do what the MoS says, I should steer you to MOS:REGISTER because you find discussions more convincing than sources." is attacking a strawman. I am saying that anyone and everyone should be steered to REGISTER because the only thing that matters with !rule change is the consensus of previous editors (and that consensus can change). You are being obtuse on this point.

IMO, the point of REGISTER is actually not why one should follow the MoS, but rather why one should not idly propose change. This is a subtle distinction. The purpose of a "SOURCES" page however is obviously an attempt to runaround prior consensus and could be used for pointed attempts at changing that consensus when (in many cases) a prior consensus has strongly identified that particular !rule as important. Therefore, what is useful is actually improving the mainspace with the exact same content as is proposed to be placed on this SOURCES page. --Izno (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to call people names. So you think that the existence of MOS:SOURCES would cause harm because you think it's an attempt to sneak around Misplaced Pages's consensus rules. I don't agree with this, but now I have an idea of what you're talking about.

Frankly, if the consensus contradicts the sources, then revisiting it is valid. But it sounds like what you'd want this page to do is help turn away people who don't like existing consensus or don't understand the consensus process and are proposing unconsidered changes. Having a place to point to: "Here; look at this, then," would help, with the plus side that it could only be used on those parts of the MoS that have external support (which is most of the MoS). Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: One more thing. You think I'm being obtuse, but that might be a side effect of my attempt to AGF, in this case the assumption that you mean exactly what you say and aren't hiding or talking around anything yourself. However, I've guessed that it's also possible that what you really don't like about this is something else: You don't like the idea that sources are important to the MoS or the suggestion that we shouldn't do whatever we want or just make up rules based on whatever looks good to us, even if it contradicts those rules, and you feel that listing external support for the MoS legitimizes this idea. Is that what's really going on? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

My 2c: If this page is kept, it should be titled "Sources" or "Support" or something other than "Supports", which does sound like a verb. But it would probably be sensible to combine it with MOS:REGISTER (list the sources in a thread here or wherever is appropriate, and then add a link to that thread to MOS:REGISTER). -sche (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Each of the words "Source" and "Sources" and "Support" and "Supports" can be either a noun or a verb. The word "Support" sounds like an imperative verb. It is better to keep the new page separate from MOS:REGISTER to avoid one page becoming eventually too long. Also, separate pages make it easier for editors to search for either sources or discussions. However, the two pages can definitely be cross-linked.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but not all of them are going to read the same way when parsed for the first time.

A lot of this problem could be solved but adding another word to the article's title (though not necessarily to the shortcut): "Manual of Style Outside Support," "Manual of Style Third-party Support," "Manual Style Corroboration" (eh, too vague), "Manual of Style External Support," "Manual of Style RS Support." Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not an "article", and the very diversion of such sourcing efforts away from real articles to this internal-only battleground over style nitpicks the entire problem in a nutshell!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  21:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding diversion of resources, you're assuming that the fact that someone adds a source to MOS:SUPPORTS means that they won't use their time and energy to perform a similar task elsewhere. That's not how it works. Editing work isn't a matter of Newtonian fluids. If anything, placing sources in MOS:SUPPORTS, a handy, centralized location, makes it more likely that that editor or someone else will add them to the articles. I've given an example at your longer comment below. Now for civility: "Nitpicks" has got to go. It's rude. And remember that lots of editors think that all the things we care about here in the MoS are nitpicks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, I am willing to accept a page move to "Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/External support" (still a subpage).

—Wavelength (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC) and 02:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, I propose that we use the letters "M" and "R" and "S" for cross-links to the Manual and the Register and the new subpage respectively. We already use the letter "R" to cross-link from the Manual to the Register.

• from the Manual: (R) to the Register, (S) to the new subpage
• from the Register: (M) to the Manual, (S) to the new subpage
• from the new subpage: (M) to the Manual, (R) to the Register

If you believe that this requires that we capitalize the word "Support", then I am willing to accept a page move to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/External Support (still a subpage).

Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 113#Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style Register has been UNmarked as part of the Manual of Style (January 2010).

—Wavelength (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the subpage to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/External support.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Replying to the thread as a whole:

• Re: "The only thing ... that we should care about here is whether or not there is consensus for a change. That's it." Exactly. Citing an external source for something (not just here, but e.g. with regard to how to approach consensus-building, or how to define harassment, or whatever – any WP:POLICY matter) is often an aid in forming consensus on the talk page of the policy/guideline in question. It doesn't belong in a policy/guideline page except where WP is explicitly adopting an external standard, as with citations to WCAG or ISO standards for particular things, or WP:COPYRIGHT referencining specific intellectual property laws.
• Re: "Some people care about sources and other people care about discussions." – That, too, is essentially thus a non sequitur, and a false dichotomy. We all care about discussions when it comes to policies, guidelines, and processes on WP, since that's how they're determined. We all also care about sources in these discussions when they're helpful to use in forming consensus. The need for them to source any actual wording of any policy or guideline is very rare, and we don't need a page to list it out. With regard to MoS discussions, the Register can be used to list sources that were presented in discussions, as an aid to copy-pasting them into rehash threads that arise later, to save time re-proving the same point again. A guideline itself cannot, logically speaking, be sourced externally, since there is no external source for an internal consensus. Moving the quixotic attempt to do so to a separate page is pointless.
• Re: " MOS:SOURCES would cause harm because you think it's an attempt to sneak around Misplaced Pages's consensus rules" – No such bad faith assumption is required; something that is ripe for WP:GAMING should not be implemented; its gameability is a sufficient rationale against it, no matter what the intent of the original proponent.
• Re: '"Here is why you should follow the MoS" is one of the purposes of both of these pages' – That's not a legitimate purpose for a subpage of a guideline (and is definitely not one of the purposes of the Register). Policies and guidelines should be followed because they're the WP editing community's consensus on WP best practices. We need no segments within or attached to guidelines propounding someone's additional or different reasons for doing so. If someone wants to write one, they can go create a WP:ESSAY. And it will likely be userspaced, because we userspace essays that do not reflect consensus (per WP:USERPAGE policy, and WP:POLICY's own material on userspacing of essays).

Finally, even if we do posit that having a pile of citations about style matters in some page might be useful for improving actual articles, that's out of MoS's scope. If such a page were kept at all, it should be a sandbox page under an article, or just kept in someone's userspace while needed, since after the sources are integrated into the relevant articles, it will no longer need to exist as a page. Basically, this just needs to be WP:MFDed for deletion or relocation at a less misleading name. It is not part of MoS, and is not part of MoS process.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  21:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  21:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

On this subject, I agree entirely with SMcCandlish. Anything that implies that the MOS requires sources (as opposed to being informed by sources), as a "Supports" page does, will be used to argue against established consensus. Anyone who doesn't realise that can't have been reading many MOS talk pages. :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's forget for a minute that MOS:SUPPORTS exists. Let's say someone wants to change consensus. Bringing reliable sources to the table in such a case is a good thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems non-sequiturial again; no one has disputed that we often use sources in consensus discussions on the talk page (I do it probably more than anyone else); that's not what's under discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

In my latest revision of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/External support (at 23:47, 30 November 2015 ), I added this statement.

