WikiProject iconManual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia: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 articles
Note icon
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Welcome to the MOS pit

Style discussions elsewhere

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)

Capitalization-specific:

Move requests:

Other discussions:

Pretty stale but not "concluded":

Concluded

Extended content
Capitalization-specific:
2023
2022
2021

Non-breaking spaces with written-out units

As a follow-up to topic-specific discussions at Talk:Hassium and User talk:DePiep#MOS and NBSP, it seems that the current MOS guideline on the usage of non-breaking spaces when separating numbers from written-out units (e.g. 5 kilometers (instead of 5 km); 118 elements) is open to interpretation. It advises to use non-breaking spaces when line breaks are awkward, which they seem to be in this case; however, implementing this would apparently require making heavy changes to lots of articles, as it is not strongly established as are the examples given in the MOS section.

I thus ask, should the same guideline for quantities and abbreviated units be followed for fully spelled-out units? Should non-breaking spaces be used only with abbreviations, or always with units and quantities? I would like to establish a more definite MOS guideline, in which one or the other is widely agreed upon as common practice. ComplexRational (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where else would you suggest discussing this, seeing as its outcome is not specific to the articles for which this was discussed, and the question is pretty straightforward from these discussions? If it can be held elsewhere, I will withdraw; however, I don't think that place is MOSNUM because this issue pertains to MOS:NBSP, which is not its own MOS sub-page. I'm open to ideas. ComplexRational (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest discussing it right here (or at Talk:MOSNUM, but since ultimately it's an aesthetic, not technical, issue I guess here is fine.) There are plenty of people here who have thought a lot about formatting issues, and many have outside professional experience, and with their participation I suspect the issue can either be resolved or boiled down to a clearcut question. Open-ended RfCs like you've started, which pull random people from all over into an unstructured discussion, just end up a mess. EEng 03:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I withdrew it as an RfC. Let's play it out as a regular discussion now; I apologize for being unaware of this potential complication. ComplexRational (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ping to prevent archiving. EEng 12:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the "jumping into an RfC" that EEng is referring to here. I do see a reasonable description by ComplexRational of a MOS detail to be clarified somehow. Do I miss some invisible redacted editing? Please clarify. As it stands now, the OP is correct and relevant to me. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously, like the OP said: he had set this up as an RfC but later withdrew it at my urging. EEng 00:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, that 'obvious' part is not visible then?, like in an talk edited afterwards (ouch)? Must I do homework research to see it? -DePiep (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ, the OP wrote, just above here: Okay, I withdrew it as an RfC. 01:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the point that is puzzling both DePiep and me is there seems to be no trace of the !RfC for us to see what issues had been raised. Starting an RfC and then withdrawing it should surely leave something in a history somewhere. There are no links, nor anything in contributions that I can find. What am I missing? --RexxS (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent diff before I withdrew upon EEng's suggestion was [1]. All that changed since then was removal of the RfC template; the content of my original post is the same now as it was then. ComplexRational (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In traditional typography, typesetters would ensure that sentences didn't break onto another line at a point where the result was a new line starting with something that didn't make sense alone, or where the break would produce a semantic dissonance. So they would avoid lines starting with an abbreviation:

as well as lines that changed meaning when the next line was read:

In electronic document processing, when line length can change with screen resolution or window size, the non-breaking space was used to prevent those sort of breaks from happening. I don't believe there has ever been any rationale for placing a non-breaking space between numbers and normal recognisable English words, because those don't produce problems, other than in cases like the second example. There is really nothing wrong with seeing:

and it is especially ludicrous to extend the fetish for non-breaking spaces in quantities to normal counted items. There is nothing wrong with reading:

The examples at MOS:UNITNAMES reflect these simple principles, and I can't see what other interpretation could be made of the present guidance:

If somebody wants to change those guidelines, then they really should be proposing what changes they want made and the reasons for them. --RexxS (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I wasn't proposing a change. I was merely asking for clarification, and if any disagreement were to arise, then firmly establish one way or another. What is written here makes sense, now I only propose that it is made crystal clear for other (copy)editors in the MOS:NBSP section (to use only with abbreviations). ComplexRational (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @RexxS:, these examples are undisputed, and are clear by WP:NBSP and WP:MOSUNIT. Minor detail: your example of 15<regularspace>kilometres is not in the MOS explicitly, but well observed, also by ((Convert)) — end of detail.
Note: for simplicity, an "_" (underscore) says NBSP.
A question arose when reading in MOS:NBSP: It is desirable to prevent line breaks where breaking across lines might be confusing or awkward. -- note the criterium "awkward". The examples given are (1) unit symbols - no problem, see before, and (2) exampes of number-in-proper-name (Boeing_747).
Some editors state that the "awkward" situation may also occur in situations with a number inline, i.e. in running text. Examples (in here): element_114, the expected magic 114_protons, ....
My (opposing) point is that such number-word combinations are not awkward, can reasionably occur in any running sentence, are part of a reading habit, and so are not 'awkward' and do not allow an NBSP. Otherwise, this whole enwiki could require a MOS-change in ~every article, or have inconsistent styles between articles re this line-breaking.
So, first question: do we recognise this is a Good MOS Question to discuss? -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's long been a need for the nbsp/nobreak guidance to be improved. I've never done anything about it because I realized some cases would need a discussion. EEng 00:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: It certainly seems that something ought to be done to educate editors about when to use (and not use) non-breaking spaces. I just looked at the Island of stability article you pointed out. Over 200 non-breaking spaces. Seriously? I've just removed four that you could see at a glance occur at places where the line could never break. No doubt somebody will revert me, citing MoS instead of thinking for themselves. I'm not sure repeating the already crystal clear guidance in MoS is the solution though. Either they never read MoS or they don't understand what a line break is. Either way, tinkering with the MoS won't have any effect on them. As for your actual examples, I've long ago given up trying to convince others that there's absolutely nothing wrong with reading
  • Flerovium, with the expected magic 114
    protons, was first synthesized in 1998
Although to get a line break there, you would have to be viewing on a screen with a maximum line length of less than 40 characters. Even my 1978 vintage TRS-80 could manage that. --RexxS (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If 114 protons can't be broken, then you may as well say that every number has to be followed by an nbsp, always, and that would be silly.
  • I do think Z = 112 shouldn't break, though that would be better coded as ((nobr|Z = 112)) than the current Z&nbsp;=&nbsp;112
  • I'm not sure that all the examples at MOS:NBSP belong there, and I wonder if there shouldn't be some other cases listed.
EEng 04:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:RexxS: that is my understanding of MOS:NBSP too, including its background (typography). It's just, I stopped editing because of EW, started a talk, and involved editors correctly started a wider talk here. But I see no need to admonish other editors, instead we could use a clearer MOS text and explanation here, for fellow editors. -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that the section title here is a much narrower issue than the wide one ComplexRational and I were discussing/editing. As the Island of stability example show, it was and is about all of MOS:NBSP. This complicates/disturbs this talk flow, I must excuse. (how to proceed?). -DePiep (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng and DePiep: Apologies, I was too focused on the quantities issues and not enough on the general nbsp guidance, which does seem to be missing. IMHO, we should have a guideline that says something like
  • Numbers followed by an ordinary English word (not an abbreviation, or similar) do not require a non-breaking space between them in normal circumstances.
There are also many circumstances where a non-breaking space is unnecessary because a line break can't happen there. There are three examples in Island of stability: in the caption of the infobox (the width is fixed, regardless of window size); in reference number 5 (too close to the start of a line for a line break to be possible); and in the table caption "Most stable isotopes of superheavy elements (Z ≥ 104)" (the table can't become narrow enough to wrap the caption onto another line). I've tried pushing the zoom up to 250% and narrowing the window to its minimum, but I can't find a setting that could cause a line break where one had been placed. Nevertheless, I don't suppose that is anything we can, or should, try to give guidance about in MoS for fear of causing more confusion. --RexxS (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the first image, a line break appeared at 70% zoom on my computer screen, and indeed was awkward. What exactly are you suggesting would risk more confusion? The MoS is supposed to make things as clear as possible, and I wouldn't have started this thread had it been clear from the beginning (echoing EEng – There's long been a need for the nbsp/nobreak guidance to be improved.). ComplexRational (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining how you got the line break in the image caption; I hadn't considered zooming out that far. But do you think anybody actually reads Wikipedia at 70% zoom? I can't even get any of my browsers to zoom at 70% to see the effect. Still, it's possible, so best to leave in the ((nowrap)) in that case. The general point about infobox images with captions shorter than the image width is worth understanding, though.
What I am suggesting is that there are many cases where we simply don't need a non-breaking space, i.e. whenever it's not possible for the line to break at that point, but that it's difficult to try to give foolproof guidance to cover those cases, so I don't think we can come up with a form of words that would be helpful. Can you?
Do you agree with my suggested clarification above: Numbers followed by an ordinary English word (not an abbreviation, or similar) do not require a non-breaking space between them in normal circumstances. and if not, why not? --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, I understand what you're saying about captions. Would it then also be better to use ((nobr|1=''Z'' = 114)) (for example) throughout the article, if this would be preferred to a pair of nbsp's? (On an unrelated note, maybe a new template should be created following whatever this discussion establishes, as this is pretty common in chemistry and physics articles.) ComplexRational (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this wording, it addresses the elephant in the room and is easy enough to follow. I would specifically use it as an antithesis to the MOS points advising nbsp with units (70_km) or parts of the name (Airbus_A380), though I suppose saying "not an abbreviation" already addresses that. The only thing that may raise questions is "normal circumstances" – I'd rather leave that out and add an additional bullet point saying something along the lines of Non-breaking spaces are not required in fixed-with table cells or image captions, especially when the text is not long enough to wrap., or else work out through discussion what the most common exceptions would be (that would otherwise confuse editors unfamiliar or too familiar with MOS). ComplexRational (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most editors, in my experience, prefer ((nowrap)) over multiple consecutive non-breaking spaces in a phrase. It makes the wikitext more readable for other editors (the same reason we prefer to avoid html entities where possible).
The "normal circumstances" would be to cover exceptions like
  • ... his fee for the service was $50
    thousand.
where a non-breaking space between the number and the next word would avoid giving the reader the impression the fee was $50 until they read on to the next line. But I'm happy to accommodate other views such as giving examples of specific exceptions instead of stating "normal circumstances".
While I think about it, there is a good case for what I called the "semantic dissonance" to be noted as a rule in other places as well:
  • ... the great-grandnephew of Queen Mary
    II
To anyone familiar with Tudor/Stuart history of England, it first reads as Mary I of England, then as Mary II of England when the next line is reached and obviously should be avoided. That represents one of the very few phrases where I would have no hesitation in recommending the use of a non-breaking space for cogent, rather than aesthetic reasons.--RexxS (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is already covered at MOS:NUM, to the extent any of this needs any rule-mongering. It advises using non-breaking spaces in strings like 5 cm, but it does not advise doing this when using spelled-out words. It doesn't advise against it, either. Like most things, it is left to editorial discretion. Nothing is broken. No, we do not need another template, since ((nobr)) and ((nbsp)) work fine. So does just using &nbsp;. Yes, it is WP:Common sense to non-breakify certain strings like "$50 thousand", and "Mary II". No, we don't need a rule about it, or we would've already had one by now. No, we do not need anyone going around inserting non-breaking spaces robotically in proximity to every number they see, per WP:MEATBOT ("ain't broke, don't 'fix' it").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NBSP for numeric followed by words

