This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There was no consensus at this CFD for applying MOS:SUFFIXDASH fully in all category names; seasoned editors were divided on the merits of the case. I have therefore added an exception. [1] – Fayenatic London 09:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Varieties of English talk page templates

This edit request to Wikipedia:Manual of Style has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change ((section link||Quotations within quotations)) to ((section link||For a quotation within a quotation)) in the "Typographic conformity" section: as the page currently stands, one has to follow two links in succession to get to the information. 116.86.4.41 (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Irrelevant text in Personal names and Place names sections.

Gist: Most of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Place names should merge to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Geographical items, because little of it pertains to capital letters in particular. It is leftover material from the merge-away of what was WP:Manual of Style/Proper names.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@EEng: In the edit summary for this revert, you requested a "citation" for the claim that these HTML entities are rarely or never used. Currently, I only see 69 pages that use ⋅, all of which I expect use <math>...</math> (which causes math-related HTML entities to be left in place there). In contrast, there are 20525 instances of the Unicode character "⋅" in the 2021-04-20 database dump. (We've already discussed × elsewhere.) -- Beland (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. Look, for the 100th time, what is the purpose of all this churning? How does it improve anything to do all this bean-counting and tinkering that changes nothing the reader sees? EEng 03:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I've enumerated the benefits at length on the other thread. If you don't think the data I supplied in response to your request justifies dropping the HTML entity syntax from this page, I have no problem letting the revert stand. -- Beland (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

There is an issue re underlinking under discussion at WT:SHIPS#Linking to list of ship launches in see also sections. Please feel free to join in. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The example names are all problematic. An exception for silent s – René? Jules? – might help, but Hernán ...--2601:840:8402:34A0:E4AC:5070:6B94:8DF5 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for posting, but you've lost me. There are ten examples under Singular nouns, if that's the sole subsection you meant (although you linked to the entire "Possessives" section, which has 17 example cases). Are you saying that there is something wrong with all ten of them? It sort of seems as though you wish there were an exception for silent s, but... there is. I'm confused by your post and what you wish to happen as a result of it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Just the proper names – which are misspelled (Cortes), illogical (illa noizes), and/or have "wrong" Wikipedia articles. --2601:840:8402:34A0:A0F7:9CB6:E965:2717 (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You speak in riddles. EEng 23:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I think English is not his native language. And I think his native tongue is Portuguese, with the spelling Cortes and all. One comment I have about said list is that "Descartes's" is a wretched example; I get that it is correct, but not only does it look like it isn't, it's also very likely to produce mispronunciations (and that's the French for you). Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I have seen "then President/Prime Minister X" and—when applicable, "then-president/mayor/premier" used often in Wikipedia articles, so I began to use it myself in reference to persons who held office in the context of a specific historical event. Is there a protocol on this? Some editors disagree on its use. Thanks Oceanflynn (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

There's no reason why the title is lower case when used with the hyphen and capitalised when used without the hyphen; I don't know if that was part of your question, but thought I would mention that in case it was. As for the hyphen, it is more correct, but dropping hyphens is extremely common in English, so I think either is fine. And the no-hyphen version I don't think is so widespread to the point that the hyphen version is deprecated. And if editors are really arguing over something so minor, I swear, they have too much time on their hands ;P. Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Do hatnotes from a mainspace article to a Wikipedia policy/essay (e.g. at Ani (disambiguation) or Wiki#Security) violate SELFREF? ~ HAL333 00:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

My mind is going, Dave. I can feel it. EEng 00:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• The standard I've always gone by is that if it's something extremely obvious, where 99% of visits to the page are probably looking for the WP-space thing, it's okay, but otherwise it's to be avoided. Putting a hatnote at ANI seems fine; putting one at arbitration would not be. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 01:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Would we want Sagan standard to have this hatnote (with no ((selfref)) wrapper)?

Asking for a friend. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not Sdkb, but my answer would be: no hatnote, unless WP:EXTRAORDINARY also had a shortcut WP:SAGAN. Then, yes, hatnote. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

That's fair, though for the latter situation you'd still want the hatnote to follow guidance at WP:ITSELF right (specifically wrapping the hatnote in ((selfref)) or using a selfref=y parameter for a template that supports it)? —Locke Cole • t • c 17:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Right, I would. (I thought the gist of the question was the mention [on WP] at all.)— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You're good, thanks for the responses. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 19:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I added in an example of a product in the Verb Tense section of the page. This is because all other cases are either examples of product lines (i.e. PDP-10, uses present + a past tense of who made them), series of media (i.e. Earth: Final Conflict, A Praire Home Companion, uses present plus duration of running of years/seasons), continually made series of comic books (i.e. Jumbo Comics, uses past), events (i.e. The Gordon Riots of 1780, uses past), living people (i.e. Obama, uses present + "former"), and bands and groups that no longer are active (i.e. The Beatles, uses "were" + stating when they were founded). An example of a single product in itself with the case of the subject itself being discontinued should be a good example of another example to add. Flappy Bird is among the many examples; it an item that has been discontinued by the creator but people can still own Flappy Bird so it still constitutes as "is" and not "was", but the group "The Beatles" can't be banded by anyone except the band members themselves but of course they had disbanded long ago, so that would be a "was". Likewise could be said about Jumbo Comics as a set of different book series, but the process of making the series is the "was" here because that subject is not about the series itself unlike television shows or radio shows. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Or is it with Jumbo Comics that the original group making them is no longer active or existent, and so therefore products associated with them is also considered a "was"? Maybe that's the distinction? Whatever the case, Flappy Bird the video game product is considered an "is" regardless because it still feels it still meaningfully exists. It did not "use to be" a video game product per se, nor is a dodo considered a "was" extinct bird even though clearly it is extinct and was an existent bird species. Huh? I am still quite confused here. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

That point seems too trivial to make, or exemplify. Tony (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Quotations rarely have a proper place in encyclopedia writing. They should be more strongly discouraged and editors should be encouraged to paraphrase. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

At first, I was going to contest your statement but after further thought, I reluctantly concur. WP has several articles that have been ruined by inexperienced, immature, and/or poorly trained editors who do not understand how to quote sources properly and instead rely on excessively long blockquotes. The article on precedent comes to mind. The correct approach is to paraphrase a source as much as possible and quote only the most memorable or important portions. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

What you guys are describing, though, is not a result of poor guidelines - no guideline recommends such kind of writing, and editors writing in that fashion are not likely reading the guidelines anyway, so changing the guidelines would not prevent that from happening. As for whats already there, the remedy is already available: improve it} ;). Firejuggler86 (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

What User:MarydaleEd is getting at is that it would be easier for properly trained editors to call out and get rid of such poor writing if WP had guidelines in place on that issue. Then one can simply cite the guideline. No one has time to give another person a remedial course in basic English composition; that's what MOOCs like Coursera are for.

Also, "improve it" is not a solution, because no one has the time, energy, or interest to clean up poor-quality writing by people who are either too lazy or incompetent to learn how to write properly. That's why articles like precedent can and have persisted in a state of complete disorganization for many years. The better solution is to have clear guidelines that support purging of bad edits on sight. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Luckily there's little chance of disagreement about what constitutes a bad edit worthy of being purged on sight. EEng 19:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, purge away. It's pretty much the only thing you can do about shittily-written articles. The MOS is more about ruling on one side or another of several reasonable options. We don't need an official decrying of ugly prose to get rid of it and those who would edit-war to keep it would soon find themselves with precious few allies. (User:Coolcaesar, I don't recognize your name but if you've been around a while I don't mean to tell you anything you already know.) Primergrey (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to the MOS page and have a question. I cannot seem to locate much in Wikipedia policies and guidelines about the specific use of person-first language. Granted, I do see a small section about the importance of using gender-neutral language, which is all well and good, but the importance of person-first language extends far beyond that. Are there such policies in place and I'm not seeing them or is this not yet in place? If it's not, then why not? Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a brief mention in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Careful language, final bullet point. -- Colin°^Talk 10:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin. I took a look there and that particular area looks like it is in significant need of expansion. I'm unfamiliar with MOS procedure, how does one go about that? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823, Unless you are really confident about what you feel should be said, I recommend posting a suggestion to the MEDMOS talk page. You could either explain what you think needs to be said or said differently, or propose some text. Best to encourage people to comment rather than vote. Wrt the "need of expansion" it is also worth perhaps giving some examples. Are there a lot of articles that use inappropriate terminology? Is this something editors argue about. Etc. If you think the mistakes are mostly happening on non-medical articles, then there is an argument that we should say something on the main MOS or something more related to biographies, say. -- Colin°^Talk 13:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• ”Person-first language” is a bit of terminology that I have never encountered before... could someone give me an example, so I know what we are talking about? Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  I thought it said first-person language; no wonder I was confused. Anyway, apparently we're talking about this And see People-first_language, in which (I am startled to see) the For Dummies series is cited as a stylistic reference; I think the Criticism section is well worth reading as well, because it turns out not everyone agrees this woke approach is always desirable. EEng 17:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are several articles that use language that aren't using this. I'm sure it has its critics like everything does but there are many compelling arguments to use it (at least, in the way that I will suggest). I can definitely discuss what person-first language is about, provide some high-quality sources about it, etc. It will have to be a bit later though since I'm busy in real life at the moment. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring the comments from ignoramuses (see what I did there?) MEDMOS also links to APA style guide. This is a basic of modern professional writing. For example Guardian Style Guide entry on "epilepsy", and Association of health-care journalists. As MEDMOS notes, there are a minority of medical conditions where a proud community has developed (deaf, blind, autistic) for whom putting the condition first is part of their pride assertiveness. But those are exceptions. It is correct for us to accept that people are who they say they are and should be referred to how they want to be referred to. For example this analysis from Epilepsy & Behaviour journal indicates medical profession is very aware of this issue, and demonstrates that, when asked, people with epilepsy prefer that form 9/10 times over the deprecated "epileptics". -- Colin°^Talk 09:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Participants were recruited by advertisements placed in the newsletters and on the websites of epilepsy interest groups and organizations – Yeah, no bias in that sample. EEng 17:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

While recruiting volunteers for a study may introduce bias in some ways (which the paper discusses) it is hard to see how else to gain access to a large number of people with epilepsy. It isn't clear to me that this method of recruitment/selection would necessarily tend the opinion in any particular direction. Clearly the respected journal it was published in considered the methods satisfactory. If instead you were to ask those attending specialist epilepsy centres, one would end up with the more severe end of the spectrum, and epilepsy isn't common enough that one could simply knock on doors or stand in a shopping mall and stop passers-by. I think the views of 638 people with epilepsy and 333 significant others is probably going to be as good as it gets as to a view on what people, in the UK anyway, think of the language choices. Whereas your method for determining an opinion worth hearing, was to ping a Wikipedian friend. Everybody here is well aware that the activist autistic community rejects person first language, so it doesn't really inform the debate wrt other medical conditions. I think "is autistic + has a blog" is about as biased as one can get wrt selecting from an opinionated minority of a population group. A study on autism, suggests a more varied range of opinions than one might think from reading blogs. -- Colin°^Talk 17:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Clearly the respected journal it was published in considered the methods satisfactory – This may shock you, but respected journals in the soft sciences routinely publish statistical nonsense such as this. If we are charitable we may imagine that the editors expected their readers to recognize the paper's severe (fatal?) limitations for themselves.
• bias ... which the paper discusses – Actually, the paper doesn't even begin to probe the internal evidence that its sample is seriously, amazingly, fantastically out of whack. For example (and no, this isn't noted in the paper) only 23% of the responding "patients" in the study were male, yet (I gather) at least half of epileptics are male. And (also not noted) an amazing 90% of the responding "family and friends" were female! I could go on.
• I think the views of 638 people with epilepsy and 333 significant others is probably going to be as good as it gets – The size of the "sample" is irrelevant when nothing is understood about its relationship to the population (which, by the way, was never defined by the paper either). As a result, all those impressive-looking confidence intervals and significance levels are completely meaningless; that everything's carried out to n decimal places makes the joke all the more delicious. I have a degree in statistics so I assure you I know what I'm talking about here.
• epilepsy isn't common enough that one could simply knock on doors or stand in a shopping mall and stop passers-by – So your idea is that to get a useful sample you should knock on doors or stop passers-by, if only a bigger % of the population had the characteristic sought? Really?
• hard to see how else to gain access to a large number of people with epilepsy – just because the only approach you can think of is seriously flawed doesn't make it any less seriously flawed.
• Everybody here is well aware that the activist autistic community rejects person first language, so it doesn't really inform the debate wrt other medical conditions – Sure it does. It reminds us to beware of sweeping generalities from people declaring themselves up-to-date.

