Misplaced Pages

talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:49, 21 August 2015 editCebr1979 (talk | contribs)10,843 edits →Suggested wording (pronouns for fictional characters)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:28, 23 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,942 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 228) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header |WT:MOS |search=no }}
{{Skiptotoctalk}}
{{FAQ|quickedit=no|collapsed=no}}
{{WPMOS}}
{{Round in circles|search=yes}}
{{Talk header|WT:MOS}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=7}}
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive index
{{MOS/R|small=no}}
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive <#>
{{Tmbox|text=For a list of suggested abbreviations for referring to style guides, see ].}}
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}
{{Section sizes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |1=
{{WikiProject Manual of Style}}
{{Misplaced Pages Help Project|importance=Top}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(30d)
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive %(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 168 |counter = 228
|maxarchivesize = 900K
|algo = old(7d)
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive %(counter)d
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4
}} }}
]
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
__TOC__
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive index
{{clear right}}
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive <#>
{{stb}}
|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes}}
==Style discussions elsewhere==
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- ] 06:15, 18 June 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1876457735}}<!-- END PIN -->
Add a link to new discussions at top of list and indicate what kind of discussion it is (move request, RfC, open discussion, deletion discussion, etc.). Follow the links to participate, if interested. Move to ''Concluded'' when decided, and summarize conclusion. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

===Current===
(newest on top)
<!--
Don't add threads that are on the same page as this list.
Capitalization-specific entries should go in the corresponding section at the top of:
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
-->
* ]
* ] - a discussion pertaining to ].
* ] - new discussion around the use of ] in article title specific to train accidents (Jan 2025).
* ] - Open Discussion on lead placement of templates <nowiki>{{further}}, {{broader}}, etc as compared to {{main}} and {{see also}}</nowiki>. Since those are popular templates I thought it best to get more input.
* ] - A ]/] question
* ] – Plural possessive ] question
* ]
* ] – to use policy-based material on "Christ" found in an essay but more useful in a guideline. (Nov. 2024)
* ] – Has stylistic implications (punctuation, leading "The", etc.) despite not being intrisically an MoS matter. (Nov. 2024)
* ] - use of flag icons in infobox per ] (Sep.–Nov. 2024) – See also prior ].
<!--Please put newer entries at the top.-->

{{block indent|1=<nowiki />
'''Pretty stale but not "concluded":'''
* RfC needed on issue raised at ] (June–July 2004, archived without resolution). Presently, the royalty/nobility wikiprojects have imposed putting British peerage titles in place of names in biographical infoboxes, against ], ], and the template's documentation. Either the community will accept this as a best practice and the guidelines changed to accomodate it, or it should be undone and the infobox used consistently and as-intended.
* A ] revision RfC needs to be drafted, based on ] (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024, archived without resolution). JOBTITLES remains a point of confusion and conflict, which the guidelines are supposed to prevent not cause.
* ] – Involves ] (plus ], ], ]). Covers more than thread name implies. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Stalled without resolution; at least 3 options identified which should be put to an RfC.
* ] – Involves ], ], ], ], etc. (Sep. 2023 –) ''Result:'' Still unresolved, though consensus seems to lean toward permitting lower-case "prophet" when needed for disambiguation, but no agreement yet on specific guideline wording.
* ] – Specifically in tables, possibly elsewhere. ] (at the table "General guidelines on use of units") has an example of existing use that is being challenged, and material at ] is also at issue. (Dec. 2023 –) ''Result:'' Still unresolved.
* ] – Help page is conflicting with ] and ] on a technical point. (Aug. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' No objection to fixing it, and a suggestion to just do it ]ly, but the work actually has to be done.
<!--Please put newer entries at the top.-->
}}<!-- end of block indent -->

{{block indent|1=<nowiki />
'''Capitalization-specific:'''
{{Excerpt| Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters|Current|subsections=no}}
}}

===Concluded===
{{collapse top|left=y|title=Extended content}}
<!--Please put newer additions at the top, by order of closure. -->
* ] – Use en dash not hyphen in four paired names? ''Result:'' Yes.
* ] – In short, should we use odd-ball stylization of band names and the like to match their marketing? (July–Aug. 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but a clear consensus against this idea, and against the underlying "conflict" premise; the proponent simply did not understand the policy.
** Various simultaneously executed RMs by the same proponent all concluded against the desired over-stylizations (usually ALL-CAPS) – some by affirmative consensus against, some by no consensus to move.
* ] – Should British peers use their peerage title in place of their name in infoboxes? (June–July 2004) ''Result:'' archived without resolution. This needs to be RfCed.
* ] – ]: "Shays'" or "Shays's"? ''Result:'' "Shays's". No objective rationale was presented for an exception to the guideline, and evidence shows "Shays's" common in source material even if "Shays'" is also common, especially in older sources.
* ] – Should multiple entries be formatted as a list or a single phrase? (Apr.–May 2024) ''Result:'' 4:1 against proposed change to a list format; alternative idea at end neither accepted nor rejected.
* ] – Do flags in this infobox serve a "useful purpose" per ] or are they primarily decorative and should be removed? (Apr.–May 2004) ''Result:'' 3:1 against inclusion; the 1 did not read or understand the entire guideline. See also later ].
* ] – Primarily on a recent habit of military-conflict articles having collages of 4, 6, or even more images in their infobox. (Mar.–May 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but a clear consensus against this practice; image galleries (when appropriate at all per ]) belong in the article body.
* ] – ] (and ]) in "day of year" (DoY) article candidates for "featured list". (Feb. 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, and little clear consensus other than that ] / ] apply, as does ].
* ] – On ] vs. ], etc. (Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' No clear consensus reached; a great deal of sourcing is provided, but there's a feeling that real-world usage varies considerably on a case-by-case basis, so ] might invididually trump ]. Worth revisiting in a few years to see whether source usage has shifted.
* ] (moved from WP:VPPOL) – Yet another round of this long-term, multi-RfC process. Consensus about "deadnames" seemed possible this time but was mostly elusive. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' no consensus to change the wording of MOS:GENDERID based on this proposal; consensus against changing "should be included" to "may be included".
** Related: See numerous previous deadname-related and more general GENDERID discussions listed below.
* ] – Proposal to merge a "guideline in all but name" into MoS. (Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' consensus to promote to a guideline (after some significant revisions).
* ] – Peripherally related to ] and ]. (Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Consensus to increase to 250px.
* ] – ] has long been considered too complicated and hard to follow. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' input stalled out over the holidays, then it was archived without resolution.
** ] – Abortive, unclear RfC that resolved nothing. (May–Sep. 2023) ''Result:'' unanimously opposed.
* ] – Involves ], ], ], ]. (Oct.2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Archived without closure. There does not seem to be a compelling reason for this ALL-CAPS behavior in the template/module, but it was still happening in Nov. 2024.
** Discussion re-opened at ] (Nov. 2024). Changed to lowercase ; we'll see if that sticks.
* ] – Involves ], ], ], ], ], etc. (Oct. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but there seems to be no appetite for diverging from ], and the OP commingled unrelated cases like stagenames of real people.
* ] – About use of {{tlx|sronly}} around table captions (which are primarily for screen readers) to hide them from the usual non-screen-reader view, only when their content repeats what is in the table headers. (Nov.–Dec. 2023) ''Result'': Archived without firm resolion. As there was but one opposer of the idea, there is no consensus against doing this. If more opposition arose or some reason, open an RfC about it.
* ] – Involves ]. (Oct. 2023 – Feb. 2024) ''Result:'' Thinly attended, but there does seem to be a linguistics standard to render ]s in {{sc2|smallcaps}}, so this has been accounted for and added to the exception lists at ] (since our articles are consistently doing it based on that sourcing).
* ] – On ] and whether to add another example to it. (Oct. 2023) ''Result'': Discussion archived without a clear conclusion.
* ] – On use of a template to link Korean characters to Wiktionary (Jan. 2024). ''Result'': general consensus to not do that excessive linking; and a bot request made to clean it up.
* ] – Use an en dash instead of a hyphen? ''Result'': Withdrawn
*] – Move review on Pākehā settlers vs. European settlers in New Zealand, related to ], ], ], ] (Feb. 2024). ''Result:'' There were many steps in this process but ultimately ] was moved to ].
* ] – To treat word-substitutions ("U" for "You", "❤️" for "Heart", {{nowrap|"..."}} for elided wording), as "words" for the purposes of a particular line-item about title-case treatment. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Done, with unanimous support.
* ] – To merge a line-item (about stylization of stage/pen names) out of MOS:INITIALS (where the one of the examples is only semi-pertinent anyway) and into ], leaving behind a cross-reference to MOS:TM from ]. (Nov.–Dec. 2023) ''Result:'' Because of some things that apply to personal not corporate names, this ended up not being practical; intead the MOS:BIO material was cleaned up and cross-references between the two MOS sections was improved; description at: ]. No objections or other issues have come up.
* ] – Proposal to add something to ]. (Oct.–Dec. 2023) ''Result:'' "no consensus as to whether or how to standardize ISBNs or whether to subject them to a CITEVAR-like rule .... The closest thing we have to a consensus here is that spaces (option 4) should not be used."
* ] – About changing ] to specify a format (new or otherwise) for betting-odds ratios. (Oct.–Dec. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but apparent general agreement that the <code>:</code> style for ratios in general applies to odds ratio in particular like the rest, and MOS:RATIOS updated to say this.
* ] – Primarily a matter of article title, but there are related issues such as capitalisation. (Nov. 2023) ''Result:'' basically stalled out, without resolution/action. Specific revision proposal is needed.
* ] – Also involves ]. RfC on "season 3, episode 7" vs. "season three, episode seven" styles (and probably also "seventh season" vs. "7th season", etc.). (Oct.–Nov. 2023) ''Result:'' "season and episode numbers should be expressed as numerals in tables, headings, and article body" (revision of a previous, less clear close).
* ] – On how WP uses terms like "terrorist/terrorism" and "freedom fighter", specifically to add a requirement "these words should only be used in quotations or referencing third-party use of the term". (Oct. 2023) ''Result:'' "nearly unanimously opposed".
* ] – Involves ], ], etc. (Sep.–Oct. 2023) ''Result:'' "rough consensus to allow for lowercase or capital letters after dashes or colons in article titles, section titles, and list items".
* ] – ] / ] and Northern Ireland again. (Sep.–Oct. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but near-unanimous consensus against using national flags as ethnicity symbols.
* ] – Involves ] and could have implications for what the guideline says due to wildfire news bringing many more editorial eyes to that page than to ]. (Aug.–Sep. 2023) ''Result:'' Archived without closure or any clear consensus; the general gist seems to be that the state of Hawaii is named Hawaii, the island is named Hawaiʻi, and diacritics (] and ]) should not be suppressed in the more localized names (and the US Geological Survey, which sets official placenames, along with the Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names, which basically tells USGS what to do in Hawaii/Hawaiʻi, both agree).
* ] – ] stuff. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' Not moved. Lots of invalid arguments, and confused attempt to pit ] against MoS (COMMONNAME is not a style policy, never has been one, and never will be; every proposal to incorporate a style matter into a policy has failed).
* ] – Wikiproject propsal to change ] or ]. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' wrong venue, and to the extent people commented on using 24-hour time, it was mostly opposed.
** ] – Above question was raised at a specific article as a "local consensus" matter. (Aug.–Sep. 2023) ''Result:'' unanimous opposition to 24-hour time.
* ] – Follow-up to "unfruitful" discussions at ], etc. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure; general agreement basically boils down to "write clearly and don't confuse or over-simplify with an adjective".
* ] – Wikiproject proposal to change rank abbreviations (to NATO style) in ]. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' no formal closure, but overwhelming consensus to stick with MoS and ignore NATO preferences.
* ] – And some alternative ideas, including merger into ]. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, and the idea was mostly opposed, with no effect but returning all of the shortcuts (], ], ], ], ]) that someone changed to point to the ] essay to now point back to the real guideline at ].
** The essay has since been retooled to be an exegesis of the guideline, though attempts at ]ing are likely to continue, as this is one of our most hotbed internal topics. See also the guideline ], and the essays ] and ].
** ] – Proposal to move the MoS material into WP:BLP. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' Procedurally closed as "premature".
* ] – Should the en dash have spaces around it; should it be an em dash? ''Result:'' moved to spaced en dash.
* ] and ] – Relating to concordance between wikidata descriptions and enwiki "short description". (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' Good summary: "as long as you choose a comprehensible form, your edits are fine. However, you should not change existing descriptions for stylistic reasons, and also not to unify desriptions for a given set of items"; also observations that various languages, e.g. Spanish, do not use an en dash for this purpose. So, Wikidata will not be changing away from hyphen as default, and any desire to have WD material, like automatically provided short descriptions, will have to do that change on our end.
* ] and ] – Use "&" or "and"? (see ]). ''Result:'' Follow ]; the essay ] conflicting with the guideline and with ] policy was noted, and this ] was fixed in Jan. 2024. The second of these actually closed as "no consensus" because the ] who closed it did not know of ] policy and incorrectly treated policy- and guideline-based arguments as no stronger than those based on a contrary essay.
* ] – Some re-wording proposals, and even a suggestion to remove the language entirely. (July 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, and did not result in wording changes, though a re-do might come to such a conclusion.
* ] – move to ] like ], or is there a reason to hyphenate as ]? (July 2023) ''Result:'' Not moved. The closer actually misunderstood the guideline wording badly, and this has created a ] policy failure with titles of other such entities including AFL–CIO, and the Famous Players-Lasky decision covered just below. This probably needs to be re-done.
** ] – ditto. ''Result:'' Procedurally closed as a ] of the RM above.
* ] –&nbsp;proposal to use dash instead of hyphen. (June–July 2023) ''Result:'' Use the dash per ]; a followup RM to add "Corporation" to the title rejected that idea despite ] supporting it, one of several recent RM incidents suggesting that at least some portions of the page do not enjoy consensus.
* ] – Proposal to change ] that "encyclopaedic significance of the deadname established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources, or if they were notable prior to transitioning". (June–July 2023) ''Result:'' "no clear consensus".
* ] – Primarily about "When should Misplaced Pages articles include the former name of a deceased trans or nonbinary person who was not notable prior to transitioning?" (May–June 2023) ''Result:'' "there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. Where, exactly, the lines of encyclopedic interest and avoiding confusion are is not simple or clear and will likely need discussion on individual articles, although there is definitely space for more guidance in the MOS". This has let to a lot of follow-on discussion and dispute.
* ] – Proposal to move section to naming-convention guideline. (June 2023) ''Result:'' no pro or con input; re-opened (Jan. 2024) on main MoS page.
* ] – Proposal to make anti-deadnaming rules apply to the long-deceased as well. (Apr.–May 2023) ''Result:'' No consensus to remove ''living'', so "the ''living'' qualifier, shall remain in place". The May–June 2023 RfC above was an outgrowth of this discussion.
* ] – essential information, or icon cruft? (Mar.–Apr. 2023) ''Result:'' "There is consensus against inclusion of rank icons."
* ] – involves ] and ]. (Feb.–Mar. 2023) ''Result:'' no consensus to use "v"; continue to use "vs." or "vs" as suits the ] of the article.
* ] – Should an external style guide be used in place of ] in chapter lists (e.g. ])? (Jan.–Feb. 2023) ''Result:'' Insufficient input to reach a consensus. Needs to be RfCed. But the {{lang|la|status quo}} default principle is that a lack of consensus to create an exception to general rules does not result in such an exception.
* ] – Open discussion as to whether decimalized years should be used in personal biographies. (Jan. 2023) ''Result:'' discussion archived; majority felt that decimalized years are not standard in biographical prose and should be limited to a statistical/mathematical context.
<!--Please put newer entries at the top.-->
{{block indent|1=<nowiki />
{{Excerpt| Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters|Concluded|subsections=no}}
}}
{{collapse bottom}}