Hi all, I recently put up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1985 World Snooker Championship/archive2 for FAC. SandyGeorgia commented that there should be some additional non-breaking spaces for items such as "15 seeds, 103 entrants, 32 participants". I don't really mind putting these in, but wanted to clarify our MOS, and how it effects these types of phrases. My understanding at WP:NBSP is that we should use these on names, such as World War 2, and measurements, such as 10 Miles. However, should we also use these on regular expressions, such as "20 people"? I don't mind either way, but wanted to clarify before I do wholesale changes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline gives patchy and somewhat conflicting advice on this entire subject. I'm going to give you what I think will be useful guidance, but we must brace ourselves for people to leap out at us from all corners of the project to denounce what I say as at best the product of unfathomable ignorance, and at worst detrimental to the moral fiber of the nation.
There are two (maybe more, but two I can think of offhand) things we're trying to prevent:
  • (1) You don't want tiny fragments that look odd alone stranded on the start of a line. Thus World War{nbsp}2 and Henry{nbsp}VIII.
  • (2) You don't want two things separated by a linebreak if the reader, seeing just the first part, will be momentarily misled and have to back up and rethink when he sees the bit on the next line. Thus $2{nbsp}million, because if the million goes on the next line the reader first thinks "Two dollars", and then when he sees the million he has to back up and think "Oh, wait, Two million dollars". (This is a peculiarity of the fact that money symbols go at front of quantities rather than at the end as with other units. Can anyone think of a similar example not involving money?)
(3) Notice that the logic of (2) doesn't arise with normal quantities like 15 seeds or 2 million dollars (i.e. no nbsp used in these cases) because as the reader scans "15<linebreak>seeds" there's nothing misleading about 15 alone at the end of the line, and the same for scanning "2<linebreak>million dollars" or "2 million<linebreak>dollars". When you think about it, if you required nbsp in constructions like that, then you're pretty much saying every number anywhere must be followed by an nbsp, and that can't be right. So I would not put {nbsp} in your examples.
(4) Units of measure are a special case. By the logic of (3), there's no {nbsp} in 10 kilometers. However, I think the guideline does recommend an {nbsp} in the case of 10{nbsp}km, because at the start of a line km looks weird in a way kilometer doesn't. (km is what's called a unit symbol, whereas kilometer is what's called a unit name, and there are several other ways in which unit symbols and unit names are treated differently, so there's nothing odd about treating them differently here.)
Perhaps the principles laid out above can be the start of a revival of this thread. EEng 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps not. In the meantime, here are some other places I think (comment invited, of course) nbsp would be needed or not needed. Probably some or all of these are give by others in the posts above but I want to get them down while they're on my mind.
Needed:
  • In DMY dates e.g. 28{nbsp}May or 28{nbsp}May 1935, because at least some readers will find separation of the day-in-month from the month odd. (Further explanation on request as to why this is different from the case of 10 kilometers.)
  • In MDY dates e.g. May{nbsp}28, 1935, because "28, 1935" looks ludicrous at the start of a line.
  • He responded, "Better you than{nbsp}I." or The smallest reading was{nbsp}5.
  • 9:30{nbsp}a.m. because I think it's somewhat analogous to a unit symbol (see above); and definitely 9:30{nbsp}am, because "am" alone and separated from the "9:30" could cause the reader to trip and fall.
  • several{nbsp}.22 shells, because starting a line with a . looks weird
  • <certain image caption situations, details to be supplied (centered captions, left-aligned captions)>
  • Ellipsis or other fragments at the start of a quotation: He listed them as "1.{nbsp}Good goals, 2. Good planning, 3. Good execution; or The torn fragment read, "...{nbsp}for the love of God!"
  • July((nbsp))28, 1942 ????
Not needed:
  • 123 Main Street
EEng 00:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something from somewhere else

From User:Tony1/Monthly_updates_of_styleguide_and_policy_changes / WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-07-07/Dispatches --EEng 15:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-breaking spaces. The narrower scope for using non-breaking (i.e., "hard") spaces was significantly clarified. They should be used:

Capitalisation of "Internet" (the global interconnected network of today)

Hi,

I had a discussion with another person on the talk page of the article In Rainbows about the capitalisation of "Internet" (referring to the global interconnected network generally used today), as they changed the capitalisation back from how I had edited it (to capitalise the "I"). They mentioned that as there is no formal decision on this, people editing Wikipedia can do as they like, so it may be capitalised in one article and uncapitalised in another, depending on the consensus of that particular article. However, I consider this to be something of a problem. I think it looks rather strange if we have no formal consensus on this.

My position on this is that the word should be capitalised when it refers to the Internet (the one we are using right now) as opposed to an internet; this makes sense to me, as it makes for an easy distinction between "merely 'an' interconnected network" and "the main interconnected network most are familiar with".

The other person's position is there is no reason to consider Internet as a proper noun; therefore, it should not be capitalised. They cited some sources recommending that people no longer capitalise Internet (the talk page of the In Rainbows article contains the links to the sources in question).

So, there are three options here:

Please indicate which option you prefer below, explaining why if possible. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Another way of looking at this, as Gah4 helped me realise with their comment in the Discussion subsection below, is that "Internet" is a name; "internet" is a term. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum 2: It is important to consider that option B would require writing about various related topics, and renaming their articles, such as Internet of Things, in ways that may or may not comport with source usage (mostly not). From a quick review of this discussion, is appears that very few if any supporters of B have taken this into account.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How important is it that "Internet of Things" is consistently capped in sources, but "the internet" is not? Can we cope? Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Option A (Capitalise when name; lowercase when term)

Then there shall hopefully be a general agreement all mentioned are internets (term, not capitalized).
Of course, when there shall be the Centauralfanet (proper name), which shall be a solsysnet (term), which shall be colliding with existing Solsysnet (proper name); and when there shall be the Andromedanet (proper name), which shall be a galaxynet (term) and colliding with Galaxynet (proper name), our descendants shal continue this discussion about decapitalizing or not decapitalizing Solsysnet and Galaxynet, with all new passion.
They'll hopefully still agree they are all internets (terms), but we might wish to preemptively rename Sol (proper name) and Galaxy (propername) to something else, to prevent this possible future disambiguation problem ;-). --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I saw below mentioned, as the reason to decapitalize, concordance with most common use, and majority of manuals of style (which also seem to follow common use). Much of common (mis)use of language is advertising, which also massively influences general public use off a language. The goal of (much of) advertising seem to be miscommunication (in such a way that the advertiser can't be sued). If you look into amount of different aspects of the SPAMware "industry", that also (used to be, I am retired now and not up to date) significant portion of digital web content, but should we follow that?
I somehow had the idea that the only legitimate reason for trying to regulatie use of a language should be improvement of - when possible, clear and concise - communication. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option B (Lowercase always)

Option C (Per-article consensus)

Discussion

People should search before making proposals. 2020, more 2020, more 2020, 2019, 2012/2014, 2010, 2008, 2004 (eesh on that last). --Izno (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's the exact same editor as a half dozen of those discussions. Popcornfud, that you're still having this issue and across multiple pages doesn't look too good for you. Please stop pushing it until there is an actual consensus on the point. --Izno (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Half of a dozen of these discussions"? I think one - maybe two? edit: OK, three (though those were kind of all the same discussion).
I am not the one who is pushing anything; DesertPipeline wants to make this change to an article. Per the lack of consensus I see no reason to deviate from the WP:STATUSQUO. If a consensus emerges to change it (on that article, or at a MoS-wide level) then I will follow that consensus. Popcornfud (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for starting another discussion on this when there's been so many; Popcornfud did mention that it's been brought up here before but always ended in no consensus. I guess discussing it so soon after the last time is probably not going to result in anything different? Also I'm not sure if I'm at the right indentation level and in the right place here to be replying to User:Izno... sorry, I still don't really know how talk page threading works exactly :( DesertPipeline (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Struck last part as I'm now at the right indentation level – I hope :) 05:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I skimmed the struck-out text and initially misread it as I'm not sure if I'm at the right indignation level ... to be replying. Pelagic ( messages ) – (17:46 Sat 27, AEDT) 06:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"It behooves us" – Neigh!
DesertPipeline
Bees don't have hooves, silly!
EEng

But they apparently have the best knees.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 
They have bee feat.
"A shetland pony,
a bee, and a beefeater
walk into a pub...."