EEng 04:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Genuine question: why are you two discussing the potential bias in one study about the preferred terminology in one group that was simply provided as an example? If anything, this just goes to show that there's never going to be consensus for one form or the other in any circumstance. Aerin17 (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Colin said that this study demonstrates that, when asked, people with epilepsy prefer [etc] [etc]; I thought it was important to make clear that it demonstrates no such thing. EEng 10:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with "someone on the internet" who just wants to argue and mischaracterises what others have written. But hey, if you think asking Guy Macon's opinion is more persuasive than getting a study published in a per reviewed journal, or think the absence of a Y chromosome might just radically alter the findings... The only people here making sweeping generalisations are those who are not interested in anyone's views but there own. -- Colin°^Talk 15:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

As a proud person of ignorance (see what I did there) I really don’t think it matters whether someone writes “he was an epileptic” vs “he was a person with epilepsy”. Both are fine. If you want to change one to the other, be BOLD... if you get push back, discuss on the article talk page and don’t edit war over it. Mandating specific terminology on a project wide basis via the MOS strikes me as overkill, and it gets us into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory. Blueboar (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

With respect, Blueboar, it really doesn't matter one bit what you or I think is acceptable language, as we are people (I assume) who don't have epilepsy, or some similar condition that stigmatises and marginalises people. That's why it is important to research why certain groups want to be referred to a certain way, rather than assuming things about them from our position of privilege. The majority of writers here are likely to be ignorant (joking aside) of this issue unless they work or write about healthcare issues. Language does shape how we think about people. Are they someone, a person, just like me? Or are they primarily not like me at all, dehumanised to the point where I don't even use the word person, and they become some other creature: an epileptic or an alcoholic, say. I think MEDMOS gets it about right, pointing out that is is appropriate in some contexts but not all. We have guidelines about gender-neutral language, for example, which some wouldn't bother with in their own personal writing, but which the community feels is important. I think the long-standing advice at MEDMOS is sufficient for anyone to be bold and fix up troublesome terminology while citing MOS. Whether it needs more visibility in a main MOS page probably need investigating as to whether non-medical articles often use inappropriate language. -- Colin°^Talk 12:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, what you and I (along with other editors) think definitely DOES matter, since we are the ones who determine what our MOS guidance should say.

While I would certainly agree that we should be aware of the desires of those we are writing about, and take those desires into consideration - we are under no obligation to automatically accept those desires. We can (if such is our consensus) reject those desires - or (as I propose) intentionally remain silent, and neither accept nor reject those desires. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"dehumanised to the point where I don't even use the word person, and they become some other creature: an epileptic or an alcoholic" Citation needed. Or, more bluntly, I'm calling BULLSHIT. How is "epileptic" dehumanizing any more than "driver" vs "person who drives"? And I say that as an epileptic from a family that includes many epileptics. --Khajidha (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

And I say that as an epileptic from a family that includes many epileptics – So much for we are people (I assume) who don't have epilepsy and our position of privilege. It is so, so tiresome to be lectured by the woke. EEng 17:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I was about to say almost exactly the same thing, except using plumber, teacher, and paramedic instead of driver.

The APA style guide was cited above, though apparently without realizing that what it actually says is Both person-first and identity-first approaches to language are designed to respect disabled persons; both are fine choices overall. It is permissible to use either approach or to mix person-first and identity-first language unless or until you know that a group clearly prefers one approach... Mixing this language may help you avoid cumbersome repetition of person with ... Of course, that leads to the question of how a "group" expresses itself; as explained at Person-first language#Criticism, for example, some autistics (or persons with autism) prefer to be referred to as persons with autism, but others prefer the term autistic. Paging my favorite autistic person with autism.

EEng 17:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

(Blushes). Your favorite? Aaaaaw!

I can't speak for anyone else, but to me intent is everything. I have been called "aspie" and "autie" (by people who in good-faith want to talk about my experiences) and "the kidney in room 203" (by the doctor who ended up curing the condition) and had no problem with it But "the person who..." can be a insult when spoken in a certain tone of voice and combined with other negative context. Some terms (Queer, Quaker, Mormon, Geek) started out as insults but were embraced by those who were being insulted. Others (Colored) went out 0f style but left behind traces like the name of the NAACP. And some people (imagine the worst possible tone of voice in those last two words) use pronouns as a club to beat anyone who, say, thinks it is OK to call someone "Xe" instead of "He" or "She" or that someone asking everyone to use "Tree" instead of "He" or "She" is being silly. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

WP is not in the language-policing business. If contemporary reliable sources use "epileptics", "persons with epilepsy", and "epileptic people", then all of these are and will remain permissible in WP articles, unless and until one of them becomes so disused we hardly ever see it any longer in modern sources. For example, "albino[s]" in reference to humans has gone out of fashion, so it's okay that our articles are mostly now using "people with albinism" and "person with albinism" and "albinistic people" and so on; but no one is punishable for writing "an albino" or "were albinos"; it still in common enough RS usage (mostly news rather than medical literature) that it's not wrong. This is not in any way comparable to using offensive racial epithets and the like (no matter how much false equivalence is engaged in by a certain sort of censorious and doctrinaire busybody). And we also just had an RfC about banning "committed suicide" (result: we did not ban this phrase), and another about always capitalizing "Black", but only "Black" not "White", in an ethno-racial sense (result: we are not going to just capitalize "Black"; either capitalize both or neither, consistently in the article). This is just more of exactly the same "write the way I dogmatically prefer, or else" stuff. The idea that "epileptic or alcoholic ... dehumaniz[es] to the point ... they become some other creature" than a human is just absurd nonsense. This is more of that "desperately looking for something to be offended about" stuff, and WP has way, way too much of that going on already. We have much better things to do than entertain any such extreme PoV-pushing arguments.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

So I take it you're also against saying things like "person battling epilepsy"? EEng 04:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

On the fence. There's been some discussion, I think at WT:MOSWTW, about this sort of language ("cancer victim", "a sufferer of dermatitis", etc.), and the view generally seemed to be pretty negative; something about it painting people as victims and defining them primarily in terms of a disorder. But I do note that "[someone] living with HIV" seems pretty common, and that "is a cancer survivor" and "died after a three-year battle with cancer" don't seem to arouse as much criticism. I think it's going to depend on how judgmental and/or euphemistic it comes off in a particular case. My personal take is that the specific example "person battling epilepsy" is over-the-top and shouldn't be used, but it's not something I would write an MoS rule about, just rewrite in situ where I found it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

There's a difference between "a cancer victim" and "a cancer", just like there is a difference between "an epileptic person" and "an epileptic". As for the sources, there is a general move in the sources to follow the pattern that "seizures are epileptic, not people". A quick look at recent review articles on PubMed finds three (3) sources mentioning "epileptic people" and 658 that mention "people with epilepsy". I also notice that all three of the papers using the older term were written by people whose native language isn't English. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't track. Maybe you need another example? "A cancer" isn't a noun ever used to refer to a person ("a Cancer" is, as an astrology thing). "A cancer" means "a type of cancer" or "a tumor", depending on context. But the noun "an epileptic" always means a person (or, in veterinary medicine, an animal); it never means "a type of epilepsy" or "a seizure". So you're comparing applies and oranges. Yes, we're all aware that there's a language reform movement that exists in the medical community. That's precisely what the very recent suicide-wording debate was predicated on. They have not yet succeeded in changing the language, only making a small dent, so WP has no reason to do anything or continue talking about it. WP does not lead, it follows. WP is not a soapbox for any form of advocacy, no matter how well-motivated. WP doesn't impose restrictions on editors that are not necessary either to produce mainstream-acceptable encyclopedic out output or to prevent internecine fighting. And we have more productive things to do that try to language-police our volunteers over extremely subjective matters (especially when many of the people being "allied at" will tell their wannabe allies that they're wrong and need to stop projecting on them. This is not FarLeftPedia (and I say that as a progressive). These reformationist pushes are coming from the progressive-activist sector, which a recent (2020) survey indicates are only about 8% of the US population [2] (and probably much less in the UK). Even among the left-of-center, far more of us (editors and, more importantly, readers) are somewhere within the traditional-liberal to passive-liberal to politically-disengaged spectrum (and nearly half of people are on the right-hand side, from moderate to devoted conservative).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish, you need to look at a dictionary before you make these kinds of pronouncements. There are at least two definitions for "an epileptic", used as a noun. (The other is a class of drugs that is more descriptively, and now more commonly, called an anti-epileptic.) As for your assertion that "a cancer" isn't ever used to refer to a person, that is typical jargon in hospitals. Search this page for "the kidney in room 203". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I did not propose to be covering every possible definition of such terms in every imaginable usage, only those that are contextually sensible. Nothing in this discussion has anything to do with terms for drugs; it's entirely about people and their diseases. And your hospital-jargon point was already made clear earlier, but WP does not write in hospital jargon, so it is irrelevant. "An epilepsy" meaning "a person with epiplepsy" would never, ever, find its way into encyclopedic wording (other than as something to immediately revert). It also will not be found in a dictionary, so your dictionary finger-wagging is off-base. Please remember WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:WINNING. This page does not exist as a webboard for trying to prove you're a better arguer than someone else and to keep trying to find ways to stick it to them. The point of this page is determining what MoS should say and how to apply it. We don't get there by "debate as a sport" behavior.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to volunteer (perhaps in my own personal capacity as a person valiantly fighting the scourge of epilepsy, natch) that such language is hideous and its writers should be indeffed on sight it should perhaps be the form discouraged if we absolutely must discourage any forms. (I would prefer not to discourage any forms, but then I'm not usually inclined to these conversations at all -- I got here from a WT:MED link.) Vaticidalprophet 10:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I demand that both of you admit you knew I wasn't suggesting we describe articles subjects as battling stuff (unless, perhaps, they were knights of old) EEng 15:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I've never confessed to anything and I don't plan to start. Vaticidalprophet 22:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Confess! EEng 02:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether something requires a MOS statement/rule/advice and whether something is worth knowing, a reasonable rule or is good advice are not the same. Nor, as Blueboar notes, do editors need rules in order to be bold and fix things. I don't think MOS should be in the game of guiding every possible decision an editor makes about wording. That said, advice on this issue does appear in style guides for professional writing, so it isn't unreasonable to consider if it should appear in a Wikipedia one. This isn't about Wikipedians looking for something to be offended by, and I wish folk here were capable of having a grown up conversation about something the professionals take care over, rather than the mocking and dismissal and insults by some.