== Is there a MOS guidance that applies to changing between common terms based on the name of the Wiki article? ==

Do we have a guideline for dealing with different name, common names for the same thing (] vs ])? The target article, ], has used both names (changed in 2009 and 2022). Sources use both terms but I think the shorted "I4" is used more often in sources. I presume we would follow something like the MOS:ENGVAR where if there is no source preference we go with what the editors used first. Recently an editor, {{u|Kumboloi}}, made a number of good faith changes in linking articles from "inline-four" to "straight-four" to align external article text with the target article name. Is there a guide on this? How should this be handled? ] (]) 14:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

:It's a policy, our ], which largely doubles as our policy on article titles. Generally, for a given thing there's no reason to use a different name in the prose of any other article than one would use in the article about the thing itself, if that makes sense.<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 14:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm not sure where the naming convention says we should change article text in a case like this. The article in question indicates both names are common (''A straight-four engine (also referred to as an inline-four engine)''). This is also reflected in the two name changes over the years. I don't see where the naming convention says we should favor the target article name vs what the individual article sources are using. Consider a hypothetical, I'm created a Wiki article about the new "CarX". My RS source that says, "CarX uses an ''inline four engine''". Why would I not follow the source vs use the title of our straight four article? This is especially true if if the hyperlink is added later by a different editor. Also, until 2022 the title of the article was "inline". A consensus of 3 editors changed the article name. That's fine but the result is many changes to other articles. If a new consensus of 5 editors reverses the change do we flop back? I think it's less disruptive (makes articles more stable) if we avoid article text changes in cases like this. However, I am interested in knowing what guidance might apply here. ] (]) 15:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::: I'm interested in understanding this. My motivation in making the edits came down to a suspicion that there was some type of penalty incurred by linking through a redirect page, or that the redirects imposed a maintenance overhead. I hadn't read the naming convention, but if there's no real reason to reduce the number of redirected links, and recognizing that the target page could just as easily be renamed again in the future, I'll stop doing these edits. (Personally, I prefer "inline" to "straight", but I can see how the renaming would help organize the associated pages.) Thanks. ] (]) 15:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::My reasoning is ] stresses how we are required to name things, as we are un all editorial decisions, based on WP:V and WP:NPOV (in many cases this boils down to the result of ]). It has provisions specific to the article title and not the body, but much of it is expressing how to apply V and NPOV in deciding what to call things.
::::If we take alternative names as such—e.g. that, all else being equal, we do take ''inline four'' and ''straight four'' to be synonyms, truly referring to the same thing for our purposes—it makes very little sense to "wall off" which names are used in a particular article, as there are no clear limits on how strictly this would have to be observed. Am I allowed to use any synonymous nouns, verbs, or adjectives in my synthesis that don't happen to appear in my three best sources? On the other hand, naming according to a generalized scope is surely more coherent for a hyperlinked encyclopedia providing tertiary analysis instead of merely refactoring and reshuffling the specific language of our secondary sources.
::::Of course exceptions abound, much of the time alternative names and redirects should be freely used according to syntactical and contextual concerns—but I believe this to be correct mindset to assume by default. I don't think any given article that uses ] needs to be changed. However, in cases like these, I feel it pays dividends to use terminology consistently between pages. If readers are encountering technical or domain specific language for the first time, we create the most helpful and coherent tertiary analysis for them if we zoom out a bit. It makes no sense to prefer '']'' to '']'' just because the book we're citing prefers the former—e.g., in an article about a specific battle, or a broad conceptual article not specific to the Sasanians—our deliberately preferring ''Sassanid'' simply does not aid the reader in becoming familiar with whatever additional context they're going to go to ] for in order to better understand our other article.
::::If I wake up and find this totally incoherent, I apologize. It's hard to speak clearly about naming and reference, though it's one of my favorite things to think about. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 16:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::] clearly says: "Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline>]</syntaxhighlight> with <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline>]</syntaxhighlight>." So if a link already leads to the correct article, but using an alternative name that redirects, that's ''absolutely fine'' and nothing more needs to be done. I realize that you're probably not talking about piping, but about changing the link text and link target together – but that too is unnecessary if the existing link target works fine (by redirecting). ] (]) 17:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Kumboloi, thanks for that explanation. It reaffirms my believe that you were acting in good faith (I hope you took my revert that way as well). ] (]) 19:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think there needs to be a good reason to not use the article title in text (and they do exist), and that can be discussed on a per-case basis at the relevant article (or other) talk page.—] (]) 17:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Just so long as it is realized that THERE RATHER OFTEN IS A GOOD REASON! National language preferences for one thing. Busywork drive-by changes should be strongly discouraged. ] (]) 18:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Goes without saying! <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 19:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I just thought I'd drive by and agree with that. ]] 22:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:The answer the the OP's question is "More or less ''yes''", in the form of ]. Remesense's idea above that article titles policy and its dependent naming-conventions guidelines and essays (which actually defer to MoS on style questions) somehow dictate in-article content. They absolutely do not, or we would simply merge them. However, agreement with the page title can actually qualify as a good reason for a text change under STYLEVAR a lot of time, such as when a old page title (and our mirroring of it in the text) was a misnomer, unhelpfully ambiguous, obsolete, or obscurantist. When such problems don't apply, then having more than one way to refer to the subject is a boon to editors and readers, since it allows us to write less repetitively. But the lead should almost always agree with the title, and start with the term/name in the title and secondarily provide any noteworthy alternative(s). Some exceptions of course apply, such as when a term/name in the title is a colloquialism and used for ] purposes in the title but is not the best way to introduce the first sentence (this is especially common at biographical articles, in which we often give the full "Elizabeth" or "Robert" name of someone more commonly called "Liz" or "Bobby" and given that way in the page title). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I think they must dictate in-article content to a degree at least—it would make no sense to use a particular name in the title and initial definition (I've been assuming congruence throughout, e.g. no disambiguators considered) and then never again. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 03:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::That's a correlation/causation mix-up. What you're talking about is just ] (to the point of "Don't be intentionally perverse as if with a goal of confusing readers as much as possible") and a matter of ]. It's not an element of title policy or of naming conventions, which do not address article content (except a few of the worst-written NC pages have a statement or two in them about body content that needs to move out of those pages; I've been cleaning those up as I run across them). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 14:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I've been racking my brain trying to articulate exactly what I mean here, but I do not think it is <em>merely</em> correlative. Hopefully that is a useful thought inasmuch beyond just the trivial truth that the language one is exposed to affects the language they go on to use and think in terms of. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 19:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

== Commas around incorporated businesses' names ==

from looking at ], there isn't any guidance on how to deal with names with '']''. multiple articles do any of the following, either with no comma, a comma only before and a comma around the word.

# {{xt|Mumumu Inc. is a company ...}}
# {{xt|Mumumu, Inc. is a company ...}}
# {{xt|Mumumu, Inc., is a company ...}}

I am aware that the commaless and comma style may coexist (sometimes in the same article!), however the second and third styles should likely be decided upon. ] (]) 01:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! I ''cannot wait'' for someone to say that ''Inc.'' is an "appositive", and therefore the commas have to come in pairs. ]] 01:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Is that the cool way of saying that you don't think it is one? ] (]) 06:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*There is a lengthy discussion at ]. --] &#x1F98C; (]) 09:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@] thank you so much for your link and oh dear it really is long. ] (]) 13:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

== An editing policy question ==

When I read Wiki policy and guidance pages, I sometimes find ''shall'' used instead of ''will'' to indicate what must be done ''—'' for example, in the ] article, we find: "The more signs that are present, the more likely sockpuppetry is occurring, though no accusations '''shall''' be made unless, beyond a reasonable doubt, one is really certain."

Granted that ''shall'' is often used this way in government and judicial documents, I think it sounds somewhat at odds with the more user-friendly ambience Misplaced Pages has tried to create for editors. Besides, ''shall'' is not consistently applied throughout the policy and guidance pages ''—'' for example, in the same ] article, we find: ''"''The closing administrator '''will''' be required to follow the consensus, even if they personally disagree.''"''

— For the above reasons, wouldn't it be in Misplaced Pages's best interests to avoid using the conversationally archaic ''shall'' in these articles and replace it with ''will?''? I doubt that this would make editors with wrongdoing on their minds less likely to behave as desired.