How about now? It's been weeks since any new votes or discussion. Popcornfud (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "I can tell you right now, Dave... that monkey is indeed being cheeky!"

Removal of "UK" from location field in infoboxes

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
<non admin closure> This has been, as expected, a passionate discussion, at least from the part of those opposing any inclusion of the term UK in a place's determinants as demonstrated by the strength of their language: Contributors find such an inclusion to be "excessive" (GhostInTheMachine), "superfluous and redundant" (No Great Shaker), an "abomination" (Imaginatorium), "ridiculous" (Tony1, JG66), "unnecessary" (Nagualdesign), "absurd" (Ghmyrtle), and so on.
Those who clearly support the inclusion of the term are 11 participants (Vaze50, DeFacto, Chipmunkdavis, Johnbod, Calidum, Oknazevad, Sgconlaw, FOARP, Bretonbanquet, Fyunck, Timrollpickering) and those clearly opposing it are 17 (Jackattack1597, BarrelProof, GhostInTheMachine, No Great Shaker, Imaginatorium, MB, Tony1, JG66, Nagualdesign, WereSpielChequers, Girth Summit, pburka, Spy-cicle, Alanscottwalker, BeenAroundAWhile, Keith D, Ghmyrtle). Two participants suggested we "allow [the term] but not require it" (MapReader, Amakuru).
Another one (S Marshall) opined that this issue is among those that "require editorial judgment and discretion" and " not a...poorly-attended discussion on the MOS pages" that comes up "with a half-assed diktat." (I find the assessment of the discussion attendance to be inaccurate, if not unfair: The previous RfC on the issue of having "UK" in infoboxes attracted some 29-30 participants in all, which is the same number as in this RfC, and no one complained then abt "poor attendance.")
No specific sources, or at least a robust assessment of what sources do on this issue, were cited by either side in support of their respective positions. Opinions were presented as based on editors' knowledge and assessment of the issue. Proceeding to an examination of sources and resolving this issue on such a basis would perhaps be viewed as a useful course.
However, the two major Anglophone countries are the United States and the UK. It would be quite rare indeed to see a place in the US being referred to by a US source with the end-term "US." Respectively rare would be to see in a UK source the term "UK." This is the English-language Wikipedia, and in any case we're supposed to use sources for our decisions, but sourcing in this case would probably prove to be not of much help. (In this context, it would be interesting, if not helpful, to know the provenance of contributors on each side!)
In view of all the above, it seems best to close this RfC with a decision of no consensus. The closer expresses the personal wish that the question is tabled once again in the near future, preferably not as a strict RfC but as an invitation to an open and informal discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The last attempt to resolve this issue ended in silence. User:Spy-cicle has insisted that a consensus must be reached here before adding "UK" to the end of location fields, which it is clearly obvious to do. There is no other member state of the United Nations whose location is subject to this same argument. We can see the potential application of political bias from people here - is is obvious that only including one of "England/Scotland/Wales" is as controversial as only including "UK" after a particular city. Why then do we allow the sole inclusion of "England/Scotland/Wales" as opposed to the very fair compromise of having "England/Scotland/Wales, UK"? If an editor were to be suggesting the removal of "England/Scotland/Wales" altogether, that would be rightly controversial. Yet some users are able to maintain that status quo, which suits them, which sees "UK" removed altogether.

We can see that the discussion here ended in absolutely no agreement. Several users in that discussion, including User:GoodDay, User:EEng, User:koavf, User:DeFacto, indicated a clear preference for the inclusion both of "England/Scotland/Wales" as well as "UK". This is clearly a fair compromise, unlike the current situation that sees "UK" completely removed (imagine if we suggested the complete removal of England/Scotland/Wales).