I disagree with SMcCandlish that the rule for WP usage is that something is "permissible in WP articles" until "we hardly ever see it any longer in modern sources". That would suggest Wikipedia should be way behind the curve and the last publication to adopt current language usage. Our reference should be professional-level writing by authors knowledgable about the topic -- which is exactly what our readers would wish our articles were. So usage by some newspaper journalist who writes about pop stars and refers to the child of one of them as "an epileptic" should not influence whether Wikipedia thinks that language is acceptable in medical or biographical articles. As MEDMOS notes, the language that is acceptable or preferred varies from condition to condition, and they can only speak for themselves and for their own situation. So the opinion of people on the autistic spectrum, say, is only really relevant to that group. -- Colin°^Talk 10:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

You can "disagree" all you want, but it's an actual fact of how WP adopts recent language shifts. You're mistaking description of process for "a rule". If there were an actual rule I would have quoted it at you. I'm telling you about experienced observation, not rule-thumping.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Wikipedia should be at or slightly behind the peak of the curve when it comes to language evolution. There are some exceptions when we should be more forward, where there is clear evidence of harm to people and (all-but) no dispute among the impacted group (pronouns matching expressed gender identity for example), but we should never lead - particularly where there is active dispute among an impacted group (as it seems here) or different approaches in different national varieties (e.g. capitalisation of "Black" as a racial term is almost exclusively a US thing, at least currently) although MOS:TIES can help in some instances. We should also try and avoid being the last to adopt a change that has broad consensus among contemporary sources. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The preferred terminology varies by group, and views-by-group cover a spectrum ranging from strong preference for person-first terminology, through very mixed feelings and no clear consensus, to groups that reject it for themselves. That "it's complicated" doesn't mean it should be dismissed. Very much worth reading Language Matters: Language and Diabetes. The is no controversy in professional healthcare writing of the need to be careful about language and to respect the wishes of those with those conditions. -- Colin°^Talk 12:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely agree we should be careful about language, though how that translates into what we should actually write is the whole question. I'll note that the "Language matters" piece you link says we shouldn't say that someone has not had good diabetes control and now has a complication as a result but rather is experiencing xx condition and he/she also has diabetes. Really? The former highlights a potentially important cause-and-effect connection while the latter makes it sound as if two unconnected things just happen to be present by coincidence. EEng 15:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem with "has not had good diabetes control" is that it implies that good diabetes control is realistically achievable for every person and that the failure is the patient's moral fault: if only they had put in more effort, if only they had been more compliant, etc. It somehow never implies "if only the healthcare provider had checked for diabetes five years ago instead of last week" or "if only the patient wasn't forced to choose between being homeless or working a rapidly rotating day–night schedule at work" or "if only we provided education in the patient's native language or using food examples beyond the stereotypical American food or outside most people's working hours" or "if only we managed the ag industry so that apples were cheaper than high-sugar drinks" or "if only we had a better care system for elderly people, including asking whether they've got enough food, feel able to prepare it, and have been eating a healthy diet".

Also: The phrase suggested there sounds like it's for a referral. The healthcare professional receiving the patient are expected to know what constitutes a complication. Is there any medical value in making sure that they are reminded whom you want to blame for this situation?

The same problem appears informally in cancer treatment. Healthcare providers speak of patients who fail treatment, when it's quite the other way around: the treatments failed the patients. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem with "has not had good diabetes control" is that it implies that good diabetes control is realistically achievable for every person and that the failure is the patient's moral fault – No it doesn't. It just says the diabetes control hasn't been good. (Clarification: good here is not a moral judgment, just shorthand for "effective".) None of the rest of what you're saying seems relevant. Science and medicine deal in cause and effect. Just because A caused B doesn't mean someone's being blamed. EEng 02:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I concur with EEng on this, entirely. "is experiencing xx condition and he/she also has diabetes" is terrible and misleading writing (not just for an encylopedia but also in any kind of medical context). "Has not had good diabetes control and now has a complication" says nothing judgmental whatsoever, especially since it doesn't even say what the source(s) of the control might be, nor what a good enough level of it is. It's a simple statement of cause–effect. But this is a red herring anyway, since WP would not say "good", but "effective" or something like that, removing even accidental misinterpretation of it as a judgment. Nor would WP ascribe a cause in this way as if doing a diagnosis ourselves. "[They] failed treatment" is another red herring, since WP would never use that. We don't need to have a discussion about every stupid thing doctors or social workers says, since this is not a webboard for venting about such matters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't like their suggested phrase, but I understand that many people actually do feel condemned when their healthcare providers tell them that they don't have good control of their diabetes. It's all well and good to say that they shouldn't, but the fact is that they do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

"[They] failed treatment" is another red herring, since WP would never use that.

Really? You need to start checking your assumptions before you post easily checked claims like this. Put the phrase the "WP would never use" into the search bar, and you'll see things like "Patients are said to have failed treatment if"... "Patients included in the study failed treatment"... "Among patients that had failed treatment"..."patients whose tumors express PD-L1 and who have failed treatment"..."The number of failed treatment attempts"... "in the years following a failed treatment"... "Karen Blixen Failed Treatment of Syphilis"... "unless they have a contraindication to the medication or have failed treatment with the medication in the past"... "a second patient wit this mutation failed treatment"... WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Nope. WP quoting and attributing is not WP using in it's own voice. If any of these cases are actually written in WP's own voice, they should be fixed immediately. I really hope you do understand that when someone says "WP would/should/can never do X" they mean "in any text we would consider keeping". With thousands of anonymous editors per day, some of them outright vandals, it is impossible for even the absolute worst things that could be said to actually end up getting written here, albeit only until someone notices and fixes it. So, cf. previous not about not engaging "debate for sport" antics. They are not constructive to this or any other discussion here, and you are not "WP:WINNING". If you ever misinterpret a long-term, competent editor in a way that makes them seem like they have an IQ of 60, you are making a mistake, and it makes you, not your target, look bad.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The phrases I have quoted are not from sources. Those statements are from existing Wikipedia articles. The first one is from Tuberculosis management – our article, in Wikipedia's own voice. The second is from Abituzumab – our article, in Wikipedia's own voice. The third quotation is from Elotuzumab – again, the current version of the English Wikipedia article. These were also not phrases added by IPs or newbies on their first edit; often, it's long-time editors with hundreds or thousands of edits. Instead of lecturing me about WINNING, how about you stop assuming you're always right, and actually click this link to search results and check your assumptions about what Wikipedia would "never use"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Some of those are clearly unobjectionable even by the touchy-feely standards advocated (the years following a failed treatment and failed treatment attempts clearly "blame" the treatment, or maybe the practioner, but not the patient) and, actually, I'm OK with most or all of the rest. If you say that public service announcements, educational materials for children, and so on should take pains to use language (yes, even "person with" language) that will help shape attitudes in beneficial ways, I'll wholeheartedly agree with you; but if you tell me that an already complex discussion of some medical issue should be further obfuscated by changing a second patient with this mutation failed treatment to the condition of a second patient with this mutation failed to improve to a satisfactory extent in response to treatment – sorry, no. (I will grant, however, that we should not change "patient with this mutation" to "mutant".)

The way this is going we shouldn't say "the patient's heart rhythm was abnormal" – because, you know, my heart rhythm's a poor thing, but mine own, so please don't judge me by it – nor may we say "all these patients were negative for HIV and hepatitis" because you don't want to say anything negative about someone. And if the neurosurgeon on call rushes into the emergency room and is greeted with, not "There's a depressed skull fracture in 2 and an attempted suicide, hanging, possible cord injury in 3", but rather "There's a patient experiencing a depressed skull fracture in Room 2 and in Room 3 another patient who was found hanging from a rope around the neck and may be experiencing a cord injury, but I want to be clear that the jury is still out about whether it was an attempt at suicide self-harm because we're not judging anyone", then if I'm either of those patients and my care was delayed by even 3 seconds by such nonsense, I'm suing.

There's a time and a place for the soft and poetical, and a time and a place for the businesslike presentation of facts in crisp, straightforward langauge. Encyclopedia articles are the latter. EEng 22:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I would, as someone who's spent plenty of time around both the fringes and the centres of disability self-advocacy, strongly caution against any attempt to reify use of either person-first or identity-first language. This is a "five people, six opinions" issue, and all of those opinions hate each other. Frankly, even consistency within articles is quixotic. Vaticidalprophet 10:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Pardon me, please say that consistency has quixoticism. EEng 15:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Vaticidal for saying so. Too often discussions like just get overrun by "allies" who have no shared experience with those they are claiming to speak for. That was a big problem in the months-long debates about how to write about transgender/nonbinary people back in the mid-2010s, before we had a guideline about it. It was about 95% "allies", some of them so off-base (in the same way: over-generalizing about broad classes of people to impose theor own opinion on everyone, a form of "equal but opposite objectification", and closely akin to "inspiration porn"), that actual TG people had to basically tell them to STFU. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Consistency within articles may or may not be the right answer. I think that it's not unreasonable of us to speak of "children with autism" (especially for young children) but "autistic adults". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, yes -- I've intentionally written article inconsistently. (Autism is the high-profile case, because it has the loudest self-advocacy of any neurodivergence, but there's plenty more than only it. I personally find person-first language unbearably patronizing even where it's 'uncontroversial' and grit my teeth to write "people with epilepsy".) Vaticidalprophet 22:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Colin that just because this is complicated doesn't mean it's not worth discussing. On the contrary, I do think it's worth having some guidance since, as he said, this can be a confusing area and preferred terminology may vary for different conditions we discuss. I also agree that we strive to achieve high-quality writing here on Wikipedia and shouldn't be terribly behind when it comes to this. The impetus for my raising the discussion was to discuss this at least in the context of medical disorders that are commonly stigmatized (e.g., substance use disorders). As Colin correctly points out, our words do have impact on our readers and can do so even below readers' awareness but with negative results. Several articles have been published on that exact topic. I'm not suggesting we become the "language police" here but I do think it's important that we don't use language that contributes to the stigma of these already marginalized people. It does make a difference when we say someone is a substance "abuser" rather than characterizing them as a person with a substance use disorder.