— But if the decision is made to continue "shalling," then for the sake of consistency couldn't a search-and-replace be done throughout the policy and guidance articles to replace ''will'' with ''shall'' where the word needs to indicate what must be done? ] (]) 16:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
== Request for comment: Deprecation of the Template:English variant notice ==


:It's fine, really. This is one of those things the MOS exists to obliquely neutralize—i.e. this is a pretty conjectural position and not worth getting into all-in or all-out discussions over. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion on the ] of ]. ].<small>—]</small><sup>(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub> 07:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
::“Obliquely neutralize” — there’s a new one for me! 😅
::I just thought it would help lighten the bureaucratic tone of these articles to dial down the legalese, as many editors feel increasingly on edge with all the rules and regulations they discover the more they wade into Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Genuinely, I apologize that I can't talk normal when the situation would benefit from it. Take that how you will. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Or shall. ]] 17:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::😂 ] (]) 07:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{small|Am losing the ] here, mate. ] (]) 12:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}}
::::::<small>The classic rule is that, in the first person (I/we) the unmarked form is "shall", whereas "will" connotes a deliberate choice, but in the second and third person, the unmarked form is "will", whereas "shall" connotes a demand based on the speaker's authority.
::::::There are two good ways to remember this. The classic one is the English canard about the Irishman in trouble in the lake, who said "I will drown and no one shall save me", so to respect his wishes, they let him drown.
::::::The other one involves Tallulah Bankhead. I shan't repeat it here. I expect anyone who wants to can Google it. --] (]) 08:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC) </small>


:::Just be aware that you’ve entered the purview of a global encyclopedia, and that means you will encounter forms of English that aren’t necessarily common locally to wherever you live. ] (]) 17:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
=== Forum shopping notice ===
::::Is this one of those ] situations where we should stick to a limited number of ]s on a sliding scale (must > should > may)? --] &#x1F98C; (]) 18:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Administrative}}
::::@], Although I’m aware of different styles of English in different parts of the world, the ''shall/will'' issue I’ve raised here is more about how Misplaced Pages wants to show officially expected actions in particular situations.
The virtually unanimous consensus a week or two ago to deprecated the huge banner version of the ENGVAR templates (see ]) is being forum-shopped in an "RFC" that is not actually an RFC, at ] (and ] wouldn't even be the right venue for such a discussion anyway; it would be ], since this is not a proposal). I don't know what the intent is, though I note that I announced a day or two ago that I was working on the ] for these and a categorization merger plan, and the pseudo-RFC, pseudo-proposal does not appear to have understood anything in the previous discussion, but is an odd "we need ENGVAR templates!" overreaction. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 14:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
::::Not like , “Today I shall go to the beach” … but like, “Administrators shall hold discussions on the matter for one week before reaching a decision.” ] (]) 12:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Nevertheless, ‘shall’ is still reasonably common usage in formal, official or legal written texts, in the UK, in a way that I don’t think you can say for the US (but willing to be corrected…), and is not considered particularly user-unfriendly. Your observation to the contrary above is therefore pitched from the perspective of a particular Engvar, which was my original point. ] (]) 15:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::@], you're probably right about "how official" ''shall'' sounds to UK and US readers of official documents. And frankly, that word is still used from time to time in official documents in the US, even though much more rarely these days''.'' Even so, here's a thought: if ''will'' would work equally well as ''shall'' in Misplaced Pages policy and guidance documents, why not use it consistently here so as to make "official stuff" sound a bit less bureaucratic but at the same time affirming of expected behavior?
::::::Though I'm American, I doubt that any of our UK cousins across the pond would feel affronted if Misplaced Pages consciously adopted ''will'' in its policy and guidelines. Wouldn't it simply be one more example of Misplaced Pages's intentions of providing as welcoming and user-friendly environment as possible in which to work, while in no way demeaning other varieties of writing?
::::::Alternatively, to avoid the whole ''shall/will'' issue, there are still other ways wording could be done. For example, instead of "Administrators shall hold discussions...,” we could say, "Administrators are to hold discussions ....” ] (]) 11:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::More rules about how rules should be written could be one step forward, two steps back. ]] 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Onbiously, you're free to edit how you want, but as a general rule, surely it isn't WP's object, nor that of the MoS, to try and enforce general language preferences on our editors? ] (]) 11:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::: You state the onbious. ]] 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Well, @], I think it’s time for me to gracefully bow out of the discussion now. My only Intent in making my suggestion was far from an attempt to ''enforce,'' though I see how it might be interpreted that way''.''
::::::::Instead, I was trying to make a case for a slight change in wording that seemed to me could help Misplaced Pages accomplish its very positive goal of creating an open, light, friendly ambience — just as seniors helping in the Teahouse and elsewhere are asked to do with those who ask questions. I know that as some editors get involved with Misplaced Pages, they come to feel weighed down by many rules and regulations and even become fearful they might make a slip and face serious consequences.
::::::::It was this I hoped my suggestion might help prevent in the long run, with the flip-side benefit of editor retention. ] (]) 12:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


==Discussion at ] (redux) ==
==Pronoun pref==
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 21:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
Regarding ] I am wondering if we can include ] as an illustrative example.
:''This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise''


:Specifically, input would be appreciated regarding the treatment of derivative proper names (e.g. ]) in running text versus the titles of dedicated articles. Thanks! <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 07:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
JM Kroc has stated a desire, in ]ity, to be addressed by whatever pronoun is appropriate to how they are presenting. So since Kroc presented as male for the earlier portion of life, it would be appropriate to use male pronouns earlier in their life.


::<small>Just for the record, I detest {{xt|and/or}}, which the MOS backs me on, but (besides {{xt|...}} instead of the clearer {{xt|}} in quotations) I also detest {{xt|Archimedes's}}. Can't we just use the Latinate genitive {{xt|Archimedis}}? --] (]) 04:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
Even now, with Kroc assuming a female name and central identity, this also means they can be referred to as male in present day if presenting as a male, like for example if Kroc was to compete in another male powerlifting event, set a male world record, compete in a male bodybuilding event, or challenge ] in a UFC fight or something. However is Kroc is dressed in female clothing it would be appropriate to use female pronouns. ] (]) 17:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
:::As someone who does not particularly despise {{xt|Archimedes's}}, I would cast my even less ramified ;vote for that. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 05:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:You are interpreting the rule correctly. If anyone gives you trouble, make sure you have a link to a quote of Kroc stating his or her preference. A personal blog is acceptable in this case. ] (]) 18:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
::I believe that this is saying that Kroc is the exception to MOS:IDENTITY because she prefers to be thought of as someone who actually '''was''' a man before her body was changed with surgery, not a woman trapped in a man's body. ] (]) 18:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
:::I believe this is why ] is poorly thought out. It was authored by wanna-be "allies" not by transgender people, and they're making {{em|incorrect}} generalized, politicized assumptions and ]ing them here. I know quite a few TG people, and only a small minority are into this "]" stuff and trying to erase their past, though many, yes, did feel they were misgendered from an early age. These experiences, sentiments about them, and actual expectations differ {{em|widely}} and frequently. MOS (and, should this be moved, any other policy or guideline) should not attempt to "legislate" some language police ]s' personally preferred one-size-fits-all solution, but approach this from a "how to best serve the readership while accounting for ] subjects' interests where reasonable" perspective like we do everything else. The huge thread atop ] indicates the general shape how to approach this: Use clarifying language (e.g. "Kaitlyn (then Bruce) Jenner won the , competing as a man"), and avoid pronouns. This is not rocket science, it's just clear writing. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 00:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


==Discussion on ] bio leads==
== RfC: piping a wikilink for the sole purpose of inserting the 's ==
See ]. ] (]) 19:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== Usage of historical place names in infoboxes ==
Hi! You may be interested in ]. It is about <code><nowiki>] administration</nowiki></code> vs. <code><nowiki>]'s administration</nowiki></code> wikilinks. Thanks in advance! -- ] (]) 04:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


Some feedback ] would be nice. Thanks --] (]) 19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== Include country when mentioning placenames? ==


== When are words being used as-words? ==
There is a disagreement between two editors at ] as to whether placenames mentioned (as locations of copies of the statue) should, or should not, include "United States" and "England". One view is {{tq|if people are too ignorant to know that California is in America and Lincolnshire is in England (or are too lazy to click a link) then that's their fault. We shouldn't have to awkwardly and unnecessarily insert country names after every place}}. Another view is {{tq|in an international encyclopedia such as this we need to give full place names with country - not everyone who reads this will recognise every US state (I sometimes forget whether "Michigan" is in Canada or USA) or British county}}.


It seems to be required by ] that any statement that uses constructions like:
I cannot find anything in ] to help: the section on ] is about choice of name, historic name, etc, not level of context given for the name.
* {{xt|This concept is called ''Example'', ...}} (also {{xt|termed}}, {{xt|known as}}, {{xt|referred to as}}, etc.)


italicize the term. However, this is almost never consistently done even in many of our FAs (see ], used as an example in the MoS), and many other publications are unbothered. Am I worrying about something that doesn't make a difference in the clarity of many passages?
(a) If there is guidance about this somewhere, please show us where.


I just struggle with paragraphs like (adapted from {{slink|Chinese characters|Zhou scripts}}):
(b) Perhaps, if there is no such guidance, there should be?
{{cquote|The mainstream script's slow, gradual evolution continued during the ] until assuming the form now known as '']'' within the ]. Other scripts in use during the late Zhou include the ], as well as the regional forms used in non-Qin states. Historically, these forms were collectively known as '']'', a term which has fallen out of favour due to its lack of precision.}}


MOS afficionadoes would be welcome to chip in to the discussion at ]. Thanks. ]] 13:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC) It just looks weird that maintaining a natural flow in more jargon-y passages requires two terms to be italicized and one not to be. It looks arbitrary, and might even confuse readers if they notice? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:Having it specified would be useful. From what I've seen, the norm is similar to that of ]. If the place is widely known (e.g., California or New York City) there is no need to specify its location to a wider geographical area. If the place is relatively unknown to a ''global'' audience (e.g., Iowa or Akron) or there are multiples of that location (e.g., Cleveland) then we should specify it (which for the latter would disambiguate it). ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 17:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
*As far as places in the US are concerned, as long as the State name (California, Texas, Wisconsin, etc.) is included there is no need for "United States" be included ''as well''. The average English speaking reader (our audience) does not need to be told that ] is in the United States... because he/she will already know that ] is in the United States. I would say the same assumption of a preexisting familiarity will be true for the Provinces in Canada, the States and Territories of Australia, and the Counties of the UK.
:However, the assumption of a preexisting familiarity will not extend to States/Departments/Provinces/Regions of other countries. The typical English speaker probably will not be aware of the provinces of ]... so adding ] when mentioning towns in ] would be helpful.
:In other words, I would object to creating a one-size-fits-all "rule" for this. Take it on a case by case basis. ] (]) 12:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
::I'm wary about making assumptions about our "typical" reader knows, particularly when writing a general encyclopedia where it is often good practice to state the obvious. According to ], the countries with the second, third, and fourth largest English-speaking populations are India, Pakistan, and Nigeria. My knowledge of the interior geography of those countries is spotty at best; it would be very presumptuous to assume someone there must have a detailed knowledge of mine.--] (]) 13:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
:::For those who don't know that Ohio is in the United States... well, that's what links are for. ] (]) 13:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
*'''NOTE''': As far as the specific article (ie ] is concerned... I have attempted to resolve the issue by simply reorganizing the article a bit... I have added "by country" section headers. With section headers that mention the name of the country, there is no longer a need to add the country name every time we mention a town's name (the reader will know that the town is in the US or UK etc because the section header ''says'' so). This may not necessarily resolve the generalized question, but hopefully it will resolve the immediate dispute that raised that question. (Sometimes it helps to think "outside the box"). ] (]) 14:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
*It agree with this: {{tq|As far as places in the US are concerned, as long as the State name (California, Texas, Wisconsin, etc.) is included there is no need for "United States" be included as well.}} But I know that many do not. This should be settled with a site-wide, well-advertised RfC, mentioned at ] and ]. We keep coming back to this without resolution. It's getting perennial. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 00:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


:I don't think that either of the phrases in the example qualify as words as words. WAW, I think, applies to things like, "Of all the nouns, ''birdcage'' is the best." Or, "...some egghead discovered a misprint of the book, with ''relative'' misspelled." I would use quotation marks in the example you provided.
== RfC: Are personal pronouns (including "who") to be avoided for fictional characters? ==


Unless, of course, I'm mistaken. ] (]) 01:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
{{rfc|style|lang|rfcid=FBD9125}}


== Order of explanation for placing ref as per ] ==
Is it incorrect to use personal pronouns such as "he", "she", or "who" to refer to fictional characters? For example:


Hi
:: Nelvana is a fictional superhero '''who''' first appeared in ''Triumph-Adventure Comics #1''.
: vs.
:: Nelvana is a fictional superhero '''that''' first appeared in ''Triumph-Adventure Comics #1''.


I am finding an increased number of refs in the middle of text, and I wondered if it could be confusion to the current wording. If the editor/reader deos not read more/further than the first sentence of this section of the paragraph, they may well put the ref in the middle of a sentence and not after punctuation as it appears to first suggest that:
: ]&nbsp;] 09:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
"All reference tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space. Apart from the exceptions listed below, references are placed after adjacent punctuation, not before."


Can we consider rewording this to:
"All reference tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, and should be placed after the next adjacent punctuation with no intervening space. The exceptions to this are listed below."