Given that User:Spy-cicle currently has his preferred position (the expunging of "UK" from any article) included as default, this seems like an incredibly unsatisfactory state of affairs. Compromise ought to be reached, and I would be grateful for guidance on this point. Vaze50 (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123 A good point, my apologies, I both could and should have referred to NI above - my own oversight. I personally take the same view given by the user below, that if it is in the UK, which NI unambiguously is (and to acknowledge this does not deny the politics that exist around the topic), then "UK" or "United Kingdom" ought to be included. Vaze50 (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of the location data is surely to pinpoint a place within the world in the most efficient way, and the sovereign state is the internationally accepted primary sub-division of the world for that. This fundamental requirement should not be hijacked to push any political agenda. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, using the principles of efficiency and specificity, I'd say only include the county if it is essential for disambiguation of the location within the UK. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. But very many BLP articles for British people include county, where no disambiguation is needed, and I feel no compelling desire to remove them. I sometimes wish MoS was clearer, as currently there is no specific advice about counties. I've always regarded them as the equivalent of US States, even though there's a big size difference. But I think Vaze50 sees the constituent counties of the UK as the equivalent of the US states, rather than as countries in their own right. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify Martinevans123, I do accept that E/S/W/NI are not the equivalent of US states in most respects. In a purely literal sense it is true that they are subdivisions of a sovereign state, but the state of California doesn't have international sports teams, its own 'national anthem' etc. I accept therefore that a reasonable compromise would include both the UK country in question as well as the UK at the end. I do not think it is right or fair that "UK" is the only sovereign state in the world that is airbrushed entirely out of location fields. If I was being totally single-minded about it, I'd recommend the removal of E/S/W/NI, but I accept that this would not be met with general approval. I think the most reasonable compromise would be a practice of: City/Town/Village, County (only when necessary, large cities e.g. London, Birmingham, Glasgow clearly don't benefit from having a county attached), E/S/W/NI, UK. In this way, we include the constituent country of the UK (and I am happy to accept that removing them would be unacceptable to some) AND the sovereign state of the UK, reversing the current situation where the UK is the only sovereign state not allowed to be on location fields in infoboxes. Does that sound reasonable? Vaze50 (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable to me. But I'm aware there are probably as many editor preferences over this as there are possible combinations. By the way most of the largest cities in England can't have a county attached as they are Unitary Authorities. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JG66 By all means, the more the merrier. I didn't include every single editor who agreed with my position in that earlier discussion, only a number, I also included one who did not, but the bigger the discussion the better - will hopefully mean an agreement can be reached. Vaze50 (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vaze50, that's good to hear. So if you could now ping all the others, it would be much appreciated. You say you included an editor who did not agree with your position, but I'm referring to your statement: "Several users in that discussion, including User:GoodDay, User:EEng, User:koavf, User:DeFacto, indicated a clear preference for the inclusion both of "England/Scotland/Wales" as well as "UK". This is clearly a fair compromise ... [my emphasis]." Many thanks, JG66 (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GhostInTheMachine, in the international context though (and remember the audience of this work is wider than just the UK), "England" is not equivalent to a sovereign state or country, and that it is only the sovereign state (i.e. United Kingdom) that is internationally recognised. The addition of "England", a sub-division of a sovereign state is inefficient and totally unnecessary to identify the location precisely and concisely. To locate Blackpool precisely, all that we need is "Blackpool, United Kingdom" (or "Blackpool, Lancashire, United Kingdom" if there is another "Blackpool" in the UK which it might be mistaken for), so why complicate and confuse infobox contents with the clutter of totally superfluous and redundant bloat? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto, that is not entirely correct to claim that "in the international world England does not have the status of a country." That really only applies to diplomatic and other official relations between the states and their governments. In other settings, England and the other UK countries most certainly are considered as countries, not only domestically but internationally as well. In international trade/commerce, for example: imports are very commonly labeled "product of England" or "product of Scotland" without any mention of UK. Another example, when sending mail to, say, somewhere in England, internationally, there's no requirement to write "UK" - writing England for the country is all that's needed. That is not the case with either US states or Canadian Provinces, even when mailing between Canada and the states, they require on a separate line below everything else to be written either 'Canada' or 'USA' (and even after both countries coordinated their state/province abbreviations so that no state or province used the same two letters as any state or province in the othercountry). Sorry for the long winded reply. Just pointing out that there is a difference that can be objectively quantified that is unique to the UK cases. Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GhostInTheMachine I respectfully disagree with you that adding UK or United Kingdom is excessive. The UK's status is an unusual one, often referred to as you know as "a country of countries". Personally I would favour the approach recommended by DeFacto, in that "Blackpool, United Kingdom/Blackpool, Lancashire, United Kingdom" would be easily sufficient. However, recognising the rather unusual situation of the UK, I think "Blackpool, England, UK" or "Blackpool, Lancashire, England, UK" is not excessive, but rather a perfectly reasonable compromise. As it currently stands, the UK is the only sovereign state that is not included in the location field, and this does not seem reasonable or fair. One way or the other, I think the case for the inclusion of "United Kingdom" (or shortened to UK for the sake of space, which is reasonable) is overwhelming. Does that sound reasonable to you? Vaze50 (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not the best example folks, as Blackpool is no longer in Lancashire. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is, just only the ceremonial county but yes we would normally use "Location", "Parish", "District", "County", "England" when identifying places. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I am missing something but aren't England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland countries? Which makes them equivalent to Australia, US, Canada, Russia, etc. The UK would be more equivalent to something like the old Soviet bloc (ie a group of countries).
In any case, we only need to give enough information to the reader so that they have a reasonable chance of knowing where it is. Readers from the other side of the world should not be expected to know where all the shires are in the UK (I'm Australian and I certainly don't know many UK shires and I wouldn't expect most Asian or American readers to know them). But most of these same readers should be comfortable with just the country, even if they think it is a far away, exotic, country. Adding 'UK' just makes it more verbose.  Stepho  talk  10:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stepho-wrs England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not the equivalent of Australia, Canada etc., because they belong within a single unitary sovereign state, the UK. What you're suggesting would be more like adding "European Union" to the end of locations (of course the UK is no longer in the EU so that wouldn't apply here, but I hope you understand the point). It's because England etc. aren't the equivalent of Australia, Canada etc., that this issue arises. Vaze50 (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused. I look at the England, Scotland and Wales pages and they all say "XXX is a country that is part of the United Kingdom" (my emphasis). If Scotland (for example) is a country then it is equivalent to Australia, which is also a country. It is also equivalent to France, even though France is also a part of the EU. However, the Northern Ireland page doesn't say that it is a country.
Just in case my pinion was misread, I'm not suggesting we add something, I'm suggesting that we stop at the country level because our readers know what a country is, most of them know those countries in particular and have got the point by then without more verbiage. The same way that we don't say France, EU.  Stepho  talk  12:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stepho-wrs, Australia, Canada and France are so-called "sovereign states", and there is a list of all of them here, and that means they have sovereignty over a given geographical area and international recognition for that. You'll notice that neither England, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales is in that list, that's because they are not recognised internationally as independent states. The sovereign state that covers them, and so is equivalent to Australia, Canada and France is the United Kingdom, which is in that list. Using "England" as a 'country' is similar to using sub-parts of Australia such as "Victoria" and "Tasmania", or "Saskatchewan" or "Manitoba" from Canada. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stepho-wrs I understand where you're coming from, and I would agree that adding "EU" at the end of, say, "Paris, France" would be unnecessary. However the EU is a supranational organisation, and the UK is a sovereign state - like France. Indeed it is exactly because France (the sovereign state that Paris is located within) is included after Paris that I think surely somewhere like London ought to have the UK added after it. To put it more simply, London is the capital city of both England and the UK. It seems bizarre to me that within a location field we can have "London, England" without controversy but not either "London, UK" or "London, England, UK". I accept that it can be a bit confusing when you see on the article that "England is a country", however there is no government of England for instance, which is a pretty basic requirement for a country. There is a UK Government instead, because the UK is the sovereign state. It is on that basis that I strongly recommend the inclusion of "UK" within location fields on relevant infoboxes - does that make sense? Vaze50 (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I acknowledge that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not sovereign states. But I find it very hard to accept that England, Scotland and Wales are not countries - at least according to WP's own articles, the Oxford, Cambridge and Merriam-Webster dictionaries. But whether or not they are sovereign states is irrelevant. They are countries that are known around the world in their own right. Adding 'UK' is therefore not necessary and only adds clutter.  Stepho  talk  04:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Words can have multiple definitions and meanings. There are a variety of places that are known in their own right (eg. London), but consistency is useful to a reader, and so giving locations in a consistent pattern is also useful, rather than being unnecessary or clutter. CMD (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stopping at the country level is the best way to specify the location of a place. England is a country, so towns and villages in England would be specified as being located in England. The reference to "sovereign states" is not relevant to locations — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 11:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GhostInTheMachine Would you accept that E/S/W/NI are not typical countries given their status, and are not the direct equivalents of, say, France or Germany? As such, is it not fair to include BOTH E/S/W/NI as well as UK, so that this encyclopaedia is not taking a potentially political stance of removing the country that E/S/W/NI are within? Vaze50 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Typical or untypical does not matter - England is a country. ..., England, UK for a location is still absurd — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 11:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GhostInTheMachine, England isn't a country recognised by the UN, it is a constituent part of the UK - and the UK is recognised, and indeed is a founder member of the UN. All places in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales can rightly be addressed as being in the country of the United Kingdom, without the need to mention which of the constituent countries they are also in. The sub-country is irrelevant as far as the location of a UK place is concerned. Also, amongst those that do not fully understand the structure of the UK, "England" is often erroneously used when the "United Kingdom" is meant, which could be considered offensive by British people, especially those from one of the other three constituent countries. All in all, "UK" alone is the safest bet, if we are to avoid "England, UK", "Northern Ireland, UK", "Scotland. UK" and "Wales, UK". -- DeFacto (talk). 13:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No Great Shaker, what's your logic for requiring the inclusion the superfluous sub-division of the sovereign country - which probably isn't even fully understood within the UK - and excluding the name of the sovereign country itself - which is the only name recognised at the international level? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what it is that you fail to understand. British people do not use UK. They use their country. A Scottish person will say they come from Aberdeen, for example. If someone asks where Aberdeen is, they will say Scotland, never UK (okay, they might say Britain depending on the situation). UK is not a country, it is a state which consists of four individual countries. And please don't assume that British people do not understand living in the UK and its component countries. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just glad no-one has mentioned the Isle of Man yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Ha! Or the Channel Islands. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you say UK is the only name recognised internationally? What about sport, for example? I can't think of one international team that is called UK (tell me if there is one). No Great Shaker (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No Great Shaker I would dispute the point you make in your final paragraph - "British people do not use UK...they use their country". The UK is the correct term for the country, it is a unitary sovereign state, a founding member state of the United Nations, and is therefore, I would suggest, very reasonable to include on this basis. The logic you apply here would suggest that we should also remove "U.S." from the location field of appropriate boxes and replace with "America" - after all, very few Americans would say they come from "the U.S." over simply saying "America". However, the U.S. is the technically correct term, and as this is intended to be an encyclopaedia, I don't agree that we should apply an arbitrary approach based on what some people might or might not say. On that basis, I think the inclusion of "UK" after E/S/W/NI is perfectly reasonable as a compromise. I am certainly not suggesting throwing out E/S/W/NI. I don't agree that identifying the sovereign state of a location (when this is done in all other cases) is superfluous. Vaze50 (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vaze50, UK is not a country, that is the point. The countries are England, Scotland, Wales and NI. The UK is a political entity – a sovereign state, if you like. It does not follow that British convention should apply to the US and I would oppose any proposal to alter American convention. Also, per the points made below, could you please fromally define your proposal somewhere above? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No Great Shaker I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with your assessment above - there are a huge number of "lists of countries" on this encyclopaedia, as there are many different criteria by which one could list a country, and in the overwhelming majority it is the United Kingdom that is referred to in these lists, not E/S/W/NI. Whilst it is true that E/S/W/NI are referred to as countries in many respects, this doesn't change the fact that the UK is itself also a country. The phrase "country of countries" has been employed outside of this website to describe the UK, but even if we stick to this website alone, the fact that the vast majority of "lists of countries" articles include the UK (not E/S/W/NI) I think provide a suitable basis for disagreeing with your comments there.
My proposal is to add UK to all infobox location fields where the location is within the UK, as simple as that. I certainly do not propose to remove E/S/W/NI - to be frank with you, I would be happy to see them removed and replaced with United Kingdom, but I fully recognise that compromise is required and it wouldn't be fair to try to impose that on articles when clearly the status of countries within the UK is complex at best. Therefore I think the most suitable (and informative) compromise is to include simply "UK" wherever E/S/W/NI is used. My reasons for doing so is that all other sovereign states are referred to within the relevant location fields, and it would seem to be unfair to be prioritising the use of E/S/W/NI over UK - as a fair compromise, I think both should be included, and I cite the example of Derry/Londonderry as where, on this website, there has been a recognition of similar. I hope I've made that clear, but please let me know if I can clarify further. Vaze50 (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the proposal needs to be clearly defined. The individual countries of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are known globally and the addition of UK is superfluous. However, you may have a point about the Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, etc. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are known globally, but equally the states of New York and California are known globally, and yet they are included along with "U.S." in the equivalent infoboxes. Whilst it's true that a US state and a UK country are not exactly the same thing, they are both subdivisions of a larger sovereign state, and it would I think be appropriate and useful to include, as well as a fair compromise. At the moment, including only E/S/W/NI feels like a politically biased outcome, unintended or otherwise, whereas to include both is a reasonable compromise. Think the Derry/Londonderry debate - strong feelings about both, and so both are used. It makes the articles longer than they would otherwise be, but it is a fair compromise for a potentially sensitive issue. Vaze50 (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. They are not the same thing. England is a country, California is a state, British and American conventions are different. It may be an American convention to always say "London, England, UK" but it is not a British convention and articles about British subjects must comply with Use British English. "England, UK" is absolutely not part of British English. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Great Shaker You have asserted that it is "not part of British English" and "not a British convention" but would you please be able to point me to where the guidance is on this website that British English dictates UK ought not to be added after England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? I have gone through it and have not been able to find any advice one way or the other. If that is the case, it would appear to be assertion, rather than guidance, and there would be no compromise with British English to include the UK. Indeed the fact that the British English article begins by referencing the United Kingdom first and foremost, I think that rather demonstrates the point that UK would be worth adding to these location fields! Vaze50 (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also a strong citation needed for "known globally". The amount of times I have had to explain what Northern Ireland is... CMD (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Great Shaker, don't be casting aspersions on us Americans :P. It most definitely is not an American convention to always say "London, England, UK". (in the case of London it is pretty much always just London). For other cities in England, it is typically either just England or just UK; never both. England is more common. We never write "England, UK" or "Scotland, UK." Northern Ireland might get UK tacked onto it sometimes...not sure. Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We in the UK have had an "oven ready" Brexit and we know that "EU" is not a real place. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • I don’t see that as a parallel. Parallels might be “Dogsville, California, USA” or “Oompahberg, Bavaria, Germany” MapReader (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blueboar, no, there is no parallel there. The EU is not a sovereign state, it is a trading bloc of member states, each of which is an independent sovereign state. On the other hand, the United Kingdom is a sovereign state which comprises four, non-sovereign, constituent countries. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blueboar I would like to emphasise the point made above by both MapReader and DeFacto - the EU not only isn't a sovereign state but doesn't claim to be, it is a supranational organisation, which only sovereign states can join. Indeed the very fact that it was the UK that was a member of the EU until recently, rather than England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being members separately, demonstrates why it is the UK that is the country those four are located in, and why I and others here believe it ought to be included within location fields in infoboxes, do you think that is fair? Vaze50 (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what is obvious about it. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Imaginatorium "Abomination" is a bit strong I think, considering England is unambiguously within the UK! The cities of London or Edinburgh are not obscure, and are not ambiguous, why therefore isn't "London" or "Edinburgh" sufficient to identify the birth/death place of somebody? The reason "England/Scotland" are added (but not UK, the sovereign nation these cities are located) seems to be political, frankly! Offshore areas are less of a problem for the UK - Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories are not technically within the UK, so the issue simply does not arise. Vaze50 (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elsewhere you ask if you are being clear enough - yes, you are crystal clear, but you are simply wrong. You believe (presumably not being British) that British people should say this or that, but they do not. Of course England is unambiguously within the UK, and is also unambiguously within Europe, and unambiguously on the third planet from the sun, but any of these would be superfluous after it. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Above comment added by MB.
MB Why in that case do we even add England/Scotland/Wales etc.? Surely "London" would be sufficient enough (for example)? But every other infobox includes city/town etc., followed by country - England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland are not ordinary countries, they are within a wider sovereign state, the UK. It only seems fair to me that both are included, and we are hardly crowding the infobox by adding two letters, are we? Vaze50 (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not quite so simple... Margaret Thatcher once quipped that when she attended international conferences, the country she represented depended on who she needed to speak with. If she needed to speak with Ronald Reagan, she would ask to be seated as “United Kingdom”... if she wanted to speak with Mubarak of Egypt, she would ask to be seated as “England”... if she wanted to speak to the President of Greece, she would ask to be seated as “Great Britain”... and if she wanted to speak to someone from Angola she could ask for the seating to be in French, so she could be from “Angleterre”. Blueboar (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Crouch, Swale - As a note, and not as a particular argument in either direction, Quebec is a "nation" of Canada, and various Native American "nations" are contained within the United States. FOARP (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s cute that you guys call them countries, but England is no more sovereign than California (and at least California has its own government). -- Calidum 19:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." It seems Wikipedia is equally cute? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any indication that Quebec is a nation of Canada, its a province similar to Cornwall or Essex being counties of England. England indeed isn't a sovereign state, the UK is, if you asked someone what country Mansfield is in you would probably get "England" but if you asked them what sovereign state you would get UK. I'd note with Cornwall it has its own language unlike California (though there is mention at Uto-Aztecan languages it appears to refer to a region not a named language) see also Cornish nationalism. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Québécois nation motion and also various acts of the Quebec legislature during the early 2000's when it was dominated by BQ/PQ (e.g., renaming the legislature as the "national" assembly and Quebec City as the "national" capital). Like I said, I don't think this is really an argument either way but it is not really true to say that no other country contains countries/nations/whatever. Even Germany contains the "Free State" of Bavaria. FOARP (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All German states are countries (Lander) within a country (Land) too. A similar history of established entities uniting. The translation just hasn't carried over into English. CMD (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how that is tenable. In Singapore it is common for all titles (e.g., President, Prime Minister, Chairman) to be capitalized, but I don't see Wikipedia taking a country-by-country approach to an issue like that in its articles. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ghmyrtle, as far as I know, the "British style" is to exclude the constituent country name, and just add "UK". You only have to look at non-partisan online sources of addresses to see that - try Royal Mail's postcode finder or the Sainsbury's store finder, for example. Try typing "Drum" into the store finder, and it'll offer stores from across the UK matching that, and you'll see that whether they are in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, or Wales is not mentioned, they just end "UK". I couldn't think of a string to bring up a place in each of the four home nations, but "Drum" finds stores in three of them: NI, E and S. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also here. We can all cherry-pick examples either way to our hearts' content, without making much progress. What is most important is what our readers will want and understand. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ghmyrtle, that's not a typical address list though. As we know, the UK's four constituent countries compete independently in the Commonwealth Games, unlike at the Olympics or most other international sports where a single UK team competes. So, of course, they will be identified separately. Look at the teams' own websites though, and notice how even there, their contact addresses (E, S, W and NI) all end with their UK postcode, with no mention of their individual constituent country names. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be "helpful" to write "Isle of Man, UK" as the Isle of Man isn't part of the United Kingdom. If you want to say where it is then "Isle of Man, British Isles" would work though I don't think we should routinely do that. 213.137.16.211 (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Struck off double suggestion. -The Gnome (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close requested (UK in infoboxes)