• Although those sources inform MOS guidelines, they are not required for MOS guidelines to be valid for Misplaced Pages articles.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Which very partially addresses one of about a dozen problems with this proposal.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  00:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

We do use sources to establish what is and isn't correct English, and informing Wikieditors of how to use correct English on Misplaced Pages is the point of the MoS.

Before seeing this conversation, I changed Wavelength's new line. To my knowledge, it's never been officially established that the MoS may ignore reliable sources, and neither MOS:SUPPORTS nor any other page should claim otherwise. I changed it to an advisement that the specific sources listed there support the MoS but that the MoS was not necessarily based on them, which is true. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll explain my "Some people care about sources and other people care about discussions" because it looks like you don't understand it. If someone comes to the MoS for the first time and sees a rule that they don't want to follow, "it's consensus" boils down to "do it because we say so," and "here's a source" boils down to "do it because it's the right thing to do and we can prove it." That's the way we do it in the mainspace and there's no reason not to do it that way here. Of course there are people who care about both discussions and sources. For them, it's "do it because we say so and we can prove that it's right." Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: "it's never been officially established that the MoS may ignore reliable sources – This is another non sequitur, several times over. Aside from legal impositions of WP:OFFICE there is no "official establishment" of anything on WP. Style matters vary from source to source, so very close to 100% of MoS consensus decisions ignore various sources. Many MoS decisions, like all policy and guideline decisions, don't relate to anything external at all. Consensus on internal matters is not dependent on what external sources say. How many editors have to say this how many ways before it's understood? How many times does this discussion have to be had? It's been coming up for ca. 7 years (raised by the same party), and the answer and the result (consensus against the idea that MoS is or should be externally sourced) is always the same. The reasons that WP:POLICY is not subject to WP:CORE have been explained here and elsewhere innumerable times.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  02:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

By "officially established," I mean can you point to a discussion that established consensus for "the MoS doesn't need sources"? That's why I said "to my knowledge." I haven't personally read every page of the archive. For example, you know how I hate WP:LQ but if someone asked if there was consensus for it, I could point to many pages in the archive that have discussions and RfCs, some with formal closure.

Almost 100% of the MoS ignores sources? SmC, I haven't counted every guideline, but I'd say over 80% of it is consistent with sources, probably more. For most of the MoS, this is a moot issue.

Who's been bringing up whether the MoS has to be sourced for seven years? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for finally conceding the consensus in favor of logical quotation on WP. Moving on, every time the idea that the MoS should be externally sourced has been raised and failed to gain consensus (i.e., every time it has been raised) establishes and continues the consensus that it should not be. Far more importantly, every more general discussion that concludes, from WT:POLICY to WP:MFD, that WP:V and the other WP:CORE content policies do not apply to projectpages, establishes and continues the consensus that projectpages are not externally sourced; MoS is not some magical fiefdom that operates differently from the rest of WP:POLICY. Next, I challenge you to find any non-trivial (i.e. not "sentences begin with capital letters") point in MoS that has universal agreement in external sources. Every time MoS picks one variant of a "rule" over another (which is the case in most style matters), it's ignoring any number of sources that prefer another way.

As for the old history: One editor in particular (see if anyone can guess who :) has been trying to externally source nitpicks in MoS since at least May 2009 – in the cluster of their very first edits here – and again a month later . That one-editor penchant for trying to rely on external sources for (or against) internal consensus discussion (much of that month's discussion on MoS involved this) was remarked upon by a third party not long after (and the same editor who said "One source concurring with a POV is a hundred times more effective than a thousand people singing its praises without one" in conceding one part of that discussion replied in the other to this question of whether they themself had any sources to back their view, "No, but it's a pretty reasonable assumption to make" . So I guess I was off by a few months, since that was "over 6 years" rather than quite "7 years" ago. I don't recall the exact date of that editor's first explicit proposal to "source the MoS" programmatically, despite the double-standard approach that said editor's own assumptions are good enough. But it could not have been long after that exchange (and its genesis is clearly right here, on June 6 of that year). Just scratching at the tip of the iceberg. I have real work to do today, and can't waste hours on a diff hunt we don't actually need in order to understand that this has gone on way too long.

Everyone else appears to accept that guidelines and policies are not externally sourced, so let's just allow this pursuit too, like that against LQ, to come to its overdue end. We all badly need a rest from it. It's been tired rehash for years. A span of "almost 7" years is more than long enough to show isn't going to happen. PS: As far as userspacing goes, Wavelength has already been keeping this sort of material in his userspace since June 2009 , so it's pretty obvious to move it there.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Wavelength/About English/Style guides is a list of style guides, and not a list of style guidelines (or a "guideline-by-guideline citation of sources").

—Wavelength (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A list of style guides, most if not all which have been consulted by one or more parties in prior MoS-related discussions arranged a) alphabetically, or b) by MoS section, is simply a re-formatting choice.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  19:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Careful there, SmC. You get very displeased when you think other people are putting words in your mouth, so keep them out of mine. "Finally conceding consensus"? Welcome to a couple years ago. If consensus is a majority vote and no more, then my position is not that consensus for WP:LQ does not exist but that it is wrong. If consensus requires sources and logic, or even unbiased wording in the RfC, then not so much. I still support changing this rule. Don't forget that it's challenged every year by editors who don't know me or each other.

Rules don't need universal, 100% support, but I suppose most of the MoS is consistent with sources most of the time. That's a bit of a straw man, there, SmC.

Oh for heck's sake. My pointing out that WP:LQ contradicts reliable sources among the reasons why we should replace it is not the same as a formal proposal that the MoS be sourced. My asking you if you had sources for that proposal of yours and you complaining about it is not the same as a formal proposal. As for the rest of your links here, I know more about RS, Misplaced Pages's relationship to RS, and the punctuation styles themselves now than I did when I was a new Wikieditor, and that shouldn't be effing shocking. To the best of my memory, I usually just took people's word for it that they'd seen sources, and I don't any more. I also wasn't nearly as good at distinguishing RS from non-RS . Case in point: Full stop used to cite a listserv for information on BQ/LQ, and back then, I didn't think of that as strange. (Times have changed: ) That is why I used to believe that British and logical were two different things. I was trying to get along with everyone. (I do still hold by some of this stuff, though. One source is better than a thousand what-I-feel-likes. The MoS should not require users to do anything that cannot be supported by at least one source.)