This would then read as a two-part instruction rather than the current which appears to be one instruction to place it directly after the text.
===Discussion (pronouns for fictional characters)===


Thanks ] (]) 01:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
* There are editors who insist that, since a character is not a living human, it cannot be referred to with a personal pronoun. I am not aware of any style guide that recommends avoiding personal pronouns for characters, nor am I aware of this being generally true in spoken or written English (or why it should be). Some editors nevertheless change "who" to "that" in articles on fictional characters, as Lacking evidence from real-world usage or styleguide recommendations, this appears pointless at best, and in many cases unnatural and awkward.
** Real-world evidence indicates
** Styleguides seem to be entirely silent on the (non-)issue.
** The only off-Wiki source I can find that even addresses the issue is which concludes "... it is not at all unwarranted that a personal pronoun such as 'he' be (nonconnivingly) used to refer to such a character." (referring to Sancho Panza).
** This line from the ] article would be absurd with a "that" in place of the "who": ''"The majority of the books' plot covers seven years in the life of the orphan Potter, who, on his eleventh birthday, learns he is a wizard."'' Similarly this line from the ] FA, where replacing "with whom" with "with which" would do unspeakable damage: ''"Robin was introduced, based on Finger's suggestion, because Batman needed a "Watson" with whom Batman could talk."''
** Real-world examples from ''Britannica'':
***
***
*:]&nbsp;] 09:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
*::How widespread is this problem? Did this just come up once or more than once? If lots of people are getting confused by this issue, then an addition to the MoS is warranted. ] (]) 12:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
*::: This has been "standard" at WP:COMIC for longer than I've been here. I'm not aware of any other WikiProject that supports the idea, but the editors at WP:COMIC have come to believe that their local decisions are valid elsewhere (for instance, disambiguating all comics character articles with (comics) where (character) is standard elsewhere, which has resulted in endless moves at articles like ] and ]). ]&nbsp;] 22:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
*:::This came up a couple of years ago at ]. My comment then was: I'm a strong supporter of the ] guideline, but I don't think it suggests we should grammatically treat fictional characters as inanimate objects; that's just not how English works. That interpretation would lead to truly absurd text: "It fights an assortment of villains assisted by its crime-fighting partner, Robin." *Of course not. The only reason ''that'' sounds less glaringly wrong is because it is increasingly common to use ''that'' when referring to people, however, doing so is still widely considered an error, and should be avoided.--] (]) 13:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
*How is this any different from centuries of literary criticism where people have referred to fictional characters as "he" or "she"? See ] for the first one who came to mind. ]] 13:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
*:OK, that's not the best of articles, lots of unsourced stuff, but ] is a Good Article and refers to the character as "she" throughout. I wonder if there are any FAs for fict characters. ]] 13:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
*::Yes. ]. FA, and "he becomes increasingly formidable, powerful and ultimately sinister as the novels progress". Or am I missing something, and superheros are in some way different (beyond their superpowers) from characters in novels? ]] 13:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
*::: This appears to be a pet issue of the superhero faction of WP:COMIC, but they do make the claim that it applies to all fictional characters, so if any of them were interested enough in any of the articles you've linked to, I imagine they'd make the same change. ]&nbsp;] 21:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
*:::This is the fairly classic "popular culture isn't as good as older but still popular culture which has become known as heritage, literature, and etc--at least on Misplaced Pages" bias that spawned as a counterforce to the overwhelming documentation of fictional elements relative to "scholarly" elements prior to 2007 or so. It's nothing new. --] (]) 15:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
* There is a somewhat interesting question hidden in the question of: what about characters that appears as both genders (aka genderbent) at some point in their history? I can't think of any off the top of my head presently, but I suspect we'll be seeing more of them as time passes and cultural barriers come down. --] (]) 15:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
*:I'm not confident of that, Izno. The question seems to be "Should we refer to fictional characters the same way we'd refer to real people?" The answer is "Yes (and really why did you have to ask?)." I imagine we'd refer to a genderfluid fictional character the same way we'd refer to a genderfluid human, though for actual fictional beings who do not have gender at all, like fictional aliens, we could find some precedent in the literary criticism of 20th century science fiction. ] (]) 17:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
*::Genderfluidity isn't what I'm getting at, actually. I'm talking about characters who are distinctly one or the other given a particular serialization referencing that character e.g. . Yours is probably still the correct answer, but it's an interesting question because there's no actual definite "he"/"she" then. "Predominantly depicted as a he/she" would be a phrase I'd expect to see in that case, I suppose. --] (]) 18:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
*::: This discussion is supposed to be about animate vs inanimate pronouns. ]&nbsp;] 21:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
*This matter seems to be, "The only reason we don't have a rule about this is because it's a non-issue the overwhelming majority of the time." There seems to be no serious question regarding what the rule ''is'', only whether we need to use the space to tell people about it. ] (]) 17:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
*We're not going to use ''pronouns'' because they are fictional? What kind of weird fundamentalist idea is this? Refer to fictional persons as we would real people. ] ] 23:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
:* And the answer for gender-unclear individuals is "they", which is been the gender neutral 3p singular pronoun. Chaucer and Shakespeare used it and people who say they don't use it even use it speech unknowingly all the time. ] ] 23:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


:No, you ''don't'' have to wait for punctuation to place a reference. The current wording is fine. ] (]) 04:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
* I don't think there's a universal answer here. When talking in terms of the fiction (including talking about the development of the character in the work of fiction such as the Batman/Robin example given above), refering to the characters with "who" rather than "that" makes sense, because we're writing about a fictional person at that point. But when we're talking about the character as strictly an element in an out-of-universe fashion, as the lead example gives, referring to the character as a thing ("that" instead of "who") makes more sense. But it all really depends on the context and I don't think one rule can capture all uses easily. --] (]) 23:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
**^^You understand it '''perfectly'''. That is exactly how it is.] (]) 23:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC) ::It clearly states that we do, in the current wording - "references are placed after adjacent punctuation" ] (]) 14:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::No, it's saying that if there is adjacent punctuation, the ref goes after, but it does not preclude placing a ref immediately after the relevant text when there is no adjacent punctuation. ]&nbsp;] 14:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*** You mean, that's how you wish it were. Meanwhile, back in reality ... ]&nbsp;] 23:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
:I've always understood the part about punctuation to mean only that ''if'' the text to which the footnote applies ends in a punctuation mark, treat that mark as part of the text you're footnoting and put the footnote after it. There's no implication that you have to defer placement of the footnote to the next punctuation mark that appears. And certainly not to the end of the sentence: the guideline covers commas as well. ] (]) 14:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
** It's fine to have a belief, Masem, but
**# where in the real world does this belief hold currency?
**# in what tangible way is the encyclopaedia improved by adhering to such a belief? In what way could the encyclopaedia suffer damage by using personal pronouns for fictional characters?
**# how would this hold for hypothetical (thus fictional) persons? e.g. is "There will never be a person who can travel backward in time." an error?
**: ]&nbsp;] 23:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


== Upgrade ] to an official guideline ==
::::I think the difference is understanding when the character is being discussed as a character whether within the work of fiction or as the development of that work of fiction (to which "he/she/who/etc." type pronouns apply) and when the character is being discussed as a creative idea or concept (for which "that/which" type pronouns apply). It is also important to recognize that one should not force the idea of "individualizing" a fictional concept when the context is not appropriate. For example (not real wording but to get the idea across) "Superman is a character created by Siegel and Schuster. They created him in 1933." is forcing the personal pronoun since we know that Siegel and Schuster never actually created a "person", which the "him" pronoun implies. Instead the language that our article acctually uses "The character was created by the two in 1933." is the right way to approach it, or "They created the character in 1933..." So sometimes these knots of which pronoun to use are created by poor approach to the existing language around it. --] (]) 16:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


Over at ], I proposed ] from an essay to an official guideline. If this talk page is the preferred venue, I apologize. I also apologize for the delay in notifying this talk page. Please see the discussion if you have any input or opinion.--] (] &#124; ]) 12:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh, ] (]) 23:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support Masem''' - his description covers it perfectly. It basically depends on context. Excluding gender pronouns altogether is going to lead to awkward sentences, and probably general confusion as to what the pronoun is referring to in more complex sentences, so avoiding altogether is not a good approach. Either way, I don't see this being much of a problem that a guideline needs to be put in place. If its just one person who keeps bringing it up, they ]. ] ] 12:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


:The discussion has been moved to ].--] (] &#124; ]) 21:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Per Masem''', basically. In-universe: ''who''/''whom''; as a character, out of that context, ''that''/''which''. It just needs to make sense in the context. That said, I do think MOS should state this explicitly, at ], to avoid perennial fights about this (it is by no means the first one). That's the obvious place for it, and this discussion is sufficient consensus to add it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 01:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
** Talk about jumping the gun! We have yet to see a single piece of evidence that this is considered even an issue outside of WP:COMIC. ] at its most pointless. ]&nbsp;] 01:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


== New discussion at ] ==
I think it is safe to say there is a majority consensus, there is only one editor '''who''' wants it his way...] (]) 22:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


I've tagged it at the top of this page as well, but also putting the invitation here to participate in a new discussion on the use of ] in article titles (such as train and bus accidents) at ] - ] (]) 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
===Suggested wording (pronouns for fictional characters)===


== Usage of 'Notable person' vis-a-vis that of 'Notable people' ==
Since Cebri has provided evidence that this is an actual problem that occurs at a non-negligible frequency, I believe it's worth adding a line to the MoS or ], location TBD. I suggest the following first draft:


In the course of editing, I very often come across a section header with 'Notable people' and only one entry, so modify the grammar.
{{quotation|Editors are not required to use inanimate pronouns ("that," "which") for fictional characters. Decide on "who" vs "that" depending on the context of the sentence.
::"He first appeared in print in 1961 alongside another hero who was, at the time, more famous."
::"Wonder Woman is one of many characters that have become a franchise unto themselves."}}