I have requested this be formally closed at WP:Closure requests. -- Calidum 18:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still hoping for a closure -- Calidum 01:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -The Gnome (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Was I opposing? I don't think so, but yes, it's no consensus, no matter how subtle or opaque I was or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenating racial identities

Should the hyphen be dropped when describing ethnic groups?--Caorongjin (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems apparent that there's a large amount of inconsistency across articles concerning racial identities (e.g. Asian-American vs. Asian American). This isn't standard with other racial identities (Native American, West Indian etc.) and so I propose adding to the style guidelines a definitive consensus, taking the position that would update this in line with broader consensus as per MLA, APA, and AP style guidelines (i.e. 'African American' as opposed to 'African-American').

Sources:

Obviously I would like to foster discussion to arrive at such a consensus that establishes a definite MOS guideline regardless of my own opinion.—Plifal (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Irish-Canadian of American origin" or "American-Canadian of Irish ancestry" would be my choices. --Khajidha (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Chumpih's analysis using Fowler's, which attempts to bridge the atlantic. wouldn't we possibly want to leave it up to the type of English being used rather than making it consistent across all of the English Wikipedia? I don't see why to enforce an American English hyphenation standard on article written in British English (or vice-versa).
Regarding Caorongjin's point about the move request, I think that there might be a WP:COMMONNAME argument that you are getting at with respect to the article title. COMMONNAME aside, the move request was only attended by two people; there might be a sensible rationale for a move request on that particular article if your analysis is correct. I would also posit the possibility that "Asian American Studies" is a compound noun containing a qualifying noun; treating "Asian-American" as an adjective modifying the noun "studies" feels a bit weird to me. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How were the guidelines for politicized phrasing defined?

I see the vocabulary section of the MOS telling us to use gender neutral terms like "uncrewed" instead of "unmanned" which is a term that doesn't apply only to man. How was it defined that this politicized alternative is the "correct" one? --Cavendish Emperor (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like everything else: by consensus. Although I wouldn't describe the issue the way you have; I would rather say we determined that the de-politicized alternative is the preferred one. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Odd that the consolidated term "unmanned" is considered the politicized one over "uncrewed" which was rarely used when UAVs and Drones first became popular. Not only that, the call for the surrogate was generally made by political movements. Another case in point: as of today (2021/06/11) the Google search for "unmanned"[1] brings up the Oxford widget with the definition and pronunciation of said word whilst the search for "uncrewed" [2] does not. Cavendish Emperor (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the word unmanned has an entirely different connotation for me than it apparently does for others here. EEng 18:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With a slip of the razor my barber uncrewed me. pburka (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And so your crewing days are over, I guess. Crewed, blewed, and tattooed, as sailors say. EEng 23:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup… Adjective vs verb - Completely different connotations. Blueboar (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I've been feeling bad about all the unarmed people in my neighborhood. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JohnFromPinckney, could you link to the archived discussion of which this fabled "consensus" was reached in regards to the mass-replacement of "unmanned" with "uncrewed", including articles about the 1960s took place? (I have tried to find this myself, and have been unsuccessful thus far). I have somewhat difficulty believing that the wider editor community at large would have attained consensus in favour of such a mass expulsion of a word that in all truth IS gender neutral to begin with (spacecraft can be "manned" by a woman/women, too, and that's perfectly correct usage! man does not mean "male", here) and replacing it with a horrid sounding neologism ("crewed" sounds the same as "crude", and in speech that inevitably lead to confusion: people hear "crewed spacecraft" and think that the speaker is talking about an inferior/substandard design or something). And I'm sure you know as well as I do that all kinds of things around here happen without getting consensus first, and if nobody notices right away, later it gets claimed that there was prior consensus when there wasn't. There's a LOT fewer active editors these days than in times past, too; therefore, it becometh easier and easier for shit to slip through the cracks. Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where that discussion was, but the consensus was to avoid the old term "manned" or "unmanned" in preference to more explicitly gender-neutral terms. Nobody is claiming that the old way is incorrect, just that it's no longer preferred. Dicklyon (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per Dicklyon. Tony (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "search for unmanned on Google". Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  2. ^ "search for uncrewed on Google". Retrieved 11 June 2021.

Wikipedia is supposed to A use the most common usage in Englis and B not be a trend setter but rather be the follower. That, of course, is paraphrasing. Look, I don't know where the discussion is that says uncrewed is to be used over unmamned, but I'll continue to use the most common usage in English and not let a minority, but REALLY LOUD, mob use Wikipedia as an agent for their political agenda. Masterhatch (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the discussion, closed with a consensus to prefer uncrewed. That said, feel free to write content however you like. But when someone shows up to bring it in line with our MOS, instead of regarding them as a member of a mob with a political agenda, perhaps try seeing them as a collaborating entity. Primergrey (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To end this on a hopeful note, consensus can change. It's good to be a part of a community that can respectfully disagree about things like this and change its mind if it wants to. It's been three years (boy time flys) since this decision, so if someone was adamant on bringing it up again, I don't think anyone would mind. Tyrone Madera (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adjective order guidance (status/nationality in lede)?