Some will disagree with this perspective, and that's okay, but it has been clearly shown that when such language is employed that it leads to negative implicit biases and the perception of a moral failure. This view remains widespread despite being incongruent with our modern scientific understanding of such disorders. I certainly don't claim to know everyone's individual life experience here on Wikipedia. From my own personal life experience, I have noticed that when people seem opposed to such small adjustments to writing and language, that there is often some form of personal hangup or misgiving about the topic being discussed that causes them to cling to stigmatizing terms. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that as a blanket statement for anyone who expresses reluctance to adopt such a change. It's simply something I have observed and the approach certainly isn't beyond reproach. Nevertheless, I have yet to see anyone here or elsewhere put forward any compelling evidence suggesting that the use of such stigmatizing terminology doesn't negatively affect those who read it. I think I've seen enough to suggest that it does. Here are just a few examples of literature from widely recognized addiction medicine experts highlighting the impact of such language [3], [4], and [5].

I think in real life you'll get different answers from different people in these stigmatized groups if asked whether they're offended by the use of such terminology. Some are easily offended by the most minute of sleights whereas others may shrug off the use of overtly stigmatizing terms and everything in between. The use of such language indirectly affects these people though by affecting perceptions of these groups by everyone else as well and I think that's a noteworthy point to consider. How are people with alcohol use disorders viewed in society? What about people who use heroin? Hopefully I don't need to convince anyone that such groups (and others) are heavily stigmatized and that perceptions that they (and others) are at fault for their medical conditions remain widespread and have very harmful effects. I disagree that this is about "righting a great wrong" and I think the implied slippery slope is overblown. Similarly, I don't think that just because something is "commonly used" means that it's acceptable for use and brings the ad populum fallacy to mind. Yes, I understand the point about common name, which has been raised before, but I don't find that reasoning to be very persuasive. As Colin stated above, it's simply in compliance with what numerous professional health and medical societies recommend. Language evolves over time and this area of it definitely has (for a while). From what I have seen, the current Wikipedia guidance on this topic appears relatively sparse and I think it should be expanded and refined beyond a passing mention of gender-neutral language, etc. To all of those who have contributed to the discussion so far, regardless of whether you share my perspective or not, I'm grateful to you for engaging in thoughtful discussion about this important topic and hope you will continue to do so. I think we'll forge a better encyclopedia for it in the end. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I hope it is clear I'm not among those who think person-first language should be imposed across all disabilities and medical conditions. Labelling people is always a sensitive matter. I think it important we do realise language influences how we think and that we respect how people with those conditions or divergences want to be described. That's just basic manners. I am fascinated how these language changes evolve. I've written before about the rationale given for dropping the possessive from some eponymous medical conditions and how I think that is bunk.

Those who consider their "medical condition" to be not actually a disability, or are proud to declare it part of their identity, are going to champion "identity first" language. But that only really works when the condition has a convenient adjective (autistic) and is especially powerful when the trailing "person" is dropped. While perhaps Vaticidalprophet may not see much importance between "epileptic person" and "person with epilepsy", and the latter is weaker English style, I would hope they wouldn't be comfortable writing about "epileptics". By dropping the "person" it becomes much easier to take the next step and use the label as an insult: retard and spastic being two of the most offensive disability-related terms in UK English. Consider also what happens when one reduces a woman to just their hair colour: "some blond", "a brunette", "that redhead".

I only speak English, but suspect our choice of word order is an English problem, and in some other languages perhaps there isn't the freedom to put the person first or last. There's no adjective (AFAIK) for people who get migraines. Most of the more complex syndromes and disorders have no short-form that can be used to label a person, and so there is no option but to say "a person with ____". It would be rather odd to say "Bob is a tuberous sclerosis complex person". While Vaticidalprophet may find their thoughts about patronising do-gooders colour how they view some terms, language is what it is, and probably a bit random. -- Colin°^Talk 09:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I would hope [he] wouldn't be comfortable writing about "epileptics" -- well, it's how I write about myself (and a smorgasbord of other identity-first terms that 'advocates for patients' insist are inappropriate, apparently in the process deciding that defining others as 'patients' and speaking for them isn't). I haven't used the term in any articles, but where I've had the need to write on matters where I'd naturally use identity-first language but abled people have decided for themselves that this is inappropriate, I haven't so far actually been forced into using any kind of person-based construction, regardless of what aspect it focuses on (e.g. in the given case, I've only needed to discuss epilepsy as a symptom). The actual reason I wouldn't tend to use 'epileptics', 'autistics', 'schizophrenics', etc. in articles is that I think of them as informal constructs, so they're inappropriate for Wikipedia simply for being in the wrong register rather than for causing actual offense. 'People with migraines' is 'migraineurs', for what it's worth. Vaticidalprophet 10:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been meaning to point out all along that the actual usage levels vary widely. Some conditions have no "person term", for some it's the dominant usage, for others it's middle ground, and for others it's formerly common usage now considered obsolete. One size does not fit all. And in particular, this "person experiencing X" stuff is sociologist and activist language; it's not what the vast majority of people use in reference to their own conditions, even when doctors, case workers, etc. practically badger them to do so. The sea changes that actually happen in usage tend to be per-condition, and have a lot to do with grassroots. E.g. "people with albinism" has become so common because an organization (NOAH) founded by people with albinism, running mailing lists and organizing events for such people, promoted it gently among their own. And those people preferred it in the main, for one special reason: because they were used to "albino" being hurled at them by strangers (and non-stranger antagonists) exactly like a racial slur. People yelling things like "Creepy albino vampire! Get a frickin' tan!" at you is an intense and unusual driver. People with albinism lobbied their own doctors to start saying "people with albinism"; not the other way around.

But no one yells "Screw you, you attention-deficit freak!", or "Why don't you just die, you worthless epileptic! Yeah you!" on the street. There is no comparable grassroots driver of language change among most people with most medical conditions; it's almost entirely a matter of them being lobbied at by busybodies who claim to know what's best for them (and they're the same "allies" as in every other case: a privileged cluster whose demographics have been pretty well studied, the "professionally outraged" with way too much time on their hands but too little influence on real-world socio-economic forces). This is stark raving obvious in other areas with the same thing going on. E.g., even if you live in a big city with economic woes and housing shortage, you will still probably never in your entire life hear someone say they are "experiencing homelessness" or are "an unhoused person". No one uses these phrases but caseworkers and politicians. They don't like being called "a homeless", because that's weird and its intentionally weird and meant to insult (imagine being called "a jobless" or "a hairless" or "an eyeless" and you see the problem). They're not too keen, either, on being lumped together as "the homeless", a faceless mass like termites. But "homeless person/people" is just fine, and so is "being/am homeless" (not "experiencing" it).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Many people only experience homelessness for a period of time and may be in and out of it. FWIW, I do know real-life doctors who use language that you say only politicians and social workers use. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding both claims along the lines of "just because this is complicated doesn't mean it's not worth discussing": Well, past a certain point, yes it is not worth discussing on Wikipedia. WP is not going to "ban" or "require" certain formulations unless and until it has become a broad societal norm and is reflected in a preponderance of RS, across all media and genre, not just in cherry-picked specialist literature or echo-chamber websites. See how long it took to get MOS:GENDERID, and how long it took to get it saying what it does now. No amount of fist-shaking made that happen faster, and there was one F-load of fist-shaking. WP:NOT#FORUM matters. These pages do not exist to endlessly debate socio-political desires and postures and proposals. As long as "is epileptic" or "is an epileptic" or "has epilepsy" or whatever remain common in RS material (including newspapers, etc., not just American medical journals), WP will not effectively-prohibit them and say to use something else. This isn't my vague supposition; it's a statement of very predictable fact based on 15+ years of direct experience (both in support and opposition, depending on the case) with how WP processes linguistic shifts, and what actually causes them to finally occur within our e-walls: It's supermajority usage across contemporary source material of all kinds. Until that line is crossed, WP will not make a rule. And we shouldn't want it to.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Completely disagree but you're entitled to your opinion. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Snarky off topic comment... re: “It’s supermajority usage across contemporary source material”... unless we are talking about capitalization of things like “Prime Minister”... just saying... end snarky comment. Blueboar (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Cute, but it's off topic in both senses: it's not about WP adopting (early or late) a change that has been pushed by advocacy, which is what's under discussion here. Writing "prime minister" when it's not attached to a name isn't something angry advocates are engaging in cancel-culture activities about. Nor is it something WP made up out of it's own collective a[rse|ss]. It's very long-standing guidance found in all major academic-register (or formal-register, whatever you like to call it) style guides, including Chicago Manual of Style, New Hart's Rules, Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, and Garner's Modern English Usage, the four that most of MoS is based on. You and a handful of other people get perpetually pissed off about it because it doesn't match typical journalism style; but WP doesn't care and never will care. See WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:Common-style fallacy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that just because this topic is complicated doesn't mean that we can't address it or try to fix it when it comes up on individual pages; but because it's complicated, there's really no feasible way we can try to come up with a blanket rule. As Vaticidal said, this is a "five people, six opinions" issue, even within specific communities. If we were to try to implement a rule of some sort, it would have to be something very vague like "defer to what people with this condition prefer," which is pretty much what WP:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Careful language says already. It isn't our job to try to determine what the consensus is regarding specific conditions, and I think it might even be more harmful to try to say we know what's preferred than to just leave the policy as it is. Aerin17 (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