Several days ago, after making such a change, the edit was reverted outright, in conjunction with a statement to the effect that the heading is 'Notable people' regardless of the number of entries listed. It seems to me that, per https://en.wikipedia.org/English_plurals#Miscellaneous_irregular_plurals, the reversion was incorrect. ] (]) 07:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I believe "not required" expresses our meaning very well. ] (]) 01:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
:Honestly I think we should use "persons" as the unmarked plural of "person" Misplaced Pages-wide. Encyclopedic writing is a very formal register, and "people" has other baggage, often not intended.
:"Not required" tends to be taken as implying "but preferred", and that is not at all how I read the prevailing opinion above. If you're trying to express the lack of a hard rule, perhaps something along the lines of "no requirement for either … or …; it depends on the context". ] (]) 05:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
:That said, what sort of article is this? Are these city articles, or what? --] (]) 08:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
: Given there exists no support for the prescription oustide the dark basement of the superhero faction of WP:COMIC the wording should avoid the appearance of giving it any legitimacy. Misplaced Pages is not the place to introduce novel linguistic prescriptions. If an editor chooses to avoid personal pronouns when adding text, that's an editorial decision; but prowling pages to removing such pronouns in no way improves the encyclopaedia, and in many cases (as cited) hurts it. ]&nbsp;] 06:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
::There has been no negative intent on my part when using 'people', but so it goes.
::The truth seems to be that English overwhelmingly prefers "who" over "that," so that's what we want to communicate. Take two! "In general" is usually interpreted as "Most of the time."
::These articles have been on various communities and I have made such changes for years, but till now have never had any editor state that grammar is immaterial. ] (]) 11:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{quotation|In general, use animate pronouns ("who," "she") for fictional characters, but there are some contexts in which inanimate pronouns are suitable ("that," "which").
:::Some section headings are either by guideline, like ] for "External links" or ] for "Notes" and "References" etc., or by tradition and common usage, like "Notable people", "Awards", "Published works", written as plurals, even if there's only one entry. -- ] (]) 11:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::"Laertes and Ophelia both took action, unlike Hamlet, who continued to delay."
:::Agreed; keep it plural, also like "Languages" in the sidebar (even for only one language) and like "Media" in the Commons template (even for only one file there). ] (]) 11:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::"Wonder Woman is one of many characters that have become a franchise unto themselves."}}
::What really has to shine here are the examples. It would be best to really hammer home how these contexts are different. ] (]) 12:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
:::Whenever this discussion pops up, it always seems to center on passages that refer to the character by name, specify the fictional nature, and then say something else. Take the primary example for this new debate: "Nelvana is a fictional superhero who first appeared in Triumph-Adventure Comics #1." Break it down into two sentences. "Nelvana is a fictional superhero. ___ first appeared in Triumph-Adventure Comics #1." Does ''she'' or ''it'' belong in the blank? I think very few people would argue against ''she'', so it follows a personal pronoun, ''who'' should go in the combined sentence.
:::Most of the time, though, the simple solution is to rewrite the passage to eliminate the issue altogether. Why argue about "Other characters that have adopted this name" vs "Other characters who have adopted this name" when you can shorten it to "Other characters using this name"? ] (]) 13:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
:In whatever MOS wording we adopt, I would suggest not leaving out ''it'' when discussing pronouns. ''Who''/''that'' errors are fairly common at the best of times, so ''(s)he''/''it'' is perhaps a better test, as Argento points out above me. So your second example could be:
{{quotation|"Wonder Woman is one of many characters that have become a franchise unto themselves.It has been enduringly popular since its creation."}}
:That sounds wrong to me, but it is clearer what is being suggested.--] (]) 13:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
::That is a case where I would replace "It" with "The character" to avoid the pronoun knot. --] (]) 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
:::Dancing around personal pronouns might work for a sentence or two, but becomes unwieldy when you are discussing a fictional character as a concept for whole paragraphs. — ] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"></sub></small>]]</span> 16:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
::::Why not write: "Wonder woman, as a character, has become a franchise unto herself. She has been eduringly popular since her creation." If you avoid writing about fictional characters "as a concept", and instead just write about that particular character, you can avoid having "pronoun trouble". ] (]) 16:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, it is actual far less frequent when one writes about a character as a concept than as a character, though it sometimes is needed; the intro on Superman I think captures a place where one does need it: "The Superman character was created by writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster in 1933; the character was sold to Detective Comics, Inc. (later DC Comics) in 1938." In any of this sentence to us "he" instead of "the character" implies an ownership of a living being which is the one sticking point in the language; it is the concept that has ownership and creation. Past that, "he/who" all make sense. --] (]) 16:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::: ''In any of this sentence to us "he" instead of "the character" implies an ownership of a living being'': it implies no such thing—or do you have a source which addresses this to back up such a statement? This is a solution looking for a problem. ]&nbsp;] 21:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::: There is something that I do not know what it is that is odd or off-putting about saying "Smith created him" or "Smith transferred ownership of him", and less so but still begging the question of "Smith envision him" (where "him" here is the fictional character of interest). You create, transfer or envision the character as non-entity, not as a fictional person or being. If there is a rule of language for this, I don't know but I do see this used around many sources that discuss concepts and development of fictional characters. --] (]) 21:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: You mean ''you'' find something off-putting about it. Nothing wrong with that, but it is not grounds for introducing a new linguistic prescription. In the real world people have no problem saying Can you show evidence to the contrary? ]&nbsp;] 21:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::: Well, it's not a new linguistic prescription as both ways are technically proper English, it's purely a style aspect and one that I don't think any of the major style guide goes into this. I do think WP does have the ability that, if by consensus, we adapt a style that we feel is better in the larger picture for en.wiki. ''I'' personally feel there's something offputting when we use certain combinations of verbs and pronouns that can be simply avoided by better word choices or restructuring. --] (]) 22:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::: No, the underlying principle you're suggesting is ''not'' "technically proper English": the only reason "that" is acceptable at all is because many use "that" interchangeably "who", as in: "There's the guy that was here yesterday." In the case of "Superman is a character that was created by Shuster & Siegel", "that" is ''not'' chosen because "Superman is inanimate"---at least, not anywhere outside of WP:COMIC. In the real world, there is no issue using personal pronouns with ficitional characters, because ''personal pronouns do not imply actual living human beings'' (I've already given you the example "There will never be a person who can travel backward in time.", and you know there's no end to such examples). ]&nbsp;] 22:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::"That" is proper English when we are talking about a non-person, which a fictional character ''may'' be treated as at times. Consider "John Q Smith created the painting ''that'' was later transferred to the museum.", "John Q Smith created the character ''that'' was later transferred to a big publisher." It's completely acceptable language, when we are not at all describing any aspect of the characters as a person in the text, because in situations like this, it is a thing. And again, I do want to stress that my main solution here is to avoid situations where one would need such pronouns to minimize the potential "disruption". "John Q Smith created the character. The character's rights were later transferred to a big publisher." --] (]) 01:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Boson has You've also failed to provide evidence that there is any "disruption" to be avoided. "Nelvana is a superhero who was created by Adrian Dingle." is not a problematic sentence—nothing needs to be "fixed", nothing needs to be recast. ]&nbsp;] 01:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
: We should avoid giving inappropriate advice on the use of English, and especially refrain from giving the incorrect impression that "that" (as opposed to "which") is an "inanimate pronoun". ''That'' is a relative pronoun used for restrictive (aka defining, integrated) relative clauses, both for inanimate and animate entities, as in ]: ''the farmer that kept the rooster, the judge that married the man, the man that kissed the maiden, the maiden that milked the cow'', etc.). To avoid additional confusion, any examples should use non-restrictive (aka non-defining, supplementary) relative clauses with ''which'' and ''who'', which ''do'' distinguish between personal and non-personal (including most animals). Yes, recommended usage of ''that'' and ''who'' is slightly more complicated, but is not something that needs to be dealt with in the Manual of Style. ''That'' can be a useful way of avoiding the distinction between personal and non-personal (as in some examples here?), but that is also something for English teachers that does not need to be described here. --] (]) 17:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Take three:
:{{quotation|In general, use animate pronouns ("who," "she") for fictional characters, but there are a few contexts in which inanimate pronouns are suitable ("which," "it"). However, it is often possible to avoid the issue entirely by rewording the sentence.
::"Laertes and Ophelia both took action, unlike Hamlet, who continued to delay."
::"The character Superman, which was sold to Detective Comics, Inc. in 1938, was created by writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster in 1933."
::"The character Superman was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster in 1933 and sold to Detective Comics, Inc. in 1938."}}
Remember the points that we're trying to convey: 1. It's best to use animate pronouns, 2. but we're not banning inanimate pronouns (and 3. here's what we mean by that). Those issues are not in dispute here. As for locations, I'm thinking both here and at ]. ] (]) 19:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
::: Again, this seems to be legitimizing a non-issue—is there anyone here who is ''not'' from WP:COMIC that would have batted a lash at ''"The character Superman, who is owned by DC Comics ..."'' before this RfC was started? Of course not—this is perfectly natural everyday English that poses no problem to readers whatsoever and ]. It does ''not'' imply—even slightly—that Superman is a real person. The language does not work that way. ]&nbsp;] 21:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::Huh. I mostly agree that it's fine to use "who" for fictional characters, but actually, maybe not in this case. Is Superman a slave? Can he buy his freedom from DC? Until I read your example sentence, I would have said there was never any problem with using "who" for Superman, but now I think maybe there's a distinction between Superman-the-fictional-person (for whom "who" is fine) and Superman-the-item-of-intellectual-property (for which "who" is a bit weird). --] (]) 01:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
::::It seems off to me to mark explicitly that this has to do with fictional characters vs. non-fictional people. That's not how English works. Otherwise, I agree with darkfrog's three points. — ] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"></sub></small>]]</span> 23:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::Curly Turkey brings up a good point that the problem should be big enough for the solution to earn the space it takes up in the MoS or MoS:FICTION. A few links were offered in the previous section. {{replyto|Cebr1979}}, do you know of any more? ] (]) 00:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Not off the top of my head, no. I wasn't a part of the original conversation, though. It's possible that one grew out of something from somewhere else but, like I said, I don't know for sure. Sorry couldn't be of more help!] (]) 00:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Nah, thanks, Cebri. I guess if it's only that one incident that we know of then it's not really necessary to codify it. But just so I don't leave a job half-done, the kicker seems to be whether the character is acting or being acted upon like a person rather than like an object or concept:
::::::::::{{quotation|Wonder Woman is one of two female characters who were on the original Justice League." / "Wonder Woman is one of many characters that have been marketed to children"}}
::::::::: ] (]) 00:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::: I hope you are not suggesting that ''"Wonder Woman is one of many characters '''who''' have been marketed to children"'' is invalid English. We have yet to see any evidence of such a prescription in English, or any evidence that any sort of problem arises from it. The axiom that ''personal pronouns refer only to real persons'' has already been shown to be invalid, as in the example ''"There will never be a person who can travel backward in time."'' ]&nbsp;] 01:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::: That's really my only issue. The lead of a ] article should be: "] is a ] '''that''' appeared in the ] series, '']''," in order to denote we are talking about a '''thing''': aka: a lifeless, inanimate object. As for the rest of the article, I don't think it matters as, most of it would be written in-universe anyhow. If it would make this all go away (and stay away as I feel like too many editors are having to spend too much time on this), I'd even compromise with "] is a ] appearing in the ] series, '']''" -OR- "] is a ] having appeared in the ] series, '']'' and bypass the whole "who vs. that" thing altogether! That's just a suggestion, though. If it ends up being the beginning of a whole new conversation taking up a whole lot more time, I'll simply withdraw it and go back to the "] is a ] '''that''' appeared in the ] series, '']''" position I've had since the beginning.] (]) 00:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::: ''in order to denote we are talking about a '''thing''' '': In stark contrast to the way the English language actually works, which makes no such distinction. What it comes down to is that there is a group of superhero editors at WP:COMIC who wish the English language worked in a different manner from which it does. English does ''not'' distinguish fictional vs non-fictional persons via pronoun usage. For example, Britannica uses "who" to refer to the characters of Spider-Man and Superman: ]]&nbsp;] 01:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


== Oxford spelling and commas ==
I like Cebr1979's final wording (some of the work-arounds are quite awkward), but not entirely for their reasons. "That" is used for people, and fictional people are treated as people. But the ''concept'' is not a person. "That" doesn't mean the referent is inanimate, but I agree that the concept of a fictional character should use the same pronouns as the concept of a commemorative garden. But when discussing the character itself, the same pronouns should be used as when discussing historical people. — ] (]) 01:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
* For the record, you support a wording like: "Superman is a fictional character. It was created by Shuster and Siegel."? Do you have any evidence for such usage outside of Misplaced Pages? ]&nbsp;] 01:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
**CurlyTurkey: you really do put a lot of words in people's mouths and that is something you need to stop doing. ASAP. The only person '''who''' has ever mentioned the word "it," is you.] (]) 01:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


As far as I'm aware, serial comma inclusion/omission is always treated separately from spelling conventions; ] doesn't say anything related to ]. However, when an article employs Oxford spelling ({{tl|British English Oxford spelling}}), would it be reasonable to require the serial comma? (Of course, this wouldn't prohibit removing it to avoid local ambiguity.) On one hand, it seems a bit odd that editors of a specific article must follow one prominent component of a specific style guide's instructions while being free to ignore another component, and because en-gb-oxondic is a narrow group of articles and compliance requires a little training, these articles are already having their spelling/grammar watched by editors who are familiar with everyone else not being aware of the standards. But on the other hand, I can imagine it being awkward to require serial commas on a small portion of the encyclopedia, while the rest of the encyclopedia merely requires internal consistency; it might lead to confusion because a small set of articles has rules different from the rest. ] (]) 22:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Comment''': So how do we deal with figures whose reality is disputed? Do we use "who" or "which" for Jehova and King Arthur? Of course, in real life we use "who", as we do for Superman. ]&nbsp;] 01:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


:The ] and ] are not related to one another save from the fact that '']'' and the '']'' share the same publishing house on the River Isis, and they are not intended to complement one another in any particular way. As you've noticed, this is conflating apples with oranges stylistically. More concretely, our guidance on serial commas is not dependent at all on what variety of English is being used—instead, it should be consistent, and possibly depend on what is best for eliminating ambiguity in each article on an individual basis. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 22:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
== 43rd governor of Kentucky ==
::So ''Hart's Rules'' doesn't demand the use of Oxford spelling? My thought process:
::*] says that ''Hart's Rules'' follows Oxford spelling
::*Style guides are created to be prescriptive on this kind of thing, so ''Hart's Rules'' will require a specific spelling system
::*Hence, it's highly likely that ''Hart's Rules'' will require the spelling system that it uses
::Thank you. ] (]) 22:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Oxford spelling is just that—spelling. As an ENGVAR, it is merely British English with etymologically-minded spelling conventions. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 22:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::As for Oxford comma, I refer you to a reply I gave ]. --] &#x1f339; (]) 17:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== Does Misplaced Pages use honorific titles? ==
This is in today's TFA (See the Main Page today, or ] anytime.) There's a question at ] about whether to capitalize "governor". Both copyedited text in general and wikiproject practice tend to be inconsistent on the point. ] says to capitalize the office ("was King of France", which is a singular office), but of course it would be "43 kings of France" rather than "43 Kings of France", so one interesting question is whether "43rd governor of Kentucky" more closely resembles the former or the latter. Thoughts? - Dank (]) 14:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I remember reading a while ago that Misplaced Pages does not use honorific titles in referring to people, e.g. Albert Einstein or Einstein instead of Dr. Albert Einstein or Dr. Einstein. I can't find anything like that today. Did I imagine that? Is there any style guidance on use of titles such as Doctor? ] is just about using special honorifics associated with a person who is the subject of a biography. ] (]) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