Do we have any suggestions regarding adjective order -- e.g., as all know, we can say "little old rectangular green French knife", and there's no guideline necessary to tell us not to say "French rectangular old green little knife" I suppose, common sense will tell us not to and to fix if found.

But what about "Former Canadian hockey player" vs "Canadian former hockey player"? Status usually comes before nationality("Wounded French pilot" not "French wounded pilot), but the point has been made that:

I have seen people disagreeing over this a couple times. So if we don't have any guidance on this particular instance of adjective order (order of status/nationality in lede), should we? And if so, what?

My strong impression is that "former" is heavily overused in this context. If they are known as a hockey player, the lead should say that they are a hockey player, not a former player. We don't describe Euclid as a "former mathematician" just because he's been dead for a couple millenia; he was a mathematician. The same should go for sports figures after their period of activity, including after their death. But if you insist on "former", it should go with the thing that it modifies, "hockey player", as "Canadian former hockey player". "Former Canadian hockey player" means to me that they are still a hockey player but now play outside Canada. "Formerly Canadian hockey player" is subtly different, meaning that they have given up their Canadian citizenship. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the difference with Euclid is, that bio (presumably) starts with Euclid was rather than Euclid is. For living persons, since the bio must necessarily begin with John Doe is, I think "former" is pretty much required. Otherwise it strongly suggests that Doe is an active player.
I would prefer to put "former" after nationality, as it is less ambiguous, even if the ambiguity is unlikely to trip many people up in practice. (Or even better, we could stop putting nationality in the first sentence of bios at all — that would solve a lot of problems. But I recognize that that's a bit of a longshot.) --Trovatore (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all this. If something must be said, "retired" is probably better - former rather implies he was thrown out. Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Retired" could be misleading as it kind of implies he had a press release that said he was retired, rather than desperately trying to hook on with any team that would have him, and failing, which is commonly the case. But neither really imply anything very much, they are close to interchangeable, so perhaps "retired" should be suggested, giving "Retired Canadian..." and everyone knows what is meant and everyone's happy.
Good points tho... it's debatable tho. We never use "former" for dead people because "Joe Smith (1933-1986)" pretty much secures that point. But there is a big difference between an actress who is currently working and one who hasn't worked in 20 years and/or has announced retirement (but is still alive). You could use "was a hockey player" I guess but I think that also runs into flak and kind of sounds like maybe she's dead. So I don't know as advising to not use any employment status would fly. Editors seem to have voted with their feet on that one.
So I see what you're saying as to "former" being very closely tied to "hockey player". It may be that the nationality-before-status rule is weak... sometimes. So while you would certainly say "dead Canadian hockey player" not "Canadian dead". But "Canadian All-Star" works for me (so does "All-Star Canadian"). So hmmm.
However, I don't think anybody takes "former Canadian hockey player" to mean he's not Canadian anymore. People know how adjective order works and get what you mean, and they know that if you meant the other you would say something like "former hockey player, originally Canadian but now a French citizen" or whatever, because nobody would write "Former Canadian hockey player" with no further elucidation to indicate that he's formerly Canadian rather than formerly a hockey player, nobody writes that badly. English follows common usage not logic. So that part I personally am not worried about. Herostratus (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the cases where "retired Canadian hockey player" doesn't work (for the player who didn't formally retire, but just never signed again), then the null solution ("Canadian hockey player") works. Either they're still a hockey player, because they (if no one else) see themselves as still active, or they're a hockey player the same way Euclid is a mathematician. If they're clearly retired, we can add that without problem to the front, keeping natural adjective order, and we needn't bother with "former" at all.
I also can't imagine a case where a "[currently] American hockey player" would be better served by "Former(ly) Canadian hockey player", but I don't think that's part of what you're asking. — HTGS (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can use unmodified "hockey player" in the present tense for someone who has clearly ceased to play and isn't planning on a comeback. One who's currently unemployed but still looking for a team is a different matter. --Trovatore (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My strong impression is that "former" is heavily overused in this context: I suspect its prevalence is based off of an example at MOS:BLPTENSE: "John Smith (born 1946) is a former baseball pitcher ..."—Bagumba (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to the confusion… it could mean that he used to play for the Canadians, but was traded to the Leafs. Blueboar (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just really don't see why we need to emphasize nationality so strongly. The article will get around to it; it's not like it'll be hard for the reader to figure it out. Put it in the second sentence, maybe. --Trovatore (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: I think you're confusing him with a "Canadien former American football player." pburka (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "would" instead of simple past

You quite often see this in sports reports, e.g. "Nadal would come back and win the next three sets" instead of just "Nadal came back and won the next three sets." It seems to be mostly an American affectation, though this usage is not listed in Merriam Webster. Should the MOS be revised to indicate that simple past tense is to be preferred when reporting events? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why? -- Calidum 02:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxBrowne2, I think what Calidum is trying to say is that WP:NEWSSTYLE already suggests at this, but it doesn't always make sense to codify what a given word usage might mean in a specific context, or to a specific group of people. If you imagine that we formalised all grey—or even black and white—"informal" and formal language structures, we would quickly run out of space on the internet. — HTGS (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. Also I don't know as User:Calidum is pointing to NEWSTYLE at all. Maybe Calidum's saying like "So, what would the benefit be?" For my part, I also say "why?" because I don't see a net benefit. I think it's micromanaging. Let the person doing the actual work of the project (writing articles) the freedom to do as she pleases on unimportant matters of style preference. It's a volunteer program and people come here because they enjoy writing. Being micromanaged tends to make them enjoy it less, so overall negative, as I don't think it's confusing the reader. Herostratus (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with none of this. (Although the term "volunteer program" has a certain amount of humour to it.) — HTGS (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was asking why as in "why does this matter?" or "what is the point of such a change?" As you said, I don't believe the wording in question is confusing to readers, so I don't see the benefit of this. -- Calidum 15:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go on, EEng, make my day!
Thank you EEng, you've made my day! :))) — Mike Novikoff 00:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's the MOS for then, if not to guide people on how to write for wikipedia? We have MOS:TENSE, why not a note there to discourage misuse of "would"? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's for delineating house style -- stuff that different publications do differently for whatever reason. It's not for teaching general rules of English, unless it's proven to be a real problem here on the project for some reason. EEng 13:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's "misuse" in your opinion. That is why. Herostratus (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It also employs what might be deemed WP:ELEVAR (wrote the sculptor), and I can't figure out how to get rid of that, either. EEng 12:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One way is The sculptor, who thirty years later would create the statue of Abraham Lincoln for the Lincoln Memorial, wrote "I am sometimes scared by the importance of this work. It is a subject that one might not have in a lifetime, and a failure would be inexcusable. As a general thing, my model looks pretty well to me, but there are dark days." Whether that is an improvement is another matter.
Going back to the original question, one use of would is the imperfective aspect, e.g., habitual past. Replacing such uses with the simple past would change the meaning. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, well obviously we're looking for something that's an improvement. The problem with your suggestion is that it talks about Lincoln, apparently gratuitously, well before the reader has any idea why he's being told that. And by starting with Lincoln you make it seem like that's even the main point, instead of a subsidiary point, of where we're going. EEng 15:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[Added later:] And your text seems to suggest that French's words refer to the Lincoln commission, not John Harvard. This is exactly the kind of situation in which would is appropriate to use, and after all this reflection I believe it's OK here; but the sculptor I'd still like to be rid of. Well, you can't win 'em all. EEng 03:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, the easiest thing to do would be to remove the entire parenthetical thought. The lede in the article on French already mentions him creating Lincoln's statue, so an earlier wikilink to French would already provide that information. There doesn't seem to be any relevant association between the Lincoln and Harvard statues aside from sharing the same creator. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant association is that the creator of Lincoln -- one of the three most famous sculptures in America -- was worried, just twenty years earlier, that John Harvard might be his most important commission ever. It's not the entire point of the passage, but it's an important part of it. EEng 00:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'd go with The sculptor, who built the statue of Abraham Lincoln thirty years later for the Lincoln memorial, wrote [...] It's in simple past and conveys the same idea. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same as what Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz proposed. EEng 03:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except there's no "would". If the concern is that it seems like the quote is referring to the Lincoln statue, add also right before built; that should take some of the focus off of the parenthetical and convey it as more of an aside. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting speech

It's normal practice to remove disfluencies such as "um", "uh", "you know" when quoting people speaking. They're not really part of the message, and including them unfairly makes the speaker seem less fluent or intelligent than one would perceive them to be by listening to the speech. I don't see this guideline here, though. I suggest it should be added. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate omissions include extraneous, irrelevant, or parenthetical words, and unintelligible speech (umm and hmm).

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking demonyms

I often see wikilinks used like this, particularly in article leads on people or companies:

This usage reminds me of MOS:UNLINKDATES, which instructs not to link dates when they aren't relevant to the subject nor likely to be useful to a reader. Is there an existing consensus on demonym wikilinking? Thoughts on this practice? — Goszei (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that searching shows that this is somewhat of a widespread practice. The first three examples I gave appear in:
I routinely unlink these when I run across them as usually not useful in "understanding the article". MB 16:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are definitely useful to the reader if it's a demonym that few people have heard of. I'd say this is a similar question as whether or not languages should be wikilinked. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For me, I check to see if there's a MOS:SEAOFBLUE. If there isn't one I'm content to let it stand as is, but if there is, the demonym is one of the first links to be unlinked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SUFFIXDASH and category names

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_20#MOS:SUFFIXDASH_moves was closed as No consensus to apply MOS:SUFFIXDASH in category names, and I inserted an exception in the MOS here.