For someone who doesn't think it worth discussing on Wikipedia, SMcCandlish sure has written a lot on this page, and nearly all of it unsubstantiated claims. Personal feelings on the subject extrapolated as though one speaks for a community or others seem to dominate this discussion far beyond what is helpful. Personal views are interesting only to a very minor level, probably best reserved for some blog or social media rant. Vaticidalprophet thinks that "epileptics", for example, is an "informal construct[]" and the "wrong register rather than for causing actual offense". There is nothing informal about labelling people "epileptics". It was absolutely standard mainstream professional language. The UK had "The National Society for Epileptics" until the 70s (now The National Society for Epilepsy). Scientific studies recruited and experimented on "epileptics" and professionals wrote books and papers about them. It hasn't become "informal" but has become "unacceptable", like it or not. The words "rather than for causing actual offense" is a bit of a giveaway. SMcCandlish compares albinism with epilepsy and yet again seems to be writing without knowledge or even the most cursory research. The neurologist Rajendra Kale once notably wrote "The history of epilepsy can be summarised as 4000 years of ignorance, superstition, and stigma followed by 100 years of knowledge, superstition, and stigma." -- Colin°^Talk 10:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The National Society for Epilepsy??? Personally, I'm against epilepsy, but maybe that's just me. EEng 03:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, duh. All that epilepsy has to be coming from somewhere, right?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, SMcCandlish has written a lot on this page, but so have you Colin. The majority of what both of you have written is unsubstantiated claims. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that (a) some people prefer person-first language, a proportion of them find condition-first language inappropriate and a proportion of them find it offensive; (b) some people people prefer condition-first language, a proportion of them find person-first language inappropriate and a proportion of them find it offensive; and (c) some people have no particular preference either way. The relative proportions of groups a, b and c vary by condition, by relationship to the condition and possibly by location and/or other variables.
If we are writing about a specific person who has expressed a clear preference, we should respect that (e.g. "John Smith is an epileptic", "Jane Doe suffers from epilepsy", "Lesley MacDonald has a mild form of epilepsy", "Jean Dupont's epileptic daughter"). Beyond that all the evidence points to imposing a single, hard-and-fast rule covering all situations being completely inappropriate. Wikipedia should not, in 2021, be encouraging or discouraging either person-first or condition-first language across the board. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the way the debate ends: not with a bang but a whimper. EEng 03:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you; this is exactly what I wanted to say. Aerin17 (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair characterising at all. What I have written is evidence-based by a body of writing and research, whereas SMcCandlish largely made up what he wrote and was caught out on it on several occasions. The style-guide at the National Center on Disability and Journalism, along with numerous statements from organisations suggests Wikipedia's main MOS is out-of-step and we could say more than Thryduulf claims. It is not nearly as indeterminable as they make out. It is not generally possible to ask the subject or find out how they wish to be referred, when writing an article. What is clear, here, is that Wikipedia discussion on the issue is unlikely to be productive, where editor's personal opinion is held to be representative of our readers and who dismiss science and evidence. -- Colin°^Talk 08:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been "caught out" in absolutely nothing. Both purported "catchings out" were fallacious, as already demonstrated. Try sticking to the actual substance of the discussion instead of trying intensely to personalize the dispute in a demonizing manner. I'll remind you that this is a discretionary-sanctions topic, and was put under discretionary sanctions precisely because of editors being shitty and character-assassinating at each other instead of focusing on the content. Also, this is not an article, it's an internal consensus discussion. The entire thing is informed opinion, grounded primarily in policy and WP:5P and WP:ENC, an interplay between inductive and deductive reasoning. In short, it's "original research". Cherry-picking a few sources that agree with you means nothing. You have one and only one thing to prove here: that the vast majority of modern English-language sources that are reliable enough WP would ever cite, actually write the way you wish they would write. Until you can prove that, you have no case to make, because WP does not lead when it comes to language, it follows. This has been tested and demonstrated again and again and again. If I had never been born, this would still be true, and all of this would play out exactly the same way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
PS: I just checked, and I see that you received as ((subst:Ds/alert|mos)) as recently as February, so you should already know better than to engage in "go ad hominem on that editor I don't agree with" behavior here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Look on the bright side... now you can go on your favorite social media platform and bitch about how “wrong” Wikipedia is. Blueboar (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not my thing at all, Blueboar, and I'm old enough here to know this doesn't represent Wikipedia any more than talk Jimbo does. -- Colin°^Talk 13:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there a reason why participants in this discussion have chosen to not notify WikiProject Disability about it? Please see WP:WikiProject Disability/Style advice#People-first language. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know about that style advice, but having read it it seems to mostly back up what I was saying - Wikipedia does not promote one style over another, but follows the sources. Following the sources tends to correspond to using people-first in some cases and not in others, with people with different conditions preferring different language styles, and regional varieties of English also having an impact. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Roger, I didn't know the project had a style guide. Perhaps WP:MEDMOS could refer to it? Thryduulf, I don't think it backs up what you said at all, and is more in line with what I've been saying, and what MEDMOS says, and what the better general disability guidelines say (e.g. this significant one). Rather than WP saying definitively which to use at all times (which is the strawman some have been attacking), both guides give editors the knowledge that there are these schools-of-thought, as it were, about how to refer to people. They explain it is likely one approach is better for X,Y and Z and another for A, B and C, and give a clue as to why. At the start of this page, there was the question by Blueboar where they were honest enough to admit they hadn't heard of this before. If you don't even know about something, you can't even begin to investigate for yourself and come to an educated choice. I'm glad both MEDMOS and the disability guide have been introducing editors to these issues (in the case of MEDMOS, for 14 years). -- Colin°^Talk 08:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

What would you say, Dodger67, if I asked why you have chosen to wait until now to raise that point, and have chosen to not do it yourself? And the link you gave is ^{[citation needed]}. EEng 00:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• MoS actually already addresses this. I was having an itch about this at the back of my brain, and went looking so I could scratch it. See MOS:EUPHEMISM, and especially its footnote: Norms vary for expressions concerning disabilities and disabled people. The goal is to express ideas clearly and directly without causing unnecessary offense. Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate. [Footnote: The National Federation of the Blind, for instance, opposes terms such as sightless, in favor of the straightforward blind. Similarly, the same group argues that there is no need to substitute awkward circumlocutions such as people with blindness for the simpler phrase blind people; see "Resolution 93-01", National Federation of the Blind, July 9, 1993, accessed April 26, 2010.] And that's in addition to other material there about not using euphemisms and circumlocutions in writing about diseases, either.

  In short, there is no universal approach to this, so we are not in a position to "legislate" that WP editors must use particular circumlocutions, especially since we already have a guideline largely against using them in the first place. Follow the sources, and prefer what modern sources in the aggregate are doing, without antagonizing other editors if they don't write exactly the way you'd like them to. "Sources" here means all of them, across genres and audiences, including mainstream newspapers. Not just specialized material, which tends to be dominated by activistic hand-wringing about patients' and families' sensitivity, which makes sense given that doctors have a pretty intense and necessarily personal-yet-professional relationships with patients and their families. WP does not, and is just an information repository.

  It's probably okay to change a particular instance in a particular article if the result reads better in that context, and the construction used is genuinely common in reliable, mainstrea sources, and is not pushing a viewpoint (e.g. "people with albinism" instead of "albinos" is okay, but not "the differently abled" in place of "disabled people" or "people with disabilities"). However, if you go about doing this obsessively and programmatically at page after page, you're going to run afoul of WP:MEATBOT and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, piss off a lot of people, and end up at WP:ANI for a topic-ban, so don't do it.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

You keep attacking this "universal approach" strawman. The euphemism guideline says nothing about "circumlocutions" as you call them. That unnecessarily opinionated language appears in a footnote, citing a long rant in a magazine . We all already know that blind advocacy groups hate people-first, but they also speak only for themselves. Nobody here is threatening to bot-edit articles into one style. Nobody has ever loved "differently abled". Your arguments are just strawmen after strawmen. I don't really get the impression you are reading what anyone here has written, but just want to have a good old rant to display your prejudices, which we already knew at the start. Unwatching. Better things to do. -- Colin°^Talk 16:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Your argument is shade-throwing after shade-throwing, with the clearly purpose of personally antagonizing another editor instead of sticking to the content under discussion (i.e., what the guideline should say and why). If it does not stop, the next step will be a WP:AE report. Back to the substance: What your argument is missing is that the footnotes of the guideline are part of the guideline, and the advice in it remains the same, whether you like the word "circumlocution" or not, whether the footnote existed or not. It's immaterial whether anyone is unhappy or happy with advocacy groups for the blind; this is a "doctrinal" squabble that has nothing to do with Wikipedia, basically. The fact that the squabble is real-world and long-term is itself evidence against WP picking a side on this wording question. Authoritative voices on the matter – RS – are vociferously contradicting each other. "They speak only for themselves" is true of all opinion sources on this question. Warning all sides away from trying to "sweeping change"-enforce whatever result might come out of this discussion, if it concludes with a clear result at all, is not a straw man; it's simply good advice. And you did not absorb it and apparently have not read the cited guideline (it is not about bot-editing, but about human editing in a bot-like manner. That why it's called MEATBOT not BOT.) PS: I never said you or anyone else here "loved" that phrase, so railing against me for supposedly doing so is an actual straw man. I used the phrase as an excellent example of obviously biased euphemism, counter to an example of person-first usage that has become unusually, almost extremely, well accepted. Most cases are smack in the middle of these two extremes. Cf. Thryddulf's gist: WP is not in a position to advocate specific language because even the RS are not consistent about it, the patient communities of particular conditions don't agree, and the overall shape of preference varies by condition, among other things.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
PS: The NCDJ style guide you like so much, in its intro, bullet point 4, addresses exactly the kind of "different abled" euphemism as wording to be avoided, exactly as I've suggested. If we're all agreeing that it does in fact represent one extreme, and that best-accepted person-first constructions are the other pole, then what exactly are you arguing about in relation to it, and why?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• I am very impressed with this (linked by Colin above): National Center on Disability and Journalism - Disability Language Style Guide. It does recommend person-first as a default, but follows with very good discussions of specific topic areas. I'm not sure how we'd use it exactly, because it's so detailed. Perhaps we could start by just pointing editors to it (at relevant places in MOS/MEDMOS) and then see, after a year or so, how people feel about it and whether we want to encourage its use more explicitly. Please give it a read. EEng 17:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  (responding to ping). Thanks for that comment. I've added it to MEDMOS, alongside the existing APA guide. Both are thoughtful guides reflecting the difficulties in choosing good wording. They aren't perfect, but a whole lot better than what MOS:EUPHEMISM cites: a magazine that published two letters from very angry people nearly 30 years ago. -- Colin°^Talk 17:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Part of what I like about the "Disability Language Style Guide" is that, in the discussion for each phrase or concept, it reviews the AP (not APA) style guide's recommendation. Frankly, I think we should look more to the AP than to the APA.

  I think this conversation would have gone much differently had it been opened as "Let's review how to write about disability", with a link to that guide, instead of featuring person-first from the beginning. EEng 00:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  Possibly, but it has to be kept in mind that the works you're referring to are in one sense language-reform advocacy pieces, and in another sense prescriptive style guides for contexts that have nothing to do with encyclopedia writing. They do contain some reasonable things, but they're clearly one side of something that's an ongoing real-world dispute even within their specific field. It's like siding with AP Stylebook versus NYT Manual of Style and Usage in American journalism, or Guardian and Observer style guide [sic] versus The Economist Style Guide in British journalism, then on top of that PoV side-taking also declaring that these works which don't relate to our writing needs should make us change our own style guide. (You actually write "I think we should look more to the AP" ....) WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia is not written in news style." It says that for a reason. It's also not written in "doctors talking to and writing for their suffering patience and their grieving families and being very careful to avoid frivolous malpractice lawsuits" style. We shouldn't have to add that to the policy. The whole point of WP:NOT is "WP isn't any of this short list of things, from which you can intuit that it isn't any of 10,000 other things. It is and only is an encyclopedia."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose everything said above. Herostratus (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  ... on both sides of the issue. EEng 20:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  And for balance, I shall oppose everything said below, whatever it is. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  And right you are ... --Trovatore (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

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.

Since the RfC below is inextricably linked to the preceding discussion it makes the most sense to evaluate them as a singular whole. Many RfC comments explicitly invoked the preceding discussion so it would be inappropriate to apply a formal close to the RfC only. Once the irrelevant arguments are discarded, there is a discernible consensus to generally omit stress marks. This is a slightly odd case where an RfC proposal does not actually add any new guidance but instead re-iterates existing policies like WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:DIACRITICS. This discussion establishes that stress marks in Cyrillic should be used in accordance with those policies, that is, only where the best-quality English language sources demonstrate that their use is generally accepted as a best practice. Although the RfC portion read alone shows some support for SMcCandlish's specific proposed language as an addition to the MOS, I do not see that there is an acceptance for altering the MOS when reading the discussion as a whole. If further disruption considering this issue requires clarification, this discussion can be linked as normal to demonstrate this interpretation has consensus support. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Stress marks discussion

There is a dispute on whether the Russian terms and names should include the accents that mark the stressed vowel, as in "Никола́й Андре́евич Ри́мский-Ко́рсаков", or should the correct spelling be preferred ("Николай Андреевич Римский-Корсаков"). In fact, these accents are not part of the regular Russian orthography, it's rather a kludge that exists to compensate for the lack of a full IPA transcriptions. The problem is that most readers unfamiliar with Russian don't realize what it is, they just think that the words are spelled correctly. "Because I've copied it from Wikipedia!".