As for what "everyone else accepts," you're only guessing because it looks like no, we never actually sat down and established whether the MoS does or does not require sources. Right now, MOS:SUPPORTS doesn't say whether it does or that it doesn't, and it should probably stay that way for now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I decline to be dragged into another circular debate with you on this talk page. I've already clearly laid out the following: There is no consensus for the idea that MoS should be sourced point-by-point even after nearly 7 years of this idea being advanced again and again. Trying to do it in a separate page doesn't change that, nor does that somehow make this part of MoS's proper scope, so this is does not belong under WP:Manual of Style/ sub-namespace. Various nitpicks you raise do not address any of that, and basically are off-topic. Multiple editors object to this "source the MoS" putsch, and we all do so for the same basic reasons, which you and Wavelength never address.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  19:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The four people who've commented on this issue in this thread are not a statistically significant sample. If you think that I was formally addressing whether the MoS must be sourced seven years ago, then you are mistaken. It sounds like not only has the role of sources in the MoS not been addressed "again and again" but that it has not been addressed even once. I'm going to have to insist that you stop demanding that I share your position on this matter and stop characterizing my concerns as nitpicks and putsch. It got rude a while ago. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is not based on statistics, but is determined by the reasoning presented by whatever pool of WP editors expresses an interest in resolving the matter. That a larger pool might be helpful is why I suggested MfD, the entire purpose of which is to draw a broad cross-section of editorial input on whether a projectpage is useful or not and belongs in the Misplaced Pages namespace. But far more than 4 editors have consistently opposed these "source the MoS" demands over the last 6+ years, and it's been explained many times dating back to at least 2009, that WP:POLICY is based on consensus, period. Denialism of this is not constructive but is evidentiary of a WP:NOT#SOAPBOX problem. I provided some diffs directly in response to, and only responsive to, your own demands for evidence of your advocacy on this matter going back 7 years; I've not completed, yet, the diffs proving how frequently the "source the MoS" idea has been advanced, by so few, and has been rejected yet reinjected repeatedly as if not already rejected. (It seems like a time waste to continue diffing that, since we already know there's a WP-wide consensus against the idea that WP:POLICY is subject to WP:CORE; if I'm arm-twisted into doing that diff-digging, I won't do it to satisfy a minor point in a thread like this.) No one is expecting any one particular editor to share any one other particular editor's viewpoint; it's expected of all editors that they abide by consensus even if they didn't get the answer they want. No one has characterized your particular views as nit-picks; all style matters are essentially nit-picks. Not everything is about you. PS: "I usually just took people's word for it that they'd seen sources, and I don't any more. – On what basis?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  21:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want me to think it's about me, then stop making it about me, SmC. And yes, you did characterize my complaints as nitpicks. That is based on what you said. If that's not what you meant, then change the way you say things. If you don't mean your comments as demands that I ignore my own judgment and take your interpretation of the facts over my own and to be unnecessarily confrontational, then take it from me that you are not coming off the way you intend, so you should change the way you express yourself.

There is a difference between pointing out that one part of the MoS directly contradicts reliable sources and should be changed and directly and formally establishing the role of sources in the MoS as a whole. My understanding of the way WP:V, the MoS and WP:RS work has improved since I first started out on Misplaced Pages. It is perfectly natural for positions to change over the years.

As for consensus not being a vote, it's more like it's not supposed to be a vote. Consensus is supposed to be about the preponderance of sources and logical arguments, but that's usually not how it actually works.

"Accepting consensus" means that I'm not allowed to do things that the MoS specifically says not to do in articles. It does not mean that I'm not allowed to try to get the MoS changed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

 SMcCandlish ☺, this is my reply to your post of 21:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC). Sometimes people care about sources and sometimes people care about discussions. If you can accept the inclusion of sources in the Register, why can you not accept a list of them on a separate subpage? How is a subpage listing sources something that is ripe for gaming?

—Wavelength (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll add that when MOS:REGISTER was proposed I was worried that it would be used as to game the system. Not only has that not turned out the way I thought it would, but it's really a neat little thing. MOS:SUPPORTS and MOS:REGISTER are very different from each other in some ways, but it's still worth noting. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I actually rescind my idea of using the Register to list sources; it's more practical to just note in the Register that a particular thread included source citations, since some of the source lists are very long. I'll bulletize the rest of this for easy reading:

I'll close with the observation I opened with in a previous post, since it is worth repeating, being the central point at issue: Source research should be undertaken to improve articles not change/defend projectpages. It takes the same effort, time, and skills, but we're not here to write the world's most compromising style guide and the world's best defense of such a thing; we're here to write the world's best encyclopedia. To the extent any of our time is spent on an internal style guide, its purpose is to facilitate WP editing, and does not exist to represent any external grammatical prescription or linguistic description. The sooner a couple of editors absorb the fact (and attendant implications) that MoS is not an article, the sooner most of the perennial strife on this talk page simply stops.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  21:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that any sources that were actually used to create the rules in question during their initial placement in the MoS should be given special consideration and clearly marked, whenever we can identify them.

Just because style guides don't all agree with each other on everything (by which I mean that they do agree on most things) doesn't mean that citing them to support the MoS is futile. For example, I personally think WP:LQ should be removed from the MOS ASAP, but I still added sources that support it. Someone objecting to WP:LQ can still say "That's not right in American English" but we can prove them wrong if they say "You guys just made that up!"

Again, you're assuming that time spent on MOS:SUPPORTS is time taken away from other articles, and that's not so. Providing a list of sources in a centralized place (with refs ready-formatted!) makes it easier and faster to edit articles on similar subjects. Case in point, when I was working on the part of Full stop that covered periods and quotation marks I went back to Quotation marks in English so that I could simply copypaste some of the sources that I'd already formatted for ref tags there (re-checking the pages and updating the accessdates just to be sure, of course). I actually do this quite a lot when working on articles that are similar to each other. Wasting time is, to use your words, another non sequitur because no one's insisting that you use up any of yours. If you want to spend your own energy doing things that you find more satisfying or productive, go ahead.

The MoS might not be an article, but unlike, say, a policy page, it asserts facts. (That's one of the reasons it really should be worded in the imperative.) All of those facts must be verifiable or they don't belong here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The simple and obvious solution is remove out-of-place editorial commentary from MoS. The guideline's sole purpose is to advise how to write WP articles, period. Anything not consisting of that advice, and examples of its application, is dead weight. MoS asserts facts about what decisions WP has made with regard to how styles will be used on WP. There can be no external sources for those assertions, and nothing will make that fact go away. To the extent MoS ever says anything about external usage, it's generally because the proponents of this "source the MoS" stuff (and a handful of others, mostly retired as editors) have insisted that it do so on certain points (and these "observations" are often counterfactual), despite no need for MoS to do anything of the sort. Commentary in MoS itself on what other sources do is off-topic clutter, and because WP:CORE cannot be applied to WP:POLICY material, such commentary always runs the risk of being WP:BOLLOCKS. The rehashing of this same basic "source the MoS!" thread for 6+ years is concrete proof that this clutter is disruptive and should be excised: The entire rationale for it – circular reasoning and WP:FAITACCOMPLI – is to source extraneous junk material that does not belong in MoS to begin with, but should be covered at our articles on grammar and style matters. Which leads us right back where we started: Sourcing belongs in articles, not in guidelines or their subpages. The confusion on this point simply breeds more of the same confusion and strife about it, and removing the material causing the confusion will bring that vicious cycle to a rapid end. I'm strongly reminded of item #10 at User:SMcCandlish#Funniest things I've seen on Misplaced Pages (the "moved spam down" case). When there's crap in a page, the solution is to wipe it away, not try to perfume it.

Providing a list of supposed sources for line items in MoS does not do anything to source, or aid in the sourcing of, actual articles, other than what is better done at the articles directly. This isn't difficult to reason through in a few obvious steps:

There are more, but this is enough fuel to launch the "sourcing the MoS = better articles" rocket straight into the sun.