E.g. Category:Table tennis-related lists still uses a hyphen just like Category:Tennis-related lists, despite the space in the compound name "table tennis".

Recently Good Ol'Factory invoked PREFIXDASH to retain the dash in e.g. Category:Anti–death penalty laws, since these are laws against the death penalty, not against death.[12] I'm inclined to support the status quo there, as IMHO the dash adds clarity. However, if we still want PREFIXDASH/SUFFIXDASH to apply in those cases, then I think we need to reword the exception that I wrote for category names.

How then can the exception for category names be rewritten? Is consensus only missing for a dash between a phrase and a suffix (e.g. "-related lists"), so that a dash is still required between a prefix (e.g. Anti–) and a phrase? – Fayenatic London 14:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your examples here seem wrong to me. Far from making it clear that the laws are "against the death penalty, not against death", the phrase "anti-death penalty laws" seems to me to be referring to "penalty laws that are against death". And "table tennis-related" seems to tie "tennis" more tightly to "related" than to "table". --Khajidha (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black and African American

Is there guidance on preference for racial identity terms? (I assume not.) Then, is there a guidance or consensus on capitalization of Black, as in, a person's race/ethnicity? The norm on the outside seems to be big B, per the AP's decision last year. I ask because the article on Kalief Browder was recently changed from … was an African-American youth… to … was a black youth…. I don't have a preference between those terms (in this context), but my impulse was to capitalize and link "black". Just thought I'd check in here first though. — HTGS (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:PEOPLANG (via this recent thread) for the caps question, no idea where to look for the Black/African-American question. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 08:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a callout for W-L record treatment in sports

See MOS:ENBETWEEN.

Intent is to create an overt reference that W–L (or W–L–T) team records in sports, such as for a specific team or a head coach, use ((ndash)) rather than a hyphen as the delimiter between the numbers.

Existing text:


Proposed text


This convention is without controversy and already in near-universal use such as the Infobox:

The issue mostly arises with new editors who will intuitively type 12-0 rather than 12–0.

Feedback? UW Dawgs (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opposition to this, but it’s worth saying that this won’t solve the problem; any editor who would read the MOS is not the problem. It is mere ignorance or laziness that skips the convention, not a lack of explicit callout in the Manual. — HTGS (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but "see MOS:ENBETWEEN" then becomes useful in an edit summary or Talk page context. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really doubt anyone reading ENBETWEEN would disagree that it also applies to scores or score records. But I'm not making an argument against this change, so I'll shut my mouth. — HTGS (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS currently says that section titles should "Not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked." Below, it suggests that such links might create "technical complications". Is that still true, and does this restriction still make sense? And does it apply to talk pages? I ask because links in talk page section titles are ubiquitous. On WikiProject talk pages and Noticeboards, it appears to be standard practice to link to the article under discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS only applies to articles, not talk pages. pburka (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question is more whether "technical complications" actually result, which would apply on talk pages, too, I presume. If so, we could say something on talk page guidelines, not in the MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the mobile interface, there are some technical bugs that arise with links in section headers; I can't recall exactly what they are at this moment, but the issue goes away when you "view as a wiki page" (which is the only way to reply to talk page posts on mobile, anyway, and is overall a much better interface than the default talk page mobile interface). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firejuggler86 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the technical aspect, is there really a reason to do it? Any link in a section title can easily be presented within the section's content, you would think. Appearance-wise, it's a matter of consistency having all section titles in the same font color. That might not matter so much on a talk page, but in an article, hyperlinks in titles would look odd in my opinion. Might also be misleading, with newer visitors thinking it links to another section within the same article as opposed to jumping to a different article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony and Ivory

Executive summary: regarding the capitalization of "Black" and "white" (referring to racial groups), let's please find out what major publications such as Time and so forth are doing, and let's write that down as our rule. Detailed argument follows.

So, the capitalization of "Black" (referring to African-Americans or other people of color) has become totally established in the press, like, overnight; I've never seen anything be accepted so fast, seems like in a few weeks it went from 0% to 100%.

I mean, I am writing "Black" because if I didn't I'd be like the only one in the world it seems. It's that universal. Sure, we are supposed to lag the cutting edge somewhat, but neither are we supposed to be essentially the only mainstream publication using a format that nobody else is.

So, the problem with this is, what do you do with "white". There's an argument to capitalize it -- "The film was popular with both Black and white people" looks a bit odd, does it not?. But then you have "Most of the town's Whites opposed the candidate" and what have you, which, the capitalization of "White" grates and looks, well, racist. I don't know if we capitalize "White Power" and "White Pride" as a proper nouns (I wouldn't think so) and assuming not, then you have "There was a well-attended White pride parade"... uh, that's not good.

I think the reason for this is that "White pride" is not a legit thing, because there's no such ethnicity or nation as "White". "Italian pride" and "Irish pride" are fine, because those are ethnicities/nations. (And "White pride" is only used by racist blackguards.)

Black (African-American) is also not an ethnicity but it is treated as such primarily because African ethnicity was entirely mixed up and destroyed by the slavers. You can't really have "Ibo pride" or "Nigerian pride" because most African-Americans don't know their background that well. Black (African-American) is also treated as a distinct cohesive group because, well, in some ways it is. Black people are a minority in America and have a distinct universal experience (of oppression and segregation) and a distinct minority culture that whites just don't have. There is Black music (I mean the blues and all) and Black literature etc., while there simply is no such thing as "white music" and "white literature" in the same way (I mean generally; some exceptions apply when specifically doing cultural studies and comparisons and so on). James Baldwin was a "Black writer" but Kurt Vonnegut wasn't a "white writer", see what I mean?

So, what should it be?

So who wants to do the research (altho this is so new that wheel might still be in spin) and write that up toute de suite. Herostratus (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: Is this only for the United States, or is the usage changing elsewhere too (Canada, UK, etc.)?
I'm not sure it's possible to survey all recent uses of these words to refer to race, but for reference, here's some sources discussing it:
  • Why we capitalize ‘Black’ (and not ‘white’), CJR; this reversed course from an earlier piece, noting journalism has continued to evolve in its approach to covering race.
  • Why We’re Capitalizing Black, NYT: “Some have been pushing for this change for years,” Mr. Lacey said. “They consider Black like Latino and Asian and Native American, all of which are capitalized. Others see the change as a distraction from more important issues. Then there are those troubled that our policy will now capitalize ‘Black’ but not ‘white.’ Over all, the view was that there was a growing agreement in the country to capitalize and that The Times should not be a holdout.”
  • AP says it will capitalize Black but not white. Columbia Journalism Review, the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News and Chicago Tribune are among the organizations that have recently said they would capitalize Black but have not done so for white. ... In some ways, the decision over “white” has been more ticklish. The National Association of Black Journalists and some Black scholars have said white should be capitalized, too. ... “We agree that white people’s skin color plays into systemic inequalities and injustices, and we want our journalism to robustly explore these problems,” John Daniszewski, the AP’s vice president for standards, said in a memo to staff Monday. “But capitalizing the term white, as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs.”
  • Opinion piece in The Atlantic that seems to have been influential.
  • The Brookings Institute writing to AP before it announced the above, encouraging it to capitalize Black.
  • The footnote in this paper: I capitalize “Black”when referring to Black people, because as explained by Kimberlé Cren-shaw, “Black[people], like Asian[people], Latin[x/e], and other ‘minorities,’constitute a specific cultural group and, as such, require denotation as a proper noun.’...I do not capitalize ‘white,’which is not a proper noun, since [neither white people nor ‘people of color’refers to] a specific cultural group.”Kimberlé Crenshaw, Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color, 43 STAN.L.REV.1241, 1244 n.6 (1991). In this context, Black is both a racial category that encompasses many cultures and ethnicities of African descendants, and a specific culture borne out of collective resistance to anti-Black oppression and preservation of ancestralpractices.
  • Here is a similar footnote in an academic journal.
Those are the first few results of a quick search for 'capitalize black'. --Aquillion (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked outside the United States, no; I think that American usage should weigh pretty heavily here in this particular case, on account of its large Black population, and its history.
Thank you for the work User:Aquillion! For my part, this is sufficient to go with a Black-white paradigm as the the least-bad. What we need is to get that accepted, and to that I think a two-pronged argument -- that its the least racist looking, AND that major pubs are doing that -- might do the trick. A bit more research, than an RfC? Herostratus (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was an RfC on this at MOS:CAPS from just 7 months ago: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 32#Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms. The closure states: Consensus against changing MOSCAPS to capitalize "Black" when used as a racial or ethnic descriptor. A raw vote count has a significant majority opposing the change, although an analysis of arguments made suggests a closer outcome than the votes, as many of the arguments made in opposition were rebutted or missed the point entirely. Ultimately, the decisive question is how RS use the terms; while several reliable sources (and particularly US sources) have adopted capital-B Black for the racial grouping, several counter-examples were also provided (including examples from US sources)....sufficient opposition such that the matter should not be reopened at a project-wide level until either further developments occur (i.e. more style guides adopting capital-form) or significant time has passed. More recently there was this discussion with a short RfC stating that MOS:CAPS did not need to be changed and was consistent with the earlier RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Discussion about capitalisation of Black (people).
I disagree that capitalizing "White" alongside "Black" looks racist, though my preference is that both be lowercase, as terms primarily for skin color and "races". Black people are also ethnically diverse - an African-American identity is not the same thing as the many ethnicities of Africa, for instance. The reason white pride is not legitimate is not because there is no such thing as white people, but because white people as a group already are esteemed by society and treated as a norm, in the U.S. and ethnically similar countries anyway (again, as a group), so pushing "pride" in being white is just another term for white supremacy. (Likewise, the existence of so-called straight pride as a reaction to gay pride does not negate the existence of heterosexuality.) The idea that there is no such ethnicity as white or that white does not refer to a specific cultural group does not really make sense to me. What cultural group in the American South was it, then, that promoted and enforced Jim Crow laws? Many white people have ancestry basically equally divided from many different places in Europe and elsewhere, so it's not like they are actually German-American or English-American or whatever. They don't consider themselves that. So what ethnicity are they?
Some of Aquillion's sources note arguments that both should be capitalized. The AP quote says, The National Association of Black Journalists and some Black scholars have said white should be capitalized, too. This Atlantic article I found to be very thought-provoking and makes an argument for capitalizing both as the most anti-racist option.
I emphasize that above all we need to go by the recent RfC, and that any reopening of discussion on this would need to survey a wide array of sources and be careful not to exclude from the dataset sources that did not make changes in Summer 2020 as others did. Per WP:Due weight, we should also be looking for the opinions of linguists and other relevant academic experts, even more so than journalists. And, again, my own preference is to capitalize neither black nor white. Crossroads -talk- 04:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We just had an RfC on this about two months ago. The idea of writing "Black but white" came nowhere close to gaining consensus. The closer (unaware of prior background) was generally down on capitalizing any of these things, but there's never been a rule to not capitalize them, nor to capitalize them. They just have to be treated consistently in the same article (MOS:ARTCON). WP shouldn't be using "ivory" and "ebony" in its own voice anyway; those are silly and rather outmoded evocative terms that lack neutrality. The "capitalize to show esteem" argument has already failed to gain consensus, both in the last RfC and in general for many years: we have an entire guideline section MOS:EMPHCAPS on not misusing capitalization as a form of emphasis/signification. PS: No, we do not care what journalists are doing; encyclopedic style is very different from news style, and WP is not written in new style, as a matter of clear policy. Our style guide is based on academic style guides (mostly Chicago Manual of Style and New Hart's Rules, plus Scientific Style and Format), and literally nothing in it was taken from a news style guide like AP Stylebook. Many, many times have people argued to change MoS based on AP or some other news style sheet (from NYT, The Guardian, The Economist, etc.), and the answer is always "no". PPS: The OP is fudging the "real world" reality. Using black is considered racist only when it's done in a pointed manner, e.g. next to White; White is considered racist only likewise in a pointed manner. There are many mainstream publications that use black and white, and quite a few that use Black and White, and this has actually been true since at leaste the 1980s. The new fad of Black but white is a politically motivated Americanism, recentism, and journalese-ism, and the fighting about it off-site is entirely politically driven. There's nothing even faintly neutral about using it or proposing its use here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with almost all of that, but it's not really fair to say that a mere proposal is political and non-neutral (unless it were a case of the same person participating in/proposing the same proposal every one or two months, like (e.g.) Ukranian nationalists did every month for 3 years straight to get Kiev changed to Kyiv). Also, there was never any suggestion of using "ebony" and "ivory" in Wikivoice; I think Herostratus was just being cute with the discussion header. I'm also unclear what's unneutral about it - it's cheesy, but it seems neutral enough..? Ebony and ivory are what black and white piano keys were respectively made from, historically. Then in the '80s it was the title of a schmaltzy duet by Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder. Aside from that... only possibly controversial thing is in regard to ivory and how it's obtained. Firejuggler86 (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophes and bold