:] and its subsection ] says to avoid "Dr" and similar titles. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 06:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:The consensus on what sources I've dug up in a few minutes seems to be to not capitalize "governor" unless it is used with the person's name: "Governor Smith vetoed a bill. He is the third governor to do so." (search for "capitalize the titles") (search for "mayor")
:{{br}} As a general rule, we also don't use even less specific honorifics or courtesy titles (I'm not super-sure of the distinction between the two), like {{xt|Mr}}, except in quotes. See ]. --] (]) 08:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:However, I did find one notable exception. The says that a title can be capitalized when used ''immediately after'' the person's name to "indicate preeminence in certain specialized instances," which I take to mean "John Smith, Governor of Kentucky." ] (]) 17:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
::Amazingly helpful, thanks. - Dank (]) 17:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


== ENGVAR question ==
== Notice of proposal regarding unusual prepositions in titles (re: clarification request in RM closure) ==
{{FYI|Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.}}
Please see ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 23:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


Based on a dispute at ]. Does the fact that the article has, and has always had, a clear ENGVAR title control what variety the body uses? Seems obvious to me, but the guideline doesn't actually state what to do.
== Centralized spot for capitalization after hyphenation ==


In this particular case, the article was created as the stubbiest of stubs in 2002, with the creator using "bicolor" in the title (and the article has never been moved, I double checked) while using "bicolour" in the one-paragraph body. Over the next few years contributions included both spellings, and both appeared in the body at the same time. However, noting the inconsistency, a wikignome edited the body in 2008 to consistently use "color" and that ENGVAR was used consistently and continuously for 16 years until last September when, citing the ancient stub in Theo edit summary, someone changed the body ENGVAR to use "colour" making it inconsistent with the title. I changed it and was promptly reverted. I argue that there was no consistent variety at all until 2008, and that having a variety consistent with the title (which again, has never changed) is the only logical and valid ENGVAR. ] (]) 23:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Weirdly, there was no one place this was located, but it was scattered about in ] and not written in generalized form. I've fixed this at ], with shortcut ]. Also added a one-liner summary at ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 00:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


:Flip a coin if you want, but pragmatically a move is a "more substantial" alteration, so I would go with the title form. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 23:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
== Revisiting possessive for words ending in unsounded s ==


::A quick spot check of the article's early history confirms that it started as "bicolor". Since there are no close ties to any country for this term, there is no reason for it to prefer either British or US spelling, so we fall back to the spelling used when the article was created. The use within in the article should match the articles name, so "bicolor" is the correct spelling for this article. As said above, this is all following ]. Note: I say this as an Australian who would naturally use "bicolour". <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 23:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Can someone point me to justification within the WP confines of why Illinois, Descartes, and Verreaux have an added ’s rather than only an apostrophe? Perhaps I missed it, but I don’t see it on the pages listed at ]. ] (]) 06:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
:::I agree with oknazevad that it never had a consistent style until oknazevad's change to make the body consistent with the title. The previous change to use "colour" throughout the body does not count because the title remained inconsistent. I agree with the comments above that going with the original title is a smaller change and therefore better, but we can reach the same outcome by a different argument: oknazevad's version was the first consistent version so we should go with that. —] (]) 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
* I doubt Misplaced Pages has decided on this, as it appears to be a matter of dispute. Recently Arkansas passed a resolution that the possessive of the state name be ''Arkansas's'', though some were nonplussed, saying it was "too many esses". I'm in the '' 's'' camp. ]&nbsp;] 08:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
::::To be clear, I was not the editor who made it consistent in 2008 (which was done with . In fact, I had never edited the article until today, after I noticed the obvious clash between the title and the body. A quick look at the history showed that it had been changed last September. I was just changing it back to the consistent ENGVAR the article had for over a decade and a half. ] (]) 01:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
**I'm also in the always-use-the-same-formula camp ('s); but there are too many detractors to get consensus. I believe that as long as usage is article-consistent, either approach has to be accepted. ] ] 09:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, I stand corrected. —] (]) 01:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
***I think we should follow ''Fowler's Modern English Usage'', which says "With French names ending in (silent) -s or -x, add 's (e.g. Dumas's, le Roux's) and pronounce the modified word with a final -z." ] (]) 14:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::Please stop making this claim. It was inconsistent before I edited it: . I noticed the inconsistency and looked at the oldest revisions to decide on which variety to change to. ] (]) 02:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*Agree with the above commenters: Consistently use ''<nowiki />'s''. Leaving it out because of how you think it sounds is ], and WP is not a novel trying to mimic people's speech patterns. When Jones says something it's {{xt|Jones's}} speech. When I break a glass and cut myself while cleaning up, it was one of the {{xt|glass's}} fragments that cut me. The temple I was in in Greece last year was a former center of {{xt|Zeus's}} worship. People resist this mainly because many Bibles use {{!xt|Jesus'}} (often in red like that) and they don't ever want to do it differently. If it comes down to it, we can just make an exception for {{xt|Jesus'}} in the context of scripture, only (use {{xt|Jesus's}} in the context of, e.g., the historicity of Jesus), and move on, the same way it's permissible to use smallcaps for the Tetragrammaton and English Bible translation of it as {{GOD}}, and we even templates for this stuff (I just used one of them). A ] exception to avoid religious flamewars and permit "Jesus{{'"}} is no reason to throw the rest of the rule baby out with the religion bathwater. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 00:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::Your implied claim that it was never consistent until you edited it is clearly false: the 2008 version that oknazevad links to is consistent. And your implied claim that your edit (I assume in ) made it consistent is also false: there is no consistent spelling even if one ignores the obvious inconsistency between article and text. One could interpret your comment here as meaning merely that the version immediately prior to yours had inconsistencies (as did the version after your edit) but that is not a valid reason to choose one spelling over another; one has to look at the history. —] (]) 04:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* OP here. ] states "For the possessive of most singular nouns, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's office, Glass's books, '''Illinois's''' largest employer, '''Descartes's''' philosophy, '''Verreaux's''' eagle). …" . I was asking not for further argument at this point, but for reference to old discussions to have that as a grounding. ] (]) 03:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Exactly. The version before the one you just linked to has one errant ENGVAR use. The alternate spelling in the first sentence is not only typical but expected. The only other use is in the title of a reference, and that should not be altered. ] (]) 10:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
: Is any help? --] (]) 19:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:28, 23 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page.
Shortcut
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: 30 days 
? faq page Frequently asked questions

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

Why does the Manual of Style recommend straight (keyboard-style) instead of curly (typographic) quotation marks and apostrophes (i.e., the characters " and ', instead of “, ”, ‘, and ’)‍? Users may only know how to type in straight quotes (such as " and ') when searching for text within a page or when editing. Not all Web browsers find curly quotes when users type straight quotes in search strings. Why does the Manual of Style recommend logical quotation? This system is preferred because Misplaced Pages, as an international and electronic encyclopedia, has specific needs better addressed by logical quotation than by the other styles, despite the tendency of externally published style guides to recommend the latter. These include the distinct typesetters' style (often called American, though not limited to the US), and the various British/Commonwealth styles, which are superficially similar to logical quotation but have some characteristics of typesetters' style. Logical quotation is more in keeping with the principle of minimal change to quotations, and is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing, than the alternatives. Logical quotation was adopted in 2005, and has been the subject of perennial debate that has not changed this consensus. Why does the Manual of Style differentiate the hyphen (-), en dash (–), em dash (—), and minus sign (−)? Appropriate use of hyphens and dashes is as much a part of literate, easy-to-read writing as are correct spelling and capitalization. The "Insert" editing tools directly below the Misplaced Pages editing window provide immediate access to all these characters. Why does the Manual of Style recommend apostrophe+s for singular possessive of names ending in s? Most modern style guides treat names ending with s just like other singular nouns when forming the possessive. The few that do not propose mutually contradictory alternatives. Numerous discussions have led to the current MoS guidance (see discussions of 2004, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2017, 2017 (the RfC establishing the present consensus), 2018, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022). Why doesn't the Manual of Style always follow specialized practice? Although Misplaced Pages contains some highly technical content, it is written for a general audience. While specialized publications in a field, such as academic journals, are excellent sources for facts, they are not always the best sources for or examples of how to present those facts to non-experts. When adopting style recommendations from external sources, the Manual of Style incorporates a substantial number of practices from technical standards and field-specific academic style guides; however, Misplaced Pages defaults to preferring general-audience sources on style, especially when a specialized preference may conflict with most readers' expectations, and when different disciplines use conflicting styles.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.
Section sizes
Section size for Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (157 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 2,657 2,657
Retaining existing styles 2,787 2,787
Article titles, sections, and headings 137 12,678
Article titles 3,406 3,406
Section organization 4,752 4,752
Section headings 3,573 4,383
Heading-like material 810 810
National varieties of English 847 6,626
Consistency within articles 1,230 1,230
Opportunities for commonality 1,882 1,882
Strong national ties to a topic 1,414 1,414
Retaining the existing variety 1,253 1,253
Capital letters 648 18,724
Capitalization of The 984 984
Titles of works 1,232 1,232
Titles of people 780 780
Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines 4,974 4,974
Calendar items 701 701
Animals, plants, and other organisms 5,616 5,616
Celestial bodies 1,249 1,249
Compass points 1,203 1,203
Proper names versus generic terms 1,337 1,337
Ligatures 495 495
Abbreviations 774 8,140
Write first occurrences in full 640 640
Plural forms 245 245
Punctuation and spacing 1,175 1,175
US and U.S. 1,929 1,929
Circa 279 279
Avoid unwarranted use 662 662
Do not invent 874 874
HTML tags and templates 383 383
Ampersand 1,179 1,179
Italics 105 6,366
Emphasis 1,133 1,133
Titles 572 572
Words as words 1,320 1,320
Non-English words 751 751
Scientific names 499 499
Quotations in italics 581 581
Italics within quotations 767 767
Effect on nearby punctuation 638 638
Quotations 1,355 16,801
Original wording 3,026 3,026
Point of view 1,234 1,234
Typographic conformity 5,818 5,818
Attribution 438 438
Quotations within quotations 94 94
Linking 483 483
Block quotations 3,214 3,214
Non-English quotations 1,139 1,139
Punctuation 203 76,953
Apostrophes 2,184 2,184
Quotation marks 394 13,595
Quotation characters 1,035 1,035
Double or single 1,234 1,234
For a quotation within a quotation 869 869
Article openings 729 729
Punctuation before quotations 2,023 2,023
Names and titles 1,331 1,331
Punctuation inside or outside 3,717 3,717
Quotation marks and external links 940 940
Quotation marks and internal links 1,323 1,323
Brackets and parentheses 3,366 4,571
Brackets and linking 1,205 1,205
Ellipses 2,939 2,939
Commas 4,876 8,072
Serial commas 3,196 3,196
Colons 1,868 1,868
Semicolons 3,331 5,721
Semicolon before "however" 2,390 2,390
Hyphens 9,985 9,985
Dashes 939 16,165
In article titles 759 759
In running text 2,195 12,353
In ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through 3,064 3,064
In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between 5,212 5,212
Instead of a hyphen, use an en dash when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that itself includes a space, dash or hyphen 1,297 1,297
To separate parts of an item in a list 585 585
Other uses for en dashes 543 543
Other uses for em dashes 966 966
Other dashes 605 605
Slashes (strokes) 3,341 3,948
And/or 607 607
Symbols 595 595
Number (pound, hash) sign and numero 2,310 2,310
Terminal punctuation 737 737
Spacing 512 512
Consecutive punctuation marks 1,151 1,151
Punctuation and footnotes 2,179 2,179
Punctuation after formulae 218 218
Dates and time 361 5,083
Time of day 794 794
Dates 1,033 1,033
Months 323 323
Seasons 774 774
Years and longer periods 1,080 1,080
Current 718 718
Numbers 1,884 1,884
Currencies 1,637 1,637
Units of measurement 2,737 2,737
Common mathematical symbols 2,606 2,606
Grammar and usage 62 12,759
Possessives 158 1,918
Singular nouns 975 975
Plural nouns 523 523
Official names 262 262
Pronouns 104 5,804
First-person pronouns 1,494 1,494
Second-person pronouns 2,306 2,306
Third-person pronouns 1,900 1,900
Plurals 2,005 2,005
Verb tense 2,970 2,970
Vocabulary 98 22,675
Contractions 476 476
Gender-neutral language 1,692 1,692
Contested vocabulary 256 256
Instructional and presumptuous language 2,578 2,578
Subset terms 618 618
Identity 1,957 3,604
Gender identity 1,647 1,647
Non-English terms 301 8,016
Terms without common usage in English 1,547 1,547
Terms with common usage in English 400 400
Spelling and romanization 4,917 4,917
Other non-English concerns 851 851
Technical language 1,961 1,961
Geographical items 3,376 3,376
Media files 69 2,791
Images 313 313
Other media 181 181
Avoid using images to display text 884 884
Captions 526 1,344
Formatting of captions 818 818
Bulleted and numbered lists 1,552 1,552
Links 10 1,750
Wikilinks 1,411 1,411
External links 329 329
Miscellaneous 18 13,493
Keep markup simple 1,219 1,219
Formatting issues 1,016 3,146
Color coding 1,245 1,245
Indentation 885 885
Controlling line breaks 2,471 2,471
Scrolling lists and collapsible content 3,164 3,164
Invisible comments 1,554 2,817
How to add an invisible comment 1,263 1,263
Pronunciation 658 658
See also 1,199 4,870
Guidance 1,242 1,242
Tools 300 300
Other community standards 523 523
Guidelines within the Manual of Style 310 1,606
Names 1,296 1,296
Notes 24 24
References 28 28
Further reading 1,206 1,206
Total 227,322 227,322
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconManual of Style
WikiProject iconThis 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
Note icon
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.
Note icon
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.
WikiProject iconMisplaced Pages Help Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Misplaced Pages Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Misplaced Pages HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Misplaced Pages Help ProjectHelp
TopThis page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Welcome to the MOS pit