For a couple of years I've been cleaning the articles from that, and by request of one of the curious users I wrote an essay that describes the matter: Stress marks in Russian words. However, recently I've met a significant population of users (by the number of two) who oppose to my edits so strongly that I have to draw your attention now. Please see the current discussion and express your opinions.

See also:

• user talk:Mike Novikoff#Stress marks in Russian
• user talk:Mike Novikoff#WP:Stress marks in Russian words
• user talk:Mike Novikoff#Stresses in Russian

Ideally, we should form a statement to be included in MoS, so that the controversies no longer arise. Even if we don't, any input will still be helpful. — Mike Novikoff 13:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Taurus Littrow, who wrote an excessive amount of comments below, is now indeffed and furthermore globally locked (see CentralAuth), which ultimately resulted from his attitude to this very dispute. So I've taken the liberty to boldly mark his comments with <s>, in hope that the uninvolved users, whom I encourage to comment, can read the discussion. — Mike Novikoff 02:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Important Note: Unlike claimed above, both spellings (stressed and unstressed) are correct. Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly. The whole point is that the stress-marked variants are used very seldom and only on certain occasions, and thus do not represent the common spelling. You may call them "correct" only in a narrow sense.
And I strongly oppose that you edit the essay before gaining any consensus to do so. It now looks like I wrote something that I actually didn't. :\ — Mike Novikoff 12:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The use of stresses is a different question. And what is "common spelling"? In encyclopedias, we have one common and accepted spelling (with stresses), and in books, another common spelling (no stresses). But you can't say that one spelling is correct and the other is wrong. That would be utterly misleading. Stresses are not mandatory, but they are not forbidden either. "Not mandatory" and "forbidden" are two different things. P.S. The essay doesn't belong to you; it's in common space, and some other users actually asked me to edit it. One other user edited it before me, anyway, and another after me (I also included a sentence suggested by a third user). You can give a link to the old version here, and we can discuss the whole thing on the talk page. Anyway, I tried to include both points of view, and I didn't remove most of your arguments (save for the irrelevant or misleading stuff). Let's not complicate things. Taurus Littrow (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You didn't word this invitation neutrally. So I'll try to help clear up the situation a bit.
You have tried to get rid of stress marks in the Russian Wikipedia and failed. Here: ru:Википедия:Форум/Архив/Общий/2018/09#Ударения в русских словах. So it is not only two users. The whole Russian Wikipedia opposes you. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to echo this. This statement is certainly not neutrally worded, especially w.r.t. the mischaracterisation of accents marks. The description above could be interpreted as meaning that are an invention of Wikipedians, which is false. It is true that they are not a part of standard common everyday written Russian as is found in newspapers, books, signage etc. that is intended for normal L1 Russian speakers; however, they are common in texts for younger L1-speaking children or beginning L2 learners and, more relevantly here, have precedent in certain Russian-language encyclopaediae and dictionaries aimed at adult L1 speakers. Stephen MUFC (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Mike Novikoff's statement is clearly very biased, one-sided and derisive. Frankly, I've got quite tired of this discussion, and I already listed my arguments for using accents (see the above links), so I will be brief this time and just say that using stress marks in Russian encyclopedias and dictionaries (in entries) is at least 200-year-old common practice which is still in use (see the Great Russian Encyclopedia in 36 volumes, published only recently, between 2004 and 2017, by the prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences). Stress marks are also used in all polysyllabic words in books for young Russian children and in reading books for foreigners. I guess that solves the issue. Taurus Littrow (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

> The whole Russian Wikipedia opposes you.
That's not even remotely true. The discussions on this matter appeared there since at least 2011 ([1], [2], [3]) when I hadn't even been there. @Jack who built the house: ping. — Mike Novikoff 08:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Both discussions concern dictionary words. While what you do is removing stress marks from people's names. No one in the Russian Wikipedia would ever agree to that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Just like in that old joke on the Russain army, where an officer says: "Hey, the three of you! I tell you both! Yes, you, man!"
In fact, there were much more than three discussions, some of them even successful, but I'm not going to reveal everything so that you don't go and edit war there now. I guess you are having enough fun there already, aren't you?

Back to the topic, there's no use to look at a non-consensus (there has never been one!) of a barbarian wiki that in 2021 still practices SOB-formed datelinks and infobox flags. They are copulating with geese, you see. — Mike Novikoff 13:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Is that a Russian expression? If not, I was considering asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It was a poor joke, sorry. I'll strike it out. — Mike Novikoff 10:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh crumbs, it was a joke. Now even more intrigued. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd dare to suggest that your joke is completely irrelevant here. Also, please avoid personal attacks like this one: "I guess you are having enough fun there already, aren't you?" — No personal attacks or harassment. Let's be polite. Thanks. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I agree, this can be a real problem for those unfamiliar with the Russian orthography, who confuse the stress mark with other diacritics. Mike made a pretty strong argument in his favor. On the part of opponents, I see the argument that stress marks are used in Russian-language encyclopaediae and dictionaries (especially for children). However, here is an encyclopedia for adults in English.

P.S. At the same time, I have no opinion about the stress marks in the Russian Wikipedia, perhaps Mike really had no arguments to remove them in ru-wiki, but here is another case.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Nicoljaus "stress marks are used in Russian-language encyclopaediae and dictionaries (especially for children)" – There has been a misinterpretation on your part. Stress marks are used in: 1) encyclopaediae and dictionaries (which are intended both for adults and children); 2) books for small Russian children; and 3) reading books for foreigners (both adults and children).

"However, here is an encyclopedia for adults in English." See 3) above. Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you’ll argue with. Here, in any case, not a book for L2 learners. Give an example where a common English-language encyclopedia uses the Russian spelling with stress marks.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

What exactly don't you understand? I explained that your statement re. children is wrong. And why don't you give an example of a common English-language encyclopedia that doesn't use stress marks? Note that stresses are used in Russian-English and English-Russian dictionaries (in Russian words), including those published in English-speaking countries. Can it be considered a strong argument for using stresses? One way or another, there is nothing wrong in using stresses in Russian words; they are just not used in "normal" books, newspapers, magazines, etc., where they are considered excessive. But even in those texts accents are still used in some words (e.g., to help distinguish words which are written the same). I repeat: it is not a mistake to use accents in Russian words. And stresses are used on a large scale for guidance purposes, including in texts intended for non-Russian speakers. I'd dare to say that English Wikipedia can be considered such a text. Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And why don't you give an example of a common English-language encyclopedia that doesn't use stress marks? -- Well, for example see: Russian-English Geographical-encyclopedia there is nothing wrong in using stresses in Russian words -- I am not saying that using the stress mark is something wrong. I say that when a person, who does not know that this is a stress mark, sees such a spelling in the English Wikipedia, they will think that this is a common variant of Russian orthography. While this is a variant that is rarely used, only for special purposes. This can lead to confusion and you need to think about how to avoid it. At the same time, the information on where to put in stress is already given by the entry in the IPA.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks. However, stresses are used in the English-Russian Russian-English Medical Dictionary and Phrasebook, published only recently, in September 2020. It only supports my statement that there is nothing wrong in using stresses.

Whether the IPA can be used to replace (rather than complement) the stresses has already been discussed elsewhere (see the links above), so I won't repeat the arguments pro and contra (I've got quite tired of this stuff).

"This can lead to confusion and you need to think about how to avoid it." – OK, we can discuss that, but just removing stresses (which are of great help) is obviously not a very good solution. We could probably write a notice to this effect and put it in some visible place, probably in the Russian language article. Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Would a hover-over notice briefly explaining the situation with stress-marking accents be appropriate perhaps? Stephen MUFC (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea. Whatever way we choose, I believe we could write a bot that would do the necessary changes automatically in all the articles. Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Could it not just be added as a feature of the template used to demarcate Russian Cyrillic in the wiki code? Stephen MUFC (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

That would be perfect, sure. Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

If we were to follow the same kind of logic ("it's confusing, so remove it"), we could delete the patronymics as well. They are not used in "normal" texts either. Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Taurus Littrow:However, stresses are used in the English-Russian Russian-English Medical Dictionary and Phrasebook -- Yes, in dictionaries sometimes spelling with a stress mark is done instead of IPA, but I have never seen that both are used at the same time, this is really confusing. In encyclopedias in English I have never seen Cyrillic with stress marks.

We could probably write a notice to this effect and put it in some visible place, probably in the Russian language article. -- If you mean the Russian interwiki article, then I don't think this is a good idea, since it is unlikely that an English reader will go there. The notice ("a feature of the template") seems like a better idea.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Nicoljaus If you mean the Russian interwiki article – No, I meant the Russian language article on enwiki (where the use of stresses is actually explained). But I agree that "a feature of the template" is a much better idea. Taurus Littrow (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry for my misunderstanding.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If even the Russian Wikipedia disagrees with stripping these marks, that's suggestive that we should keep them as well. But the real question for en.WP is what do most modern, high-quality, English-language sources do, when they also present these names and terms in Cyrillic? And not dictionaries, since they may be including them for pronunciation-guide reasons. If it's usual to include them, then WP should include them. If it's not, then it's not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think usually English-language encyclopaediae actually either don't include the Russian-language name at all or only use a transliteration rather than Cyrillic. Stephen MUFC (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Which is one of the reasons I said modern, high-quality, English-language sources, not English-language encyclopedias.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The two aren't mutually exclusive but apologies for too hastily reading your post. It is also true, however, that even history or politics books in English about Russia(ns) don't tend to provide Cyrillic but may give a transliteration. I can't say for certain that there are sources which do use Cyrillic - I'm sure there must be some out there - but I can't remember ever having encountered any and, although I'm not an expert, I (have) read a fair amount of relevant material. Stephen MUFC (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I didn't mean they're mutually exclusive, but that one is a large class and the other a subset (which we already know is doing it for pronunciation reasons).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

SMcCandlish I believe that English-language sources (other than dictionaries and reading books) don't include Russian spellings (with or without stress marks) at all. You can only see Russian spellings in bilingual dictionaries and reading or learning books, and they are almost universally accompanied by stress marks, whose main reason is indeed to help with the pronunciation. So if you do add Russian spellings here or in an another encyclopedia, I don't see why you should exclude the stress marks. There's no harm in adding them other than a possible misunderstanding as to their use in normal texts, which can be easily solved by adding an explanatory note. Taurus Littrow (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that serious works of biography, etc., never provide the Cyrillic of anyone's name. I don't read a lot of Russia-related stuff, but it's certainly common in academic sources to include the Greek-alphabet name along with the Latin-alphabet transliteration when writing about Greek subjects. I'm not even suggesting this need be done on a case-by-case basis. If, for example, very few English-language sources on a new Russian movie star gave their Cyrillic name, that's irrelevant if lots of English book sources do give Cyrillic names of Russian politicians, generals, composers, authors, etc., and a dominant style (with the marks, or not) can be discerned from modern works of this sort. If a source analysis of this source proves fruitless, then I'm not sure I know what to !vote here. I like being consistent with ru.WP, but if they're only doing it as a pronunciation aid, because their equivalents of WP:NOTDICT and WP:AT are very different, then that wouldn't be a good rationale to apply at en.WP. But if these marks are common in everyday works like newspapers and adult books in Russian, that would refute the claim these are only used as pronunciation aids for children's/learners' materials and dictionaries.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

SMcCandlish Well, I've read a lot of Russian-related stuff in English, and I don't remember seeing Russian spellings. They just transliterate and translate anything written in Russian, including titles of books in bibliographies. Just checked some books on space exploration, and that's indeed the case; I could find nothing in Cyrillic in them. One book is actually a translation from Russian, and even its original title was transliterated. So the situation is completely different from that for Greek-related subjects. Weird, but true.