Which do you prefer?

(It's bold because the term redirects here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like:
  • A confectioner's job encompasses... (formatted as '''confectioner'''(('s)))
because neither the apostrophe nor the "s" is bold. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, neither of them is necessary and both should be avoided. I've rewritten the sentence in confectionery to get rid of the apostrophe entirely. Simples. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move discussion in progress

An editor has requested that Climate change denial be moved to a different name. Please join the discussion at Talk:Climate change denial#Requested move 8 July 2021. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need more realistic examples for logical quotation

It would really help if the MOS:LQ examples were of the kinds of material we quote here in Wikipedia articles rather than short examples from narrative fiction. Because I am puzzled by two apparently contradictory guidelines – "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material" and "If the quotation is a single word or a sentence fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside the closing quotation mark."

Here is the original source material, from a well-known book on a presidential election:

Thus, since he who lives by the polls must die by the polls, George Romney took his decision forthrightly, openly, bravely, and on February 28th called an end to it, leaving behind the impression of an honest and decent man simply not cut out to be President of the United States.

And here is its use in a Wikipedia article:

Presidential historian Theodore H. White wrote that during his campaign Romney gave "the impression of an honest and decent man simply not cut out to be President of the United States."[192]

or

Presidential historian Theodore H. White wrote that during his campaign Romney gave "the impression of an honest and decent man simply not cut out to be President of the United States".[192]

Is the period inside the quotation mark correct, because it was inside in the material being quoted? Or should the period be outside the quotation mark, because only part of the original sentence is being quoted? I have thought it was the former, and I think the latter kinds of misrepresents the source, but it has been changed to the latter by another editor. I just want to know which one is intended by MOS:LQ. Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point, WTR. The MOS should interact with editors' usage on the encyclopedia, surely, but in this instance the guidance is confusing, or at least, could be less confusing. (I brought this up here years ago. More practical wording and examples were added, by other too; they've since been removed.) I remember seeing an article make FA with the precise opposite of LQ applied, but editors at the FAC seemed convinced that the approach they followed was in keeping with what was outlined here.
The answer to your query is the second example: the quoted portion is not a complete sentence, therefore (logically), end punctuation should sit after the quote mark. JG66 (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SECTIONSTYLE, "etymology" and User talk:Catchpoke

This user has been searching and replacing all uses of section headings like "Origin of the term" and replacing them with "Etymology", claiming MOS:SECTIONSTYLE as his justification - presumably because he thinks "the term" is an unnecessary reference back to the article subject. I don't see this at all and, without getting into a long discussion about what "etymology" covers, I see this as inappropriate, unhelpful and confusing to the reader. Imo, "etymology" should generally only used in cases where the origins or meanings in other languages (or older forms of English) are actually covered in the section. So for eg Silver Age of Comic Books, Mithridatic Wars, Palace economy, and Catholic imagination (where this is not the case), "etymology" should not be used. He has changed all these in the last couple of days, and is edit-warring to keep these changes. I'd like to establish a consensus that these changes are undesirable, and not compelled by the MOS. Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see: we have List of band name etymologies, List of computer term etymologies, and List of company name etymologies; most if not all of these use modern english. This is entirely appropriate. Catchpoke (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same concerns as etymology and origins are not necessarily the same thing. MOS:SECTIONSTYLE mentions nothing about the edits that Catchpoke is doing. I would argue it's disruptive editing. – The Grid (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To both of you, you need to read etymology and compound (linguistics). An etymon is a word origin and my edits are not disruptive. If you find the edit summary problematic, I won't use it. Catchpoke (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, we find the changes disruptive, and the "etymology" header inaccurate. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And is this a lie? Catchpoke (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Catchpoke: First, the term "etymology" used in a subheading assumes the reader understands what the word means, whereas "origin of the term" is straightforward. If two editors find you disruptive, chances are you are being disruptive. And since I noticed your edits and find them wrong, you can make that three editors. You can defend yourself, but baldly stating that you're not being disruptive is not really your call. Also, it's frankly disingenuous of you to state that if others "find the edit summary problematic, [you] won't use it" as you obviously know it's not the edit summaries that are the disruption. Per WP:BRD you should refrain from reverting to your preferred versions until consensus is reached. There is no policy or MOS guideline that supports your proposed changes. freshacconci (✉) 18:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. I was thanked by User:Veverve for this and User:Bermicourt agrees that etymology is the proper term. Catchpoke (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am wrong about what? You need to reach consensus and cease reverting to your version. If you find others that agree and consensus is reached (and keep in mind it's not a simple straw poll), then that's fine. But you don't have that right now and your "nope" comment addresses nothing that was actually said. If you want to convince people I suggest being less condescending, dismissive and argumentative. The onus is on you to convince the rest of us. freshacconci (✉) 18:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Catchpoke: I thanked you for that, because I believed you when you wrote it was a MOS standard. If it is not, then in the case of the content of the section of Subreption I think "Origin of the term" fits better, as there is no analysis of the composition of the word, but there is a historical explanation. Veverve (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At least the one you were thanked for, at Subreption, actually is an etymology section, with details of the Latin origin etc, though I don't believe that means it has to be called that. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)User:Veverve: There is no guidance or policy on which word/phrase to use but "etymology" is far more common than "origin of the term" or "origin of the name". All of you need to read up on the articles I've linked. "etymon" is the origin of a word. If there is a discussion of the methods and/or etymon, there is an etymology. Catchpoke (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
user:Johnbod: You quote WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS so should I quote it too in response to your contradictory reasoning? Catchpoke (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Freshacconci: You don't want to read the pages so it does seem like a simple straw poll. Catchpoke (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Currently there seems to be no policy that would support the replacement of every Wikipedia occurrence of "origin of..." with "etymology" (or vice versa). Both are acceptable and so we shouldn't be doing any mass changes. I think it would make sense to have a guideline for naming section headings of this type (as opposed to article text), as the origin of an unusual word quite often forms part of the article. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean as opposed to article text? Catchpoke (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or ((efn)) templates on this page, but the references will not show without a ((reflist|group=lower-alpha)) template or ((notelist)) template (see the help page).

More