    Style discussions elsewhere

    This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

    Current

    (newest on top)

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Capitalization-specific:

    This section is an excerpt from Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Current.

    Move requests:

    Other discussions:

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Concluded

    Extended content
    This section is an excerpt from Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Concluded.
    Capitalization-specific:
    2024
    2023
    2022
    2021

    Is there a MOS guidance that applies to changing between common terms based on the name of the Wiki article?

    Do we have a guideline for dealing with different name, common names for the same thing (Inline-four engine vs Straight-four engine)? The target article, Straight-four engine, has used both names (changed in 2009 and 2022). Sources use both terms but I think the shorted "I4" is used more often in sources. I presume we would follow something like the MOS:ENGVAR where if there is no source preference we go with what the editors used first. Recently an editor, Kumboloi, made a number of good faith changes in linking articles from "inline-four" to "straight-four" to align external article text with the target article name. Is there a guide on this? How should this be handled? Springee (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    It's a policy, our naming conventions policy, which largely doubles as our policy on article titles. Generally, for a given thing there's no reason to use a different name in the prose of any other article than one would use in the article about the thing itself, if that makes sense.Remsense ‥ 论 14:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure where the naming convention says we should change article text in a case like this. The article in question indicates both names are common (A straight-four engine (also referred to as an inline-four engine)). This is also reflected in the two name changes over the years. I don't see where the naming convention says we should favor the target article name vs what the individual article sources are using. Consider a hypothetical, I'm created a Wiki article about the new "CarX". My RS source that says, "CarX uses an inline four engine". Why would I not follow the source vs use the title of our straight four article? This is especially true if if the hyperlink is added later by a different editor. Also, until 2022 the title of the article was "inline". A consensus of 3 editors changed the article name. That's fine but the result is many changes to other articles. If a new consensus of 5 editors reverses the change do we flop back? I think it's less disruptive (makes articles more stable) if we avoid article text changes in cases like this. However, I am interested in knowing what guidance might apply here. Springee (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm interested in understanding this. My motivation in making the edits came down to a suspicion that there was some type of penalty incurred by linking through a redirect page, or that the redirects imposed a maintenance overhead. I hadn't read the naming convention, but if there's no real reason to reduce the number of redirected links, and recognizing that the target page could just as easily be renamed again in the future, I'll stop doing these edits. (Personally, I prefer "inline" to "straight", but I can see how the renaming would help organize the associated pages.) Thanks. Kumboloi (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    My reasoning is WP:NC stresses how we are required to name things, as we are un all editorial decisions, based on WP:V and WP:NPOV (in many cases this boils down to the result of WP:COMMONNAME). It has provisions specific to the article title and not the body, but much of it is expressing how to apply V and NPOV in deciding what to call things.
    If we take alternative names as such—e.g. that, all else being equal, we do take inline four and straight four to be synonyms, truly referring to the same thing for our purposes—it makes very little sense to "wall off" which names are used in a particular article, as there are no clear limits on how strictly this would have to be observed. Am I allowed to use any synonymous nouns, verbs, or adjectives in my synthesis that don't happen to appear in my three best sources? On the other hand, naming according to a generalized scope is surely more coherent for a hyperlinked encyclopedia providing tertiary analysis instead of merely refactoring and reshuffling the specific language of our secondary sources.
    Of course exceptions abound, much of the time alternative names and redirects should be freely used according to syntactical and contextual concerns—but I believe this to be correct mindset to assume by default. I don't think any given article that uses First World War needs to be changed. However, in cases like these, I feel it pays dividends to use terminology consistently between pages. If readers are encountering technical or domain specific language for the first time, we create the most helpful and coherent tertiary analysis for them if we zoom out a bit. It makes no sense to prefer Sassanid to Sasanian just because the book we're citing prefers the former—e.g., in an article about a specific battle, or a broad conceptual article not specific to the Sasanians—our deliberately preferring Sassanid simply does not aid the reader in becoming familiar with whatever additional context they're going to go to Sasanian Empire for in order to better understand our other article.
    If I wake up and find this totally incoherent, I apologize. It's hard to speak clearly about naming and reference, though it's one of my favorite things to think about. Remsense ‥ 论 16:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    WP:NOTBROKEN clearly says: "Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace ] with ]." So if a link already leads to the correct article, but using an alternative name that redirects, that's absolutely fine and nothing more needs to be done. I realize that you're probably not talking about piping, but about changing the link text and link target together – but that too is unnecessary if the existing link target works fine (by redirecting). Gawaon (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Kumboloi, thanks for that explanation. It reaffirms my believe that you were acting in good faith (I hope you took my revert that way as well). Springee (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think there needs to be a good reason to not use the article title in text (and they do exist), and that can be discussed on a per-case basis at the relevant article (or other) talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed. Remsense ‥ 论 17:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Just so long as it is realized that THERE RATHER OFTEN IS A GOOD REASON! National language preferences for one thing. Busywork drive-by changes should be strongly discouraged. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Goes without saying! Remsense ‥ 论 19:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I just thought I'd drive by and agree with that. EEng 22:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    The answer the the OP's question is "More or less yes", in the form of MOS:STYLEVAR. Remesense's idea above that article titles policy and its dependent naming-conventions guidelines and essays (which actually defer to MoS on style questions) somehow dictate in-article content. They absolutely do not, or we would simply merge them. However, agreement with the page title can actually qualify as a good reason for a text change under STYLEVAR a lot of time, such as when a old page title (and our mirroring of it in the text) was a misnomer, unhelpfully ambiguous, obsolete, or obscurantist. When such problems don't apply, then having more than one way to refer to the subject is a boon to editors and readers, since it allows us to write less repetitively. But the lead should almost always agree with the title, and start with the term/name in the title and secondarily provide any noteworthy alternative(s). Some exceptions of course apply, such as when a term/name in the title is a colloquialism and used for WP:COMMONNAME purposes in the title but is not the best way to introduce the first sentence (this is especially common at biographical articles, in which we often give the full "Elizabeth" or "Robert" name of someone more commonly called "Liz" or "Bobby" and given that way in the page title).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think they must dictate in-article content to a degree at least—it would make no sense to use a particular name in the title and initial definition (I've been assuming congruence throughout, e.g. no disambiguators considered) and then never again. Remsense ‥ 论 03:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's a correlation/causation mix-up. What you're talking about is just WP:Common sense (to the point of "Don't be intentionally perverse as if with a goal of confusing readers as much as possible") and a matter of MOS:BETTER. It's not an element of title policy or of naming conventions, which do not address article content (except a few of the worst-written NC pages have a statement or two in them about body content that needs to move out of those pages; I've been cleaning those up as I run across them).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've been racking my brain trying to articulate exactly what I mean here, but I do not think it is merely correlative. Hopefully that is a useful thought inasmuch beyond just the trivial truth that the language one is exposed to affects the language they go on to use and think in terms of. Remsense ‥ 论 19:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Commas around incorporated businesses' names

    from looking at MOS:COMMA, there isn't any guidance on how to deal with names with Inc.. multiple articles do any of the following, either with no comma, a comma only before and a comma around the word.

    1. Mumumu Inc. is a company ...
    2. Mumumu, Inc. is a company ...
    3. Mumumu, Inc., is a company ...

    I am aware that the commaless and comma style may coexist (sometimes in the same article!), however the second and third styles should likely be decided upon. Juwan (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    An editing policy question

    When I read Wiki policy and guidance pages, I sometimes find shall used instead of will to indicate what must be done — for example, in the Signs of Sockpuppetry article, we find: "The more signs that are present, the more likely sockpuppetry is occurring, though no accusations shall be made unless, beyond a reasonable doubt, one is really certain."

    Granted that shall is often used this way in government and judicial documents, I think it sounds somewhat at odds with the more user-friendly ambience Misplaced Pages has tried to create for editors. Besides, shall is not consistently applied throughout the policy and guidance pages — for example, in the same Signs of Sockpuppetry article, we find: "The closing administrator will be required to follow the consensus, even if they personally disagree."

    — For the above reasons, wouldn't it be in Misplaced Pages's best interests to avoid using the conversationally archaic shall in these articles and replace it with will?? I doubt that this would make editors with wrongdoing on their minds less likely to behave as desired.

    — But if the decision is made to continue "shalling," then for the sake of consistency couldn't a search-and-replace be done throughout the policy and guidance articles to replace will with shall where the word needs to indicate what must be done? Augnablik (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    It's fine, really. This is one of those things the MOS exists to obliquely neutralize—i.e. this is a pretty conjectural position and not worth getting into all-in or all-out discussions over. Remsense ‥ 论 17:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    “Obliquely neutralize” — there’s a new one for me! 😅
    I just thought it would help lighten the bureaucratic tone of these articles to dial down the legalese, as many editors feel increasingly on edge with all the rules and regulations they discover the more they wade into Misplaced Pages. Augnablik (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    Genuinely, I apologize that I can't talk normal when the situation would benefit from it. Take that how you will. Remsense ‥ 论 17:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    Or shall. EEng 17:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    😂 Augnablik (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Am losing the will to live here, mate. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    The classic rule is that, in the first person (I/we) the unmarked form is "shall", whereas "will" connotes a deliberate choice, but in the second and third person, the unmarked form is "will", whereas "shall" connotes a demand based on the speaker's authority.
    There are two good ways to remember this. The classic one is the English canard about the Irishman in trouble in the lake, who said "I will drown and no one shall save me", so to respect his wishes, they let him drown.
    The other one involves Tallulah Bankhead. I shan't repeat it here. I expect anyone who wants to can Google it. --Trovatore (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just be aware that you’ve entered the purview of a global encyclopedia, and that means you will encounter forms of English that aren’t necessarily common locally to wherever you live. MapReader (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    Is this one of those rfc:2119 situations where we should stick to a limited number of modal verbs on a sliding scale (must > should > may)? --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    @MapReader, Although I’m aware of different styles of English in different parts of the world, the shall/will issue I’ve raised here is more about how Misplaced Pages wants to show officially expected actions in particular situations.
    Not like , “Today I shall go to the beach” … but like, “Administrators shall hold discussions on the matter for one week before reaching a decision.” Augnablik (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Nevertheless, ‘shall’ is still reasonably common usage in formal, official or legal written texts, in the UK, in a way that I don’t think you can say for the US (but willing to be corrected…), and is not considered particularly user-unfriendly. Your observation to the contrary above is therefore pitched from the perspective of a particular Engvar, which was my original point. MapReader (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    @MapReader, you're probably right about "how official" shall sounds to UK and US readers of official documents. And frankly, that word is still used from time to time in official documents in the US, even though much more rarely these days. Even so, here's a thought: if will would work equally well as shall in Misplaced Pages policy and guidance documents, why not use it consistently here so as to make "official stuff" sound a bit less bureaucratic but at the same time affirming of expected behavior?
    Though I'm American, I doubt that any of our UK cousins across the pond would feel affronted if Misplaced Pages consciously adopted will in its policy and guidelines. Wouldn't it simply be one more example of Misplaced Pages's intentions of providing as welcoming and user-friendly environment as possible in which to work, while in no way demeaning other varieties of writing?
    Alternatively, to avoid the whole shall/will issue, there are still other ways wording could be done. For example, instead of "Administrators shall hold discussions...,” we could say, "Administrators are to hold discussions ....” Augnablik (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    More rules about how rules should be written could be one step forward, two steps back. EEng 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Onbiously, you're free to edit how you want, but as a general rule, surely it isn't WP's object, nor that of the MoS, to try and enforce general language preferences on our editors? MapReader (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    You state the onbious. EEng 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, @MapReader, I think it’s time for me to gracefully bow out of the discussion now. My only Intent in making my suggestion was far from an attempt to enforce, though I see how it might be interpreted that way.
    Instead, I was trying to make a case for a slight change in wording that seemed to me could help Misplaced Pages accomplish its very positive goal of creating an open, light, friendly ambience — just as seniors helping in the Teahouse and elsewhere are asked to do with those who ask questions. I know that as some editors get involved with Misplaced Pages, they come to feel weighed down by many rules and regulations and even become fearful they might make a slip and face serious consequences.
    It was this I hoped my suggestion might help prevent in the long run, with the flip-side benefit of editor retention. Augnablik (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Discussion at Archimedes § MOS:'S (redux)