The rest of that post was basically just more rehash, straw men, and other fallaciousness. I'll address it one more time, but I'm going to collapse-box that, too, so everyone else can just skip it.

Anyway, so far I've provided 19 enumerated rationales against this idea (including rebuttals against those offered in favor of it). I think that's sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  07:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Too bad most of those enumerated reasons don't hold water:

Summary: The articles might get better if MOS:SUPPORTS catches on, but they won't magically get worse. The MOS won't magically get less respect. If you think it's a waste of time, don't spend any of yours on it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. Consequently, I will open the RfC process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal.

Everybody is welcome to their view here. Hahun (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Plural verbs for certain collective noun-named rock groups (American English)

Although American English generally does not use plural verbs after collective nouns (not ending in -s). The Wiki manual, however, does acknowledge certain exceptions for nicknames of sports teams. I would guess that, the same reckoning could (sometimes) apply to collective noun names of rock bands and musical groups (with names not ending in "s"). For instance, if discussing a musical group such as the Purple Gang, we could say "the Purple Gang were..." rather than "the Purple Gang was..." as not to confuse readers with the more commonly known 1930s gangsters, the Purple Gang. If we were to say "the Purple Gang was..." then we might accidently confuse the readers into making a false referent. So, wouldn't it be better use the plural verb "were" to subtly distinguish the name of the musical group from the gangsters they were named after? What would be the best choice? And, if the plural verb could be used in this case, shouldn't Wiki specify an exception for names of musical acts (as they do for sports teams) in the manual? Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Why would a band be plural and an actual gang not, or vice versa? They're both a group of people known by a collective name. Aside from the fact that one is a musical organization and one a criminal organization, there would appear to be no difference.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  02:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You can add the word "members" and use a plural verb. See MOS:COMMONALITY. (Please see wikt:accidentally.)

—Wavelength (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC) and 03:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

In either the band or the criminal enterprise case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but according to the manual, exceptions can be made for sports teams, so couldn't exceptions be made for musical acts in a similar fashion? They seem to fall under a similar domain (i.e. often having names that are often chosen as mock derivatives of prior referents)? Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It actually says "the major exception is when sports teams are referred to by nicknames that are plural nouns"; that doesn't often apply to a band, and doesn't address the question here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  18:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Follow the sources. What do reliable sources use? --Jayron32 02:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The underlying issue (aside from the fact that how music journalists write about bands for their audience doesn't force WP's hand in how it encyclopedically writes about bands for our audience) is that that handling of this minor issue varies by source; one will write "The Presidents of the United States of America are a band from ...", and the next will use "The Presidents of the United States of America is a band from ...". In a -s construction like that, "are" tends to be a bit more common because it rolls off the tongue a little easier. When it comes to a choice between "The Foo is a band from ..." vs. "The Foo are a band from ...", and "Foo is a band from ..." vs. "Foo are a band from ...", the opposite is more likely to be the case, based primarily on what sounds better, not what makes the most sense from a phrasal logic perspective. If someone does apply that kind of reasoning, they're more apt to treat the band as a unit, especially when writing about overall band history/milestones, but might be more likely to use a plural if the nature of their piece focuses more on personalities in the band and their lives. I've noticed a tendency for bands who have had a lot of membership churn (e.g. The Damned), and thus an unclear idea of who is in the band at any given time, to be treated as a singular noun, and so on, but even The Residents (mostly anonymous) tend to be written about as "The Residents are ..." because of the -s construction, probably. The more famous the individual members of a band are, the more likely a writer is to use a plural form ("Led Zeppelin were a band ..."), or so it seems. I'd bet real money, though, that there's a shift in average distribution of singular vs. plural forms between academic vs. journalist sources.

Anyway, either approach used on WP is following the sources (some of them), and ignoring others, simultaneously. A quick skim suggests that something like half of our band articles are written using the plural, both for present and former bands, and that it doesn't have all that much to do with a -s suffix ("Foo Fighters is an American rock band ..." but "Stray Cats were an American rockabilly band ..."; "U2 are an Irish rock band ...", but "Front Line Assembly (FLA) is a Canadian electro-industrial band ...). I lean toward the singular because it's conceptually cleaner, and doesn't lead to awkward constructions like "The band have sold more than 100 million records worldwide", which is a questionable statement (if you're taking the plural approach on the basis that a band consists of its individual members, then solo and other projects' albums involving those people could be counted toward that total; just one example of where this can lead to problems).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  18:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Specialized-style fallacy (WP:SSF).

—Wavelength (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Summarizing and combining Jayron's and SmC's responses, I'll say it looks like neither practice is forbidden, so Misplaced Pages's "keep the article internally consistent" rule is the only one in play. Use your judgment but don't edit war. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This has come up in enough RfCs that they should probably be reviewed to see if a consensus emerged from them. It's been a debate subject at Talk:The Beatles many times (with repeated assertions, without sources, that it's some kind of British vs. US English matter, which is highly dubious), and I've seen it raised on a lot of other talk pages about bands, sports teams, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  01:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

My 2¢ as the person who added the North American sports team bit to MOS. I made that addition because the use of plural verbs for North American sports teams that have plural nicknames (like Patriots, Royals, Warriors, Blackhawks, Timbers etc) is universal in sports writing and general journalism in both Canada and the US. This is true whether the full name (eg, the Kansas City Royals are a baseball team) or just the nickname (the Royals are members of the American League) is used, but not for just the geographic portion (Kansas City has won the 2015 World Series). This is so common in American and Canadian English (and not just in sports sections, so WP:SSF does not apply) that to do otherwise just looks wrong.

So what does that mean for bands? Absolutely nothing. Bands are treated far less consistently, so there's no steadfast convention like sports teams have. And trying to extrapolate a rule for them from the established sports team convention is apples and oranges. So I agree with Darkfrog. As long as it's consistent on the page, it's fine. (That said "Foo Fighters is" just sounds weird to me.) oknazevad (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: tense in biographies of non-living people

I would like to "borrow" the sentence about making references to TV shows in the present tense and apply it to biographical articles, you know, articles about people like Lady Di, John Lennon or Mother Teresa on the grounds that, even though the three are examples of dead people, their work (e.g. John Lennon's work with The Beatles or Lady Di's work for England, hence her appelative, "Englad's rose") still lives in our hearts, right? --Fandelasketchup (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The exact sentence I would like to "borrow" from said strand of this Manual of Style is the following:"References to the show should be in the present tense since shows—even though no longer airing—still exist, including in the lead (e.g. Title is a...)" but adapting it for articles of living and dead people --Fandelasketchup (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What's the precise wording you're proposing? It seems awkward to say "...people—even though dead—still exist..." Nor do I think we want to write "Dianna Princess of Wales is a..." in the lead. Pburka (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe this is standard practice for biographies of non-living people on or off of Misplaced Pages. Do you know of a precedent for it anywhere, Fandelasketchup? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This would be pretty aberrant with regard to normal English language use, and very confusing for our readers. Even our present-tensing of canceled TV shows is problematic in the views of some; extending it to humans would be going way too far.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  00:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I totally get the point, but there is a strong tradition in our society of defining a person as something which ceases to exist upon death. But it gets confusing (to me anyway) when we refer to a person's continuing role, as in, "Isaac Newton is the founder of the scientific method", where Isaac Newton exists only in the past, but his status as founder is present. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Titles

AP Stylebook: "In general, confine capitalization to formal titles used directly before an individual's name" (my italics).