But if these marks are common in everyday works like newspapers and adult books in Russian – They're NOT common there, that's the point. Nobody uses them in Russian newspapers and books for persons older than 7 years or so.

that would refute the claim these are only used as pronunciation aids for children's/learners' materials and dictionaries – Well, this exactly what they say in the above-mentioned Russian-English Medical Dictionary and Phrasebook: "Russian words are provided with stress marks for proper pronunciation." Taurus Littrow (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, then. This "Weird, but true" situation is unfortunate, but I guess it is what it is. Unless there's some big trove of sources and facts we've missed, I'm more swayed by your argument. It sounds more and more like ru.WP is lacing its article titles with pronunciation information, which might be entirely normal under their own policies but is not under ours. One of the reasons I've held out a bit on this is that in the case of Spanish diacritics, they were originally introduced for a similar reason, and slowly became a norm of the language. But if there's no evidence this is the ongoing case in Russian, and considerable evidence to the contrary, I can't see a reason to treat these on en.WP as actual diacritics that are part of the natural language, even if we're normally skeptical of attempts to suppress diacritics (and "para-diacritics" like Vietnamese tone marks, which are part of the standardized language, not something limited to kids books and dictionaries).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that patronymics are not part of the natural written language either; they are only used in personal documents, such as passports, and you can barely see them in common English-language sources. In Russian, they are used sometimes in oral language, usually as a polite address (first name + patronymic; no surname). So one can take the arguments against using stress marks on English Wiki and apply them to patronymics. Same thing with the "Old Style" for birth and death dates, the pre-reformed Russian spelling for names, etc. Taurus Littrow (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, SMcCandlish. No, the situation in Russian is completely different from Spanish. At first, stress marks were required in every word (and there were three types of them), but gradually they died away. In Russian encyclopedias (on which the ru-wiki is oriented), a variant with stress marks is traditionally given in the title of the article to clarify the pronunciation. It also can be used for some other cases. There is some information about this in the book: A Reference Grammar of Russian by Alan Timberlake. Also, this book says: "If stress is marked generally - it usually is not, but it can be, for example, in dictionaries or pedagogical texts for foreigners..." Taurus Littrow is right, and the use of Cyrillic in English books is quite rare, but I have found several variants and they are usually unstressed. The Russian-English Geographical-encyclopedia was mentioned above. Here's another one: The Osprey Encyclopedia of Russian Aircraft. By the way, I see that the Cyrillic alphabet is also used in educational books without stress: [6], [7].--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Stress marks will never die out in Russian-language encyclopedias, because without stress marks there will often be no way to determine the correct pronunciation.

The stress in Russian words is most important. A misplaced stress may alter the meaning of a word (зáмок – castle; замóк – lock), or render it incomprehensible.
— http://russianlearn.com/grammar/category/stress

I can give more examples. Take Alexandra Trusova, for example. "Trúsova" means "Cowardova". But "Trusóva" would mean something like "Pantiesova". It wouldn't be nice to call her like that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

without stress marks there will often be no way to determine the correct pronunciation -- It's true for Russian-language encyclopedias, but here we have IPA--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I already pointed out that, in my opinion, IPA can be used as an additional tool, but not as a replacement of such an easy and elegant solution as stress marks. Is there a rule that prohibits using both stresses and IPA? I don't think so. P.S. Note that the article you mentioned, IPA, actually uses stress marks. Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Stress marks are the best choice if you know they are stress marks. The only thing that worries me is that in the overwhelming majority of languages there is no problem with stress at all (it is always in the same place) and the acute sign does not mean stress, but something else.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I already mentioned that the possible misunderstanding can be solved by adding an explanatory note or (as proposed by SMcCandlish below) by indicating both spellings, with and without stresses. But I definitely don't like the "confusing so delete" approach. Note that Russia-related articles are generally very confusing, especially if they are about people who lived before 1918: two birth dates, two death dates, two Cyrillic spellings, etc. etc. The patronymics are very confusing, too. I keep seeing serious sources using and misusing the patronymics. Some foreigners believe they are mandatory, while others treat them as if they were a second American name and abbreviate them (e.g., "Sergey P. Korolev" - we never do it in Russian). Taurus Littrow (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

tl;dr completely irrelevant to the topic. — Mike Novikoff 17:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, I apologize for that. Anyway, some of the stuff in your essay on stresses is also completely irrelevant ("Russian Wikipedia (that has a series of similar technical cargo cults, such as reverse name notation [Surname, Name] in article names, as if there's no DEFAULTSORT [Wikidata shows that ruwiki is the only Wikipedia that has it], and so on"). --Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

something like "Pantiesova" – I see you are mostly concerned of the biographical articles. Once again, as Nicoljaus already said, "here is an encyclopedia for adults in English", not Simple English Wikipedia for children or people with disorders. There are many names (in various languages) that may seem funny to someone, or that someone may try to make fun of, but doing so is completely childish, and a reasonable adult won't even think of it. Remember what Wikipedia is not: "not a complete exposition of all possible details" (WP:NOTEVERYTHING), and in particular not a dictionary. Articles on persons are about persons, not about their names. It's necessary to give the correct spelling of a name (readers do search for names, and do copy names from Wikipedia), it's optional to give the pronunciation (that's what IPA is for), and to deal with the name's etymology is out of scope. Even a dictionary won't do that, unless it's a specialized dictionary of proper names. — Mike Novikoff 09:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it is usually impossible to determine the correct stress placement in a Russian family name. I know this by experience. In October I renamed a number of Russia-related articles in the Spanish Wikipedia, and it was more than often that I had to go to YouTube to search for news announcements, interviews, etc. (Cause the Russian Wikipedia didn't have all the stresses marked. And it doesn't have many articles that the English and Spanish Wikipedias have. This is because the Russian Wikipedia is not as developed as the Spanish and English ones. And because it has stricter notablility rules.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Potential solution: This appears to be analogous enough to different ways of transliterating Chinese, etc., that we already have a functional, well-accepted way to approach this: The article title should be in the Latin orthography that is most common for that particular subject in English-language reliable sources. The lead sentence of the article should give that spelling first, then parenthetically provide the bare Cyrillic and the stress-marked Cyrillic. It need not provide a stress-marked variant of the Latin-alphabet transliteration unless this is also showing up in sources (or, I suppose if that one does show up, but stress-marked Cyrillic hasn't been found in a source yet, then omit that one). Basically, just account for the variants found in sources, and make sure that for the Latin-script ones that they redirect to the same article. Maybe we can even create a template (or add features to ((lang-ru))) to indicate with little links what these different orthographies are, as we do in ((lang-zh)) for different Chinese transliteration orthographies.

I think this would be an encyclopedic approach, since these marked-up spellings are attested in RS (for specific purposes today), and at one time, if I'm understanding Nicoljaus correctly, were much more common, such that older people or people reading older materials may be specifically expecting or searching for those spellings. So, we should just provide them all without trying to decide is one is "right" and the other(s) "wrong". WP:CONSISTENT is just one criterion and we have to treat it with WP:Common sense: It's perfectly fine if, for whatever reasons, some particular subject has become better known with those marks in the name than without them (in either orthography or both, though only the Latin orthography will matter for article title determination purposes at en.WP). But by default, we would not be adding the marks just to indicate punctuation the way ru.WP does; it's clear that their title policy is very different from ours.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this solution, in general lines (minor details can be discussed). We definitely must use an encyclopedic approach since this is an encyclopedia. Just to clarify one thing: I don't know what kind of period Nicoljaus is referring to (when stress marks were mandatory), but these must be very old times, like 300 or so years ago. I've read many 19th-century books, and they don't have stress marks. So you have to be really old to expect to see stress marks in books, lol. Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the times before Peter the Great. The stress mark in handwritten texts (which were less affected by Peter's reforms) fell out of use in the second half of the 18th century (see paper in Russian).--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. Peter's reform of the Russian alphabet (1708–1710) is actually described here. Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for clarifying the origins of the subj, I didn't know that. Very interesting indeed. So for us contemporary Russians they originate in the first grade of elementary school, and historically they are from the epoch before Peter the Great, being abolished by him. Let's remember that for making any further decisions. — Mike Novikoff 10:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Peter the Great didn't abolish the stress marks, their use just ceased to be mandatory. Taurus Littrow (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

There are no two Cyrillic Russian orthographies today, there's only one. And, unlike Chinese, it's not a transliteration of something else. I can't even imagine a subject that is "better known with those marks in the name than without them". For instance, they are never used in official documents that identify people (birth certificates, passports, etc). — Mike Novikoff 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that birth certificates and passports always use patronymics. Does it mean we should use them on enwiki, too (in the name of an article, not just in the lead)? Taurus Littrow (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess neither patronymics nor article titles are subject of this discussion. — Mike Novikoff 09:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

then parenthetically provide the bare Cyrillic and the stress-marked Cyrillic. – Just no. We have too much WP:LEADCLUTTER already. Have in mind that ((lang-ru)) names are commonly provided for subjects associated with neighboring languages (((lang-uk)), ((lang-be)), ((lang-kk))), and having two near-identical Russian renderings next to each other would be a solution of a non-issue that would contribute to a much greater problem. No such user (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, greetings, and thank you for your approach. I've always thought you are against redundancy, just like me (and isn't it one of the main goals of MoS overall?), and now I have to agree with the user above: double rendering of Cyrillic Russian would be awfully redundant. I'm always fond of consistency too, so I'm for the consistent implementation of the IPA throughout the Wikipedia, regardless of the language.
And one more thing: there is no legitimate "stress-marked variant of the Latin-alphabet transliteration", it's a madness done by those who just don't know what they're doing. That's why I often refer to WP:RUROM that describes the correct current practice of transliteration from Russian. — Mike Novikoff 12:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

it's a madness [sic!] done by those who just don't know what they're doing. Please read Civility: "Avoid condescension. No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to "grow up" or include any language along the lines of "if this were kindergarten" in your messages." // That applies to everyone. Let's keep this discussion civil. Thanks. – Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Novikoff: Well, okay. If they're just not used enough to really matter, then don't put them in the lead after all. Just create redirects so they work in getting people to the right page. I decline to stress about this. :-) PS: Can someone tell me the Russian term for this kind of "pronunciation markup" (in Russian and romanized), and is there a ru.wikipedia article about it, or section at least, if we don't have anything on it at en.wikipedia? Would like to read more about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: The Russian terms are ударение (udareniye) and знак ударения (znak udareniya). See also Stress (linguistics) § Spelling and notation for stress. — Mike Novikoff 06:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not have an opinion but want to set out the argument as I understand it. An example of the issue is diff which changed three ((lang)) instances including from the first of the following to the second.