     You are invited to join the discussion at Archimedes § MOS:'S. Remsense ‥ 论 21:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Specifically, input would be appreciated regarding the treatment of derivative proper names (e.g. Archimedes' principle) in running text versus the titles of dedicated articles. Thanks! Remsense ‥ 论 07:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just for the record, I detest and/or, which the MOS backs me on, but (besides ... instead of the clearer in quotations) I also detest Archimedes's. Can't we just use the Latinate genitive Archimedis? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    As someone who does not particularly despise Archimedes's, I would cast my even less ramified ;vote for that. Remsense ‥ 论 05:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion on American football bio leads

    See here. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Usage of historical place names in infoboxes

    Some feedback here would be nice. Thanks --Flominator (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    When are words being used as-words?

    It seems to be required by MOS:WAW that any statement that uses constructions like:

    • This concept is called Example, ... (also termed, known as, referred to as, etc.)

    italicize the term. However, this is almost never consistently done even in many of our FAs (see Introduction to general relativity, used as an example in the MoS), and many other publications are unbothered. Am I worrying about something that doesn't make a difference in the clarity of many passages?

    I just struggle with paragraphs like (adapted from Chinese characters § Zhou scripts):

    “ The mainstream script's slow, gradual evolution continued during the Zhou dynasty until assuming the form now known as small seal script within the state of Qin. Other scripts in use during the late Zhou include the bird-worm seal script, as well as the regional forms used in non-Qin states. Historically, these forms were collectively known as large seal script, a term which has fallen out of favour due to its lack of precision. ”

    It just looks weird that maintaining a natural flow in more jargon-y passages requires two terms to be italicized and one not to be. It looks arbitrary, and might even confuse readers if they notice? Remsense ‥ 论 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    I don't think that either of the phrases in the example qualify as words as words. WAW, I think, applies to things like, "Of all the nouns, birdcage is the best." Or, "...some egghead discovered a misprint of the book, with relative misspelled." I would use quotation marks in the example you provided.

    Unless, of course, I'm mistaken. Primergrey (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Order of explanation for placing ref as per MOS:REFPUNCT

    Hi

    I am finding an increased number of refs in the middle of text, and I wondered if it could be confusion to the current wording. If the editor/reader deos not read more/further than the first sentence of this section of the paragraph, they may well put the ref in the middle of a sentence and not after punctuation as it appears to first suggest that: "All reference tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space. Apart from the exceptions listed below, references are placed after adjacent punctuation, not before."

    Can we consider rewording this to: "All reference tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, and should be placed after the next adjacent punctuation with no intervening space. The exceptions to this are listed below."

    This would then read as a two-part instruction rather than the current which appears to be one instruction to place it directly after the text.

    Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    No, you don't have to wait for punctuation to place a reference. The current wording is fine. Gawaon (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    It clearly states that we do, in the current wording - "references are placed after adjacent punctuation" Chaosdruid (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    No, it's saying that if there is adjacent punctuation, the ref goes after, but it does not preclude placing a ref immediately after the relevant text when there is no adjacent punctuation. Schazjmd (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've always understood the part about punctuation to mean only that if the text to which the footnote applies ends in a punctuation mark, treat that mark as part of the text you're footnoting and put the footnote after it. There's no implication that you have to defer placement of the footnote to the next punctuation mark that appears. And certainly not to the end of the sentence: the guideline covers commas as well. Largoplazo (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Upgrade MOS:ALBUM to an official guideline

    Over at Village pump (policy), I proposed upgrading MOS:ALBUM from an essay to an official guideline. If this talk page is the preferred venue, I apologize. I also apologize for the delay in notifying this talk page. Please see the discussion if you have any input or opinion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    The discussion has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Upgrade_MOS:ALBUM_to_an_official_guideline.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    New discussion at Talk:2018 Crozet, Virginia, train crash

    I've tagged it at the top of this page as well, but also putting the invitation here to participate in a new discussion on the use of MOS:GEOCOMMA in article titles (such as train and bus accidents) at Talk:2018 Crozet, Virginia, train crash#Requested move 15 January 2025 - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Usage of 'Notable person' vis-a-vis that of 'Notable people'

    In the course of editing, I very often come across a section header with 'Notable people' and only one entry, so modify the grammar.

    Several days ago, after making such a change, the edit was reverted outright, in conjunction with a statement to the effect that the heading is 'Notable people' regardless of the number of entries listed. It seems to me that, per https://en.wikipedia.org/English_plurals#Miscellaneous_irregular_plurals, the reversion was incorrect. Hushpuckena (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Honestly I think we should use "persons" as the unmarked plural of "person" Misplaced Pages-wide. Encyclopedic writing is a very formal register, and "people" has other baggage, often not intended.
    That said, what sort of article is this? Are these city articles, or what? --Trovatore (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    There has been no negative intent on my part when using 'people', but so it goes.
    These articles have been on various communities and I have made such changes for years, but till now have never had any editor state that grammar is immaterial. Hushpuckena (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Some section headings are either by guideline, like WP:ELORDER for "External links" or MOS:NOTES for "Notes" and "References" etc., or by tradition and common usage, like "Notable people", "Awards", "Published works", written as plurals, even if there's only one entry. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed; keep it plural, also like "Languages" in the sidebar (even for only one language) and like "Media" in the Commons template (even for only one file there). Doremo (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Oxford spelling and commas

    As far as I'm aware, serial comma inclusion/omission is always treated separately from spelling conventions; MOS:SERIAL doesn't say anything related to MOS:TIES. However, when an article employs Oxford spelling ({{British English Oxford spelling}}), would it be reasonable to require the serial comma? (Of course, this wouldn't prohibit removing it to avoid local ambiguity.) On one hand, it seems a bit odd that editors of a specific article must follow one prominent component of a specific style guide's instructions while being free to ignore another component, and because en-gb-oxondic is a narrow group of articles and compliance requires a little training, these articles are already having their spelling/grammar watched by editors who are familiar with everyone else not being aware of the standards. But on the other hand, I can imagine it being awkward to require serial commas on a small portion of the encyclopedia, while the rest of the encyclopedia merely requires internal consistency; it might lead to confusion because a small set of articles has rules different from the rest. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    The serial comma and Oxford spelling are not related to one another save from the fact that Hart's Rules and the Oxford English Dictionary share the same publishing house on the River Isis, and they are not intended to complement one another in any particular way. As you've noticed, this is conflating apples with oranges stylistically. More concretely, our guidance on serial commas is not dependent at all on what variety of English is being used—instead, it should be consistent, and possibly depend on what is best for eliminating ambiguity in each article on an individual basis. Remsense ‥ 论 22:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    So Hart's Rules doesn't demand the use of Oxford spelling? My thought process:
    • Oxford spelling says that Hart's Rules follows Oxford spelling
    • Style guides are created to be prescriptive on this kind of thing, so Hart's Rules will require a specific spelling system
    • Hence, it's highly likely that Hart's Rules will require the spelling system that it uses
    Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oxford spelling is just that—spelling. As an ENGVAR, it is merely British English with etymologically-minded spelling conventions. Remsense ‥ 论 22:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    As for Oxford comma, I refer you to a reply I gave some years ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Does Misplaced Pages use honorific titles?

    I remember reading a while ago that Misplaced Pages does not use honorific titles in referring to people, e.g. Albert Einstein or Einstein instead of Dr. Albert Einstein or Dr. Einstein. I can't find anything like that today. Did I imagine that? Is there any style guidance on use of titles such as Doctor? MOS:HONORIFIC is just about using special honorifics associated with a person who is the subject of a biography. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    MOS:JOBTITLE and its subsection MOS:DOC says to avoid "Dr" and similar titles.  Stepho  talk  06:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    As a general rule, we also don't use even less specific honorifics or courtesy titles (I'm not super-sure of the distinction between the two), like Mr, except in quotes. See MOS:MR. --Trovatore (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    ENGVAR question

    Based on a dispute at Bicolor cat. Does the fact that the article has, and has always had, a clear ENGVAR title control what variety the body uses? Seems obvious to me, but the guideline doesn't actually state what to do.

    In this particular case, the article was created as the stubbiest of stubs in 2002, with the creator using "bicolor" in the title (and the article has never been moved, I double checked) while using "bicolour" in the one-paragraph body. Over the next few years contributions included both spellings, and both appeared in the body at the same time. However, noting the inconsistency, a wikignome edited the body in 2008 to consistently use "color" and that ENGVAR was used consistently and continuously for 16 years until last September when, citing the ancient stub in Theo edit summary, someone changed the body ENGVAR to use "colour" making it inconsistent with the title. I changed it and was promptly reverted. I argue that there was no consistent variety at all until 2008, and that having a variety consistent with the title (which again, has never changed) is the only logical and valid ENGVAR. oknazevad (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Flip a coin if you want, but pragmatically a move is a "more substantial" alteration, so I would go with the title form. Remsense ‥ 论 23:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    A quick spot check of the article's early history confirms that it started as "bicolor". Since there are no close ties to any country for this term, there is no reason for it to prefer either British or US spelling, so we fall back to the spelling used when the article was created. The use within in the article should match the articles name, so "bicolor" is the correct spelling for this article. As said above, this is all following WP:ENGVAR. Note: I say this as an Australian who would naturally use "bicolour".  Stepho  talk  23:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with oknazevad that it never had a consistent style until oknazevad's change to make the body consistent with the title. The previous change to use "colour" throughout the body does not count because the title remained inconsistent. I agree with the comments above that going with the original title is a smaller change and therefore better, but we can reach the same outcome by a different argument: oknazevad's version was the first consistent version so we should go with that. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    To be clear, I was not the editor who made it consistent in 2008 (which was done with this edit. In fact, I had never edited the article until today, after I noticed the obvious clash between the title and the body. A quick look at the history showed that it had been changed last September. I was just changing it back to the consistent ENGVAR the article had for over a decade and a half. oknazevad (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks, I stand corrected. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please stop making this claim. It was inconsistent before I edited it: . I noticed the inconsistency and looked at the oldest revisions to decide on which variety to change to. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Your implied claim that it was never consistent until you edited it is clearly false: the 2008 version that oknazevad links to is consistent. And your implied claim that your edit (I assume in this version) made it consistent is also false: there is no consistent spelling even if one ignores the obvious inconsistency between article and text. One could interpret your comment here as meaning merely that the version immediately prior to yours had inconsistencies (as did the version after your edit) but that is not a valid reason to choose one spelling over another; one has to look at the history. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Exactly. The version before the one you just linked to has one errant ENGVAR use. The alternate spelling in the first sentence is not only typical but expected. The only other use is in the title of a reference, and that should not be altered. oknazevad (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions Add topic