Example: "Capitalize president only as a formal title before one or more names." Sca (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This is general practice in U.S. journalism and publishing. There's no logical expository reason to capitalize common nouns such as king, president, etc., unless referring to a specific person. (No more than with organizational titles, such as chairman, director, general, etc.)

No policy should be maintained merely because it's established practice or tradition. That's how institutions become ossified relics. Sca (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

See MOS:JOBTITLES.—Wavelength (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is already covered, in the direction you're proposing. If you're encountering people who ignore this point and over-capitalize in constructions like "Smith is an Electrical Engineer and a Systems and Network Administrator at FooCorp", it's because a) they're more familiar with "business English" not formal writing and have not noticed or absorbed the MoS (and CMoS and Oxford, etc.) way of doing it, or b) they're ignoring it on purpose in pursuit of a WP:Specialized style fallacy, which is especially common with government job titles, and with unusual ones (mostly in the tech industry, e.g. "framework evangelist", etc.). It's safe to just lower-case them and move on, citing MOS:JOBTITLES, as Wavelength suggests.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  00:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

As disclosure, there was a recent dispute about this over on Main Page errors. The contentious issue was not about job titles in general (no one is arguing that every instance of king/president/electrical engineer should be capitalised), but about the third exception of MOS:JOBTITLES: When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name (e.g. King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king). Does this caveat hold true, or should (like what I think the proposer is suggesting) we reclarify this? Fuebaey (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Gender identity: subsidiary articles

Template:Formerly

References to the person in other articles: context decides on what action to take, defaulting to the identity as defined for the main biography if the context gives no clear indication which should be preferable. Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over name and/or gender identity changes, unless these are relevant to the article where the name of the person is inserted.

For clarification, I believe this means a trans woman should be referred to as if she were a cisgender man in an article where events specific to believing she was a man at that time are mentioned. For example, the Caitlyn Jenner article should treat Jenner like a woman (she should be referred to as she/her throughout the article,) but the 1976 Summer Olympics article (and articles that refer to her as an Olympic participant) should treat Jenner as if she were a cisgender man named Bruce because she played in men's sports. Any corrections on what this new paragraph means?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I am revising the heading of this section from Clarify what this means?? to Gender identity: subsidiary articles, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 11 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents, and it facilitates maintenance of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Register.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The VPP thread addressing that issue was just closed today. Gimme a minute to read it and we'll work something out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that we place the following in the MoS and relevant sub-pages:

Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Consider the context created by the article in question and the principle of least astonishment, and refer to a transgender individual either solely by the current name or by both names if appropriate or necessary to avoid confusion. EXAMPLE: If the article is about men's sports, say "Bruce Jenner (later Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the Olympics in 1976." If the article is about films in general, say "Lana Wachowski helped create The Matrix." If the article is about gender in film, say, "Lana Wachowski, credited as Larry Wachowski, helped create The Matrix.

I feel this text reflects the findings of the RfC reasonably well. For example, the RfC pretty clearly rejected using the previous name alone, and these examples (which can be formatted as needed) provide two different ways of referring to a previous or subsequent name. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

For the WT:MOS archives, here is a permanent link to that WP:VPP discussion.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC) and 03:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Francis S objected to the text above, so I've tried this: Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. If the article refers to a period after the person's gender transition, use the current name and identity. If the article refers to a period before transition, consider the context created by the article in question—both content and text layout—and the principle of least astonishment. In most cases use either solely the current name or both names if appropriate or necessary to avoid confusion. For example, if the article is about men's sports, say something like "Bruce Jenner (later Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the Olympics in 1976." If the article is about films in general, say "Lana Wachowski helped create The Matrix." If Wachowski's previous name is relevant, say, "Lana Wachowski, credited as Larry Wachowski, helped create The Matrix. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Jenner is a contentious example (editors don't agree on this example by far – leave alone that some consensus would have developed: didn't happen), so Jenner can not in any way or format be used as an example in guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That's easy enough to fix. Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Consider the context created by the article in question—both content and text layout—and the principle of least astonishment. Usually, it will be best to use solely the current name or both names if appropriate or necessary to avoid confusion. For example, if the article is about films in general, consider "Lana Wachowski wrote the script for her film in 1994." If Wachowski's previous name is relevant, consider, "Lana Wachowski, credited as Larry Wachowski, wrote the script for her film in 1994" or "Larry Wachowski (later Lana Wachowski) wrote the script for the film in 1994." I feel it's important to give more than one format. Otherwise, people might think that one way or the other is required in all cases. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, not representing the outcome of the recent RfC, but just a rehash of the proposer's solution before we went to the RfC (for clarity: the outcome of the RfC did not show any consensus for that proposal). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if by "my proposal" you mean "both if relevant," that was the option that got the plurality of favorable comments, but no the text proposed here is not a rehash of that or anything. It's a mashup of the two options that included context, per the closer's instructions. Specifically, it's a combination of your "Other1" proposal with the "both if relevant." It also includes instructions not to use the previous name alone, also per the closer: The overall consensus here seems to be in favour of using context to decide on what action to take, once second choice votes are taken into account. Throughout, there seems confusion over what to do when, and this seems like the most inclusive close taking accounts of all the opinions raised and No consensus to implement , leaning towards oppose. The oppose votes linking practical issues to this option are higher weighting to me.

We're going to have to translate that into actual useful MoS instructions, and the text you added doesn't do this. But does seeing the rest of the closer's text give you any good ideas? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's my next attempt to translate the closure text into MoS text: Generally do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Use context and the principle of least astonishment to determine whether to use the current name alone or both names. Only very rarely will it be appropriate to use the previous name alone. For example, if the article is about films in general, consider "Lana Wachowski wrote the script in 1994." If Wachowski's previous name is relevant, consider, "Lana Wachowski, credited as Larry Wachowski, wrote the script in 1994" or "Larry Wachowski (later Lana Wachowski) wrote the script in 1994." Context gets top billing? Check. Always previous only rejected? Check. Vague enough to encompass the confusion noted by the closer? Check. Still provides useful examples? Check. The imperative mood ("do this" vs "this is true") is my doing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, just someone continuing to push their own preferences against the RfC outcome. IMHO the only part useable (as direct guideline expression) from the closer's comment is "...using context to decide on what action to take..." So here's what'll have to do (as there is no agreement on any other stuff):

Referring to the person in other articles

The context is used to decide on what action to take.

Sorry if that's unclear as to what it means, but that's what the community decided, nothing else, so please stop trying to fill this in with additional comments from your perspective. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No, Francis, that is not what the community decided, not what the closer said, and not useful as MoS text. As for which parts of the RfC close are usable, the "Generally..." statement was a part of every option offered except Other 2 and there was no objection to it to speak of. Safe to say it's in. The closer did a separate close specifically to address the ALWAYS PREVIOUS subsection, so that decision is usable as well. Let's try this again:

Generally do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Use context and the principle of least astonishment to determine which name or names to provide. Only very rarely will it be appropriate to use the previous name alone. The MoS does not have specific rules stipulating which name to use first or how that name should be given. For example, in an article in which Lana Wachowski's previous name is relevant, both "Lana Wachowski, credited as Larry Wachowski, wrote the script in 1994" and "Larry Wachowski (later Lana Wachowski) wrote the script in 1994" and other formats are allowed.

The point of these examples is to give the reader ideas, not to imply that these are the only acceptable ways to get the job done, so we can of course just say so straight out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It's been two days, so I'm putting up the text and updating MoS:REGISTER. Comments on the wording there are also appropriate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that, you're still pushing to get your preferred "ideas" in the guidance. These ideas have however no consensus. That should've been clear by now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Francis, if you apply the same standards, your version doesn't have consensus either. You are currently the only person who is supporting your interpretation of the close. The thing to do is to engage on the talk page and encourage more people besides the two of us to participate. For now, I will put the placeholder back. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You had your chances, the RfC outcome is as it is, that's the consensus for now. Never said you couldn't try to find a new consensus per WP:CCC. What you can't do is take the guideline hostage until a new consensus develops. Until then (if ever): the current consensus goes in the guideline, period. Your antics have taken quite long enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Francis, what you need to recognize here is that you are interpreting the RfC; you are pushing your own ideas. The text that I offered does reflect the findings of the RfC—or at least that's how I see it. You are allowed to have an opinion of your own, but you're not allowed to act like that opinion is any better than anyone else's. We need to bring in more people. There are plenty of regulars on this talk page who like a minimalist approach, so don't feel that this means your version is necessarily out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

What I believe I meant in the close was that there should be no hard rules made for this situation - instead, the consensus seems to point towards leaving it vague and letting it be decided and sorted on a per-article basis. Mdann52 (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mdann52. I'd say both versions that have been offered are sufficiently vague and both establish that users have a lot of freedom. I guess it's a question of taste and functionality.

...so I'm pinging everyone who's been active in this thread and on WT:MOS in the past few days so we can get more than two voices. @Chris the speller:@Rupert Clayton: @Peter coxhead:@Georgia guy: @Kashmiri: @Francis Schonken: @SMcCandlish: @Tony1: @Wavelength: @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Guys, we've got two versions of MoS content on offer. Both are interpretations of the closure of this RfC about transgender individuals. The closer actually provided two explanatory texts, one on the overall proposal and one on a specific rule requiring that the previous name be used in all cases :

Interpretation #1: The context is used to decide on what action to take (see RfC outcome).

Interpretation #2: Generally do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Use context and the principle of least astonishment to determine which name or names to provide. Only very rarely will it be appropriate to use the previous name alone. The MoS does not have specific rules stipulating which name to use first or how that name should be given. For example, in an article in which Lana Wachowski's previous name is relevant, both "Lana Wachowski, credited as Larry Wachowski, wrote the script in 1994" and "Larry Wachowski (later Lana Wachowski) wrote the script in 1994" and other formats are allowed.

Does the longer version earn the space it would take up? Is the shorter version clear enough? Which, if either of these texts should we include in the MoS and how could either of them be improved upon? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of interpretation, there needs to be a good example of when this means a transgender person should be referred to by their gender of rearing. Georgia guy (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

My take on that is that the RfC did not answer that question for us, so the MoS should not take a position on that issue for now. Right now, we need to decide how to take what the RfC did give us, 1) use context, 2) "always previous" is out, 3) no objection to the "Generally..." line (which matches good third-party sources), and turn it into WT:MoS-style instructions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: I agree that the RfC does not allow us to give a "good example". While I have great sympathy for the aim of putting something clearer in the MoS, given that the consensus seems to point towards leaving it vague and letting it be decided and sorted on a per-article basis, I don't think it can be done at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I wouldn't ask, but it seems necessary: Do you mean that you specifically prefer the first wording, chopping the examples off the second wording, or some third phrasing? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Concur. As badly as I want to see this settled and clarified once and for all, it simply won't happen if we try to impose something not supported by the latest RfC round. It'll simply cause another mile-long dispute. Better to work in what consensus did call for, and revisit the matter in a year or so, after it's had time to have an effect. It may be enough to resolve all the issues; if not, at least it'll be a narrower issue or subset of issues to resolve.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  02:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Both parties agree that the wording should reflect the consensus established in the RfC. The disagreement is over how to word that consensus. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Gender identity: biographical articles thread has been closed

We have official closure with no consensus and a recommendation to "rerun in the future with a clearer layout and options." (Sigh) It had fewer options before people started adding more. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

They added more because the originals were poorly thought out. When this gets revisited, this should be "pre-RfCed" here, with agreement on how to phrase the questions (for one thing, it was pretty much fatal to the whole thing that the pronouns issue was not explicitly in there), then present it to the community at VP and CENT for resolution. Due to issue fatigue, I think 6-12 months is a good timeframe, but that's just my opinion, and I wouldn't oppose 3. Tempers are too hot for any sooner than that, I think. We have a problem that this has been meatpuppet shopped to external TG forums, and the resulting influx of language-change activists has at times been really nasty to actual WP editors, calling them names, questioning their ethics and empathy, etc., etc. It needs to cool off, and for the interlopers to go wander off back to teh interwebs flaming boards.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  02:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization for Board of Aldermen, etc.

User:Chris the speller and I have been disagreeing about whether the terms "Board of Supervisors", "Board of Aldermen", "Board of Assistant Aldermen", "City Council", "Common Council", and so on should be capitalized when used in reference to a specific (US) institution, such as the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, but without the city name prepended.

My argument is that these terms should be capitalized, following the guidance at MOS:INSTITUTIONS and the practice of major US English style guides such as AP and Chicago. Chris's argument, if I understand it correctly, is that "specific" usage requires a uniquely named body, so that it's correct to capitalize "Department of State" because there are no others, but not correct to capitalize "Board of Aldermen" because many cities and other settlements have these.

I see that this was discussed here a few months ago, but Chris and I still disagree. I would appreciate some input from other editors to help clarify the correct WP style. I'm particularly concerned because I realize that Chris is a very productive editor and is making similar changes to quite a few articles. It would be good to minimize any work needed to revert these.

Also, I would suggest that MOS:INSTITUTIONS is revised to use an example other than "Department of State", so that there's no confusion about whether capitalization is dependent on the organization having a unique name. Rupert Clayton (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I dislike the style, but I think it's clear from MOS:INSTITUTIONS that the intention is to decapitalize as per Generic words for institutions, organizations, companies, etc., and rough descriptions of them .. do not take capitals. There's no logical difference between these two cases:

The University of Westminster is located in London. ... The university offers courses in ..."

where the decapitalization of "university" is specifically mandated at MOS:INSTITUTIONS, and

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is the legislative body ... The board of supervisors has 11 members."

Peter coxhead (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's an "intention to decapitalize" institution names used in a specific sense. If there were, we would have "the department of state" and "the treasury", which is not WP style. I think the difference between your two cases is that "university" is a common noun being used as such, and "Board of Supervisors" is a short, but still specific, name of an institution.Rupert Clayton (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What if it were just "board"? Isn't a board of supervisors just a kind of board, like a board of directors? How do you distinguish between common nouns and specific names? My inclination is generally towards minimal capitalization, as excessive capitalization looks arbitrary and self-important. Capitalize what must be capitalized, and no more. Pburka (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there's solid agreement that references to the board, the council, or the university don't merit capitalization. But major style guides (and in my opinion the current MOS) distinguish between that kind of usage and a recognized short name used in reference to a specific body, as in the Board of Supervisors or the Common Council. I didn't see much ambiguity when I read the MOS:INSTITUTIONS advice to also treat as a proper name a shorter but still specific form, consistently capitalized in reliable generalist sources (e.g., US State Department or the State Department, depending on context). Apparently others found this ambiguous, which is why I brought the issue here. I also felt that the recent MOS discussion was pretty clear in advising how to handle these cases.

If there's a clear MOS policy and no consensus to change it, then that's our style. If policy is unclear, or there's consensus for change, then common usage in reliable sources and in established style guides would be good places for us to look. (And as I mentioned, AP Stylebook and Chicago Manual of Style both capitalize these terms used as the short name for a specific institution.) Personal preference is nice (I too prefer capitalization to be sparing) but it's a weak justification to base the MOS on. Rupert Clayton (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I misrepresented the Chicago Manual of Style position, based on search results that led me to a PDF of the first edition. The 15th edition supports capitalization only for some short names of organizations and institutions, and specifically cites city council as a lower-case example. I don't have a copy of the current (16th) edition. AP's approach (based on a ten-year-old copy) is different and closer to what seems to be current MOS policy. It capitalizes short names of governmental institutions when they are specific in the context (such as City Council or Board of Supervisors in an article with the dateline of that city), and only use lower case for generic usages. Rupert Clayton (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be enough support for capitalizing "Board of Supervisors" (within and without WP) when it is understood to refer to a particular named "Board of Supervisors of Xxxxx" that I can go along with it. The MoS could use slight expansion to clarify that. An interesting example is "The University of Chicago is governed by a board of trustees. The Board of Trustees oversees the long-term development ...", and I can imagine that some editor seeing that might be tempted to make the capitalization consistent. Chris the speller  15:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a good discussion of this issue, but it's interesting that the disagreement Rupert describes to open this section is not in fact the disagreement Rupert and Chris had on Chris' talk page. That disagreement was whether to capitalize "board of aldermen" in the sentence, "Boards of aldermen are used in many rural areas of the United States ...", which is a much simpler issue. This sentence does not refer to a specific board of aldermen (the plural should be enough to demonstrate that), so the phrase should not be capitalized. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I realize that I wasn't clear in my comments on Chris's talk page about the usage I was questioning. My objection was to this specific edit to the Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors article. In our discussion, Chris cited some text from the Aldermen article: Boards of aldermen are used in many rural areas of the United States .... The term is certainly being used generically there and there's no need for capitals other than the "B" at the start of the sentence. With that clarification, I would regard Bryan Henderson's comment as agreeing with the reading of MOS:INSTITUTIONS that I put forward. Rupert Clayton (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be enough support for capitalizing "Board of Supervisors" .. when it is understood to refer to a particular named "Board of Supervisors of Xxxxx" – but why then not capitalize "University" when it is understood to refer to a particular named "University of X"? What precisely is the difference between the two examples I gave above? There seem to be two consistent rules:

1. Capitalize when a short form clearly refers to a particular entity whose full name is capitalized.
2. Decapitalize when a short form can be used generally (e.g. can be used with "a" or in the plural) regardless of what it refers to.

I prefer (1) but it seems that the modern trend is towards (2), which is what I believe is the intended MoS style. Capitalizing "Board of Aldermen" but not "University" would require a third rule which distinguishes them. Please tell me what it is! Peter coxhead (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Though I agreed above that I could go with the flow, my sense of proper capitalization is completely in line with Peter coxhead's, and I, too, wonder what precisely is the difference between the two examples he gave. Various "boards" are highly overcapitalized in WP. If an editor writes "Smith became senior vice president of Blemmica in 2002 and then joined the board of directors in 2007", is there any confusion for readers, or is there any disrespect of Smith or the Blemmica company by not capitalizing "Senior Vice President" or "Board of Directors"? An encyclopedia should provide information to its readers, and capitalize properly, but not set out to aggrandize a person or institution. Chris the speller  18:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I do understand Peter coxhead and Chris's trouble in distinguishing between the function in a sentence of university and Board of Supervisors. Both are short terms for bodies with longer full names. I believe the distinction is that the university, the board, the council, etc. standing alone are essentially indistinguishable from common nouns, whereas the Board of Supervisors clearly is not. Maybe I can illustrate this via a ranking:

Many styles, apparently including our own, capitalize use C and not use D. What's the difference? AP has this rationale for capping City Council in use C: Retain capitalization if the reference is to a specific council but the context does not require the city name. It doesn't capitalize use D, but doesn't say why. My own take is that any reference indistinguishable from a common noun is not capitalized, even when used in reference to a specific body, hence the university hired.... Conversely, a short name that is not a common noun gets a capital when used in a specific sense (the Board of Supervisors voted...) and does not when used generically (every county's board of supervisors).

There are still uncertainties with this style. Which multi-word terms do we say are indistinguishable from a common noun, and which are not? For example, I capitalized City Council but not glee club in the examples above. Perhaps we could agree that terms that appear consistently uncapitalized in major dictionaries should not get capitals when used as a short form for a specific institution. Using Chambers Dictionary that rule would give us the glee club and the board of directors but the City Council and the Board of Supervisors. Thoughts?

Finally, I think our style for senior vice president, etc. is pretty clearly expressed in MOS:JOBTITLES. Rupert Clayton (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rupert Clayton: sorry, but agreeing to decapitalize board of directors but not Board of Supervisors seems to me (a) nonsensical (b) impossible to implement as a policy in a free-to-edit encyclopedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A few months ago I did a bunch more looking into this question and there was discussion about it involving Peter coxhead, Blueboar and others, at WT:MOSCAPS (now archived at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 19#Clarifying MOS:INSTITUTIONS). Consensus may actually have been reached to clarify some points, but I'm not sure any clarifications were made prior the archive bot swooping in. What recent discussion should be taken into account in detail as part of the current one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  11:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I don't think we did reach a consensus there – we arrived at pretty much the point we have above, namely that no-one has (yet) put forward a clear general rule that does not refer to sources, which are divided on this issue, and which can be cherry-picked. (As an example, a rule like terms that appear consistently uncapitalized in major dictionaries should not get capitals when used as a short form for a specific institution would need a clear definition of what is meant by major dictionaries and what to do if they disagree.) The simplest and therefore best solution here is to go for maximum decapitalization – a policy I recommend but dislike. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: @Peter coxhead: I'm not a big fan of over-capitalization, but I think it would be wise to have a style that reflects the consensus of other major style guides (so far as that exists). That will benefit encyclopedia readers through the principle of least astonishment, and editors by minimizing the frequency with which we need to get into this kind of discussion. But we may also want to emphasize simplicity. Our style already capitalizes proper nouns and lower-cases common nouns. Can we say something like:

On first reference to a specific organization or institution, generally use its full name with initial capitals, such as "San Francisco Board of Supervisors" or "the University of California". In subsequent references, if you use a shortened form in a specific sense, capitalize that also, such as "the Board of Supervisors met in closed session". Do not capitalize common nouns even when used to refer to specific organizations: "the board met in closed session", "the university has 10 campuses". Also, do not capitalize indefinite, generic and plural usage of organization names: "every county in California has a board of supervisors", "delegates from London and Cardiff universities".

That's very rough, and I'm happy for people to propose better phrasing and examples. In fact, with some time, it would probably be best to take the existing MOS:INSTITUTIONS text and tweak it appropriately. Rupert Clayton (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rupert Clayton: if I understand correctly, the distinction you propose is between shortening a full name to a noun and shortening it to a noun phrase (in "a board of supervisors", "board" is just as much a common noun as is "university" in your example above). This is certainly a principle that is easy to follow, which I commend. Whether it commands consensus I'm less clear. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The noun–noun phrase distinction would be easy to follow, but the noun phrase "city council" is shown predominantly, and maybe exclusively, in lower case in dictionaries. I would favor lower case for any possessive use of a group, as in "the city's board of supervisors voted to table the issue until 2027". As an aside, I would like to express my admiration for all the editors who have taken part in this discussion for the civility they have shown, though we have diverse and deeply held opinions of what is best for WP. I especially commend Rupert for the wicked humor used in the above table, particularly the fourth column; I honestly laughed out loud. Chris the speller  01:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Responding to four in a row: I concur with Rupert and Peter on the shortening / noun phrase matter. The entire problem is that there is no consensus among other style guides for cases like "in yesterday's ity ouncil vote", where the organization type is given, not its full name ("Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco") or a fairly formal geographically specific abbreviation of it ("San Francisco Board of Supervisors", "SF Board"). Mostly only journalism style guides capitalize it "City Council" by itself when standing in for such a longer, more specific phrase (and never in a case like "any given city may have a cronyism problem on its city council"), and it's usually only capitalized even in these cases by city papers referring to the council of their own cities. WP is not written in news style. When we choose between academic and journalistic style, academic wins pretty much every single time. Even aside from that, no city is WP's city; WP is the world's encyclopedia, so the the sometime rationale for journalists to capitalize "the City Council" simply cannot ever logically apply here except in a direct quotation (no, not even a close paraphrase). Like Chicago Manual of Style and Oxford/Hart's, MoS lower-cases by default, and does not capitalize unless it's necessary or it's consistently conventional to do so (see WP:BIRDCON; this was debated for eight years straight in a similar but not directly related matter, and lower-case was the consensus in a really massive and source-laden RM, closed as lower case by an admin who actually favored caps, so it absolutely was not some kind of questionable "supervoting" situation).

MOS probably needs a clarification edit regarding defaulting to lower case to make it clearer that, yes, we do in fact always do so, and that a case for capitalization has to be very strong.

I agree that the increase in civility is a nice turn. So many people come to this talk page to rant, accuse, decry, and generally vent, it is often among the highest-stress areas of the project for its regulars. I also concur that we don't need to define major dictionaries, since probably zero dictionaries capitalize anything like "city council". Also, we already have a very clear guideline at WP:RS that tells us what a major dictionary is, just like it tells us what a major newspaper, journal, book publisher, etc. are.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  02:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be an excellent case for stating as clearly as possible that the MOS default is lower case for anything other than full proper names and that the case for capitalizing any exceptions has to be very strong. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree. Default is a good way of putting it; so that special justification is required for such wording to be capped. Both Chicago MOS and the Oxford New Hart's Rules say to minimise capitalisation, generally. It's an increasing tendency in the language, not decreasing, so there's no point in going pointing WP backwards, either. Tony (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Clarifying MoS on this point would greatly reduce the amount of capitalization-related strife on WP, and not just at WT:MOS and WT:MOSCAPS, but in a large number of RMs and other matters on article talk pages. MoS's secondary purpose (the primary one being a consistent presentation for readers) is reduction of editorial conflict. (There's still too much of a WP:POVFORK going on between Proper noun and Proper name, but that can be resolved later.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  02:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

"Health Care" or "Healthcare"

I would have thought that when the primary article title uses a particular styling, and when that title is stable/uncontroversial, the same styling should be used for the titles of related pages. Health care appears to have been stable for quite a while; Healthcare is a redirect to it. While articles related to UK specific subjects may use a different styling to reflect local usage, general titles should use the primary styling. However, Uaer:Kashmiri has begun emptying general categories using the primary styling without discussion, like , and seeking fait accompli speedy deletion in favor of his preferred spelling. (The primary category is also ). This strikes me as both unproductive and an inappropriate evasion of process. "Health care" is the more common usage on en-wiki and the more common result in Google searches, although the margin is only about 10% (although the size of the majority is probably artificially depressed by references to the healthcare.gov website). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a good question, baring HW's constant complaints about my editing. Misplaced Pages has to-date not standardised on any of the two spelling variants, and there are quite a few articles using both "healthcare" and "health care", in the body and in titles (see a long list at Health care). Health care system was first drafted as Healthcare system, then uncontroversially moved to its current spelling. The category Health care, similarly, was Healthcare for many years, until an editor proposed renaming in 2012 and another editor carried this out.. Then last November Rathfelder proposed renaming it back to Healthcare for sake of consistency and now I carried this out. I see it as non-controversial, too, and am happy to follow any guideline once created. Of course, HW will now accuse me of disregard of "due process"! However, I see it as a positive development because to-date HW has frequently fought against consensus. Positive change, keep it up! kashmiri 22:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Usage seems to vary both in Misplaced Pages and in the wider world, sometimes on the same page. I think outside the USA healthcare seems to be commoner in recent years. I don't think that is a big problem except when it comes to categorisation, where HotCat is much easier to use with a consistent hierarchy. When I've tried to change subcategories in order to fit into a bigger scheme I get complaints that the category should be determined by the main article - a sensible principle, but difficult when different main articles conflict for no obvious reason. Rathfelder (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me that an RfC at the main page on the topic can serve as essentially a combined WP:RM and WP:CFD to arrive at one consistent spelling or the other, since that kind of consistency is in fact beneficial here both for editors and their tools, and (more importantly) for readers. There are probably zero people competent to read Misplaced Pages whose brains cannot wrap around the idea that "heath care" and "healthcare" are two ways to spell them same thing. There are probably near-zero WP readers who have not seen both spellings and already understand they're two spellings for the same thing. But plenty of readers take a dim view of a site that randomly changes spellings and other styles from page to page. Unless there's proof that one spelling or the other is consistently preferred in British English reliable sources, there's no reason to switch spellings just because an article has something of national tie. WP:ENGVAR is not an excuse to say "there's a strong national tie topically, and a weak or questionable national tie linguistically, but let's pretend there's a strong national tie linguistically and cite ENGVAR to change spellings, or diverge the spelling in the title away from that used in the related articles and the category". Doesn't work that way. And yes, going around and de-populating categories and then trying to CfD away the spelling you don't like is verboten WP:FAITACCOMPLI.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  02:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Films about health care
• Health care