Russian speakers refer to the schism itself as raskol (раско́л), etymologically indicating a "cleaving-apart".

Russian speakers refer to the schism itself as raskol (раскол), etymologically indicating a "cleaving-apart".

Should the article show how to spell a word (раскол) or how to pronounce it (раско́л)? According to comments above, Russian dictionaries etc. (and ruwiki) show the pronunciation for a word. The ruwiki equivalent of Old Believers in the example above is ru:Старообрядчество and it seems to use the example word without stress marks. @Kwamikagami: I've seen you working on things like this; do you have an opinion? Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: The ruwiki equivalent of Old Believers in the example above is ru:Старообрядчество and it seems to use the example word without stress marks. -- Have a better look: the Russian word does have stress marks, and so does the second Russian term: "Старообря́дчество" and "Древлеправосла́вие". Anyway, even if some Russian pages don't have stress marks in the entry word, that's because nobody bothered to put them, not because they are not necessary on ruwiki. P.S. Note that both Russian terms are a mile long, so it would be virtually impossible for a foreigner to tell where the (main) stress falls. – Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I edited Mike Novikoff's essay on stresses to make it more neutral. I removed the irrelevant info and added both points of view. Everyone is welcome to leave their constructive comments and suggestions on the essay's talk page. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

When I search the wikitext of ru:Старообрядчество for the word "раскол" I get 10 hits (there are 39 hits for the text including not as a whole word). However, there are no occurrences of "раско́л". If you see something different, perhaps you could quote a few words so others can see it. That seems to support my above summary, namely that "раскол" is used to spell the word while "раско́л" is used to pronounce it. Do you disagree? Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I was talking about the word "Старообрядчество". It is stressed in the lead, the first time it appears, in bold: "Старообря́дчество, или Древлеправосла́вие, — совокупность религиозных течений". No other words (including "раскол") in the article are obviously stressed, since the stress is only placed upon the entry word(s) and only once. No disagreement as to the spelling vs. pronunciation; the intention of the stress mark is to help with the pronunciation, that's correct. P.S. Just to clarify: Both spellings (stressed and non-stressed) are technically correct, so I wouldn't oppose the spelling to the pronunciation (if that is your intention). Stresses can be (and are) used, but only in certain texts. Please read the new version of the essay: Wikipedia:Stress_marks_in_Russian_words for more explanations. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"раскол" is used to spell the word while "раско́л" is used to pronounce it – the short and simple answer is yes. — Mike Novikoff 22:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Not true. Didn't I ask you on your talk page not to mislead non-Russian users? To show pronunciation in Russian, one obviously uses phonetic transcription, while the placement of a stress mark helps with the pronunciation (to pronounce a word in Russian, you basically only need to know where the stress falls). And one can't claim that a stressed word is not a valid spelling or something. Any spelling is used to spell, that's kind of obvious. I already explained all this stuff slightly above, anyway. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be just playing with words. Your "helpful" variant exists solely for the pronunciation, and it's a special one, not the regular. — Mike Novikoff 09:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not "playing with words". A stress mark helps with the pronunciation but doesn't constitute a pronunciation as such. That would be the IPA or the Cyrillic phonetic transcription or something similar. A sign on an office door stating one's name, e.g., "John Smith", doesn't mean that this sign is actually John Smith. It only means that the office belongs to John Smith. Same thing with the stress. Anyway, both spellings are valid and correct; whether they are special or regular, that's a different question. P.S. In a nutshell: A stress mark shows the phonetic stress, nothing more. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Phonetic. — Mike Novikoff 10:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

That's what I said. And I doubt that a foreigner with very little knowledge of the Russian spelling who sees, for instance, металлообраба́тывающая ("only" 11 syllables) would be able to pronounce it, even if the word comes with a stress mark. So you cannot quite tell that the above spelling shows one how to pronounce the word in question. You'll need a proper transcription for that. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Of course stress marks are phonetic (so they are about pronunciation), and of course IPA is much better. — Mike Novikoff 11:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Ruwiki is a very poor example since it never had a guideline nor even a consensus on these stress marks. The only thing that can be told for sure is that they never include them in article titles. The rest is chaotic: someone "bothers to put them" in leads just because they feel they should, and then gets very surprised to learn that there is no such requirement. — Mike Novikoff 14:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Those who remove stresses on ruwiki also get quite astonished when they are told that removing the stresses that were already placed "is not welcomed", to put it mildly. Adding stresses on ruwiki is OK, while removing them, not so much.
• They never include them in article titles. — That would have been preposterous indeed. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a single repetition of the word in accented Cyrillic, with a footnote to explain that the stress marks have been added for the benefit of the reader, and aren't normally found in print?

My opinion is that we should make WP as useful as possible. That's the general criterion I try to follow when deciding on things like this. And the accent marks are undeniably useful. Russian stress is unpredictable. Even disyllabic grammatical words include minimal pairs that differ by the position of the stress. (Not long ago I had to ask a native speaker about such a word, because it fit two dictionary entries and without stress marking I couldn't tell which.) But Russian orthography is otherwise close to phonemic. So if you are even slightly familiar with Russian, you can read it, as long as someone tells you where the stress lies. Without the stress assignment, you won't know how to pronounce the vowels, because they change drastically depending on stress. (E.g. unstressed a and o are pronounced the same, as are e and i.)

As for the contrary argument, that accent marks will confuse readers who don't know Cyrillic, I wonder why they'd be using Cyrillic in the first place. The situation is very much like English technical dictionaries, that mark stressed syllables and expect you to be able to pronounce Latinate words once that is given. Like Russian, English Latinate orthography is close to phonemic apart from stress. And I suppose that because of that convention, some people might conclude that English orthography includes an acute accent mark, but I would expect readers to educate themselves when they come across something new. There's only so far we can dumb things down.

Another parallel is vowel marking in Arabic and Hebrew, which is similarly useful in making written words pronounceable to L2 speakers but is otherwise only used for children and dictionaries.

I support stress marking in the Cyrillic, but would reluctantly accept removing it if the remover added the IPA to compensate, just as I would for English technical vocabulary. (I would prefer to keep the stress marking, in both Russian and English, and add the IPA as an additional key.) Or, as proposed above, have parallel Cyrillic with and without stress marking, parallel Arabic and Hebrew with and without vowel marking, etc.

The problem with these other solutions is cruft — they can lead to a ridiculous delay before you get to the topic the article is supposed to be about. And they tend to bloat over time. In a dictionary, you can skip the pronunciation, orthography and etymology sections if you're not interested and go directly to the definition. On WP they're all glommed together. I find it annoying to start the lead, and encounter a paragraph of detail about the keyword that has nothing to do with the subject. Repeating the keyword once in Cyrillic/Arabic/Hebrew/Devanagari/IPA is easy enough to skip, while being highly informative — that is, if we keep it short, there's a high ratio of utility to inconvenience. Repeat it two or three times, for Cyrillic with and without stress, or Arabic with and without vowels, or English with both IPA and respelling (or stress marks and IPA), and the utility ratio starts shifting the other way. I'd prefer a single repetition that covers orthography + pronunciation, and supply further detail if needed in a footnote.

— kwami (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe a single repetition of the word in accented Cyrillic, with a footnote to explain that the stress marks have been added for the benefit of the reader, and aren't normally found in print? — Adding an explanatory note is an excellent solution in my opinion. I actually proposed it in this discussion already, and some users agreed with it. Just to clarify: we better only include the stressed word(s); the version without stresses would be redundant and confusing. Thanks.
• Both the IPA and the stress(es) can be kept, sure enough. If you have a car (IPA), it doesn't mean you are forbidden to walk (stress).
• Thanks for the information on stresses in English words; very useful and revealing. It looks like it's not "madness [sic] done by those who just don't know what they're doing", after all.
• Your other arguments and suggestions look very good to me. (I won't list them and won't comment on them so as to keep this discussion short.) Thanks much. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

English technical dictionaries, that mark stressed syllables – Can you please name a few? I think I've seen some in my life, namely FOLDOC and The Jargon File, and they don't mangle the words with accents. The latter does this at most. — Mike Novikoff 23:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I ... would reluctantly accept removing it if the remover added the IPA to compensate – That could be a feasible compromise, if we don't reach anything else. Another user had already suggested it: stress marks should not be used if IPA is present or added. It would also be in line with MOS:REDUNDANCY that says "keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence". (Most articles that I care about have the IPA already.) — Mike Novikoff 05:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• This would actually be no compromise at all, not on your part at any rate. This is something you have been claiming here for months if not years and which you mentioned in your essay: no stresses, including when we have no IPA. No, just nyet. The stresses should stay whether we have the IPA or not. There's no harm in using them. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The dramatic track five of Battleship Potemkin. :-)
No matter what I've been claiming, I'm now ready to agree on something different. — Mike Novikoff 16:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• A stressed spelling would only be redundant if we indicated it along with a non-stressed one (раскол, раско́л), so that's really a non-issue. We do use respelling H:RESPELL for English words, after all, and nobody claims it's redundant. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Another possible solution: Stressed vowels can be emphasized in some different way, e.g., by using bold: "Александр Сергеевич Пушкин" ("Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin"). Aamof, some Russian dictionaries underline stressed vowels, but, as far as I know, it is not recommended to use underlining on wiki. P.S. @SMcCandlish, Moscow Connection, Nicoljaus, Johnuniq, and Kwamikagami: What do you think? — Taurus Littrow (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Acute accents are the standard convention for marking stress in Russian, and I see no reason not to follow it.

I don't care for emphasis by formatting. It's not stable, for one thing -- someone might want to copy these names into their own work, and the stress would be lost. It's easy enough to remove the stress marks if they want to, since they're combining diacritics and all they have to do is hit backspace.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have one person who wants to change consensus, and everyone else keeping to the existing consensus? He's brought it up, didn't get any support, so he needs to follow consensus. He can continue to campaign for a change, of course, but meanwhile the current consensus is valid. It's not really up to us to convince him, but up to him to convince us. — kwami (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You couldn't be more correct as far as that user's behavior is concerned. I also agree with your arguments regarding the use of accents vs. the formatting. Stresses are much more stable and common, indeed. I just tried to find a solution which would please every user, including the person you have just mentioned, but it appears that nothing would ever please him other than his own solution. Thanks. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Are we discussing my behavior? And can you please stop flooding? — Mike Novikoff 07:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Novikoff, please choose your words. I'm not "flooding", just explaining things. Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: What "consensus" you are talking about? There hadn't been one so far, not even in ruwiki. I do have some support already, and the discussion is far from being over. BTW, you didn't answer my question above. — Mike Novikoff 07:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The consensus is that we've been doing this for 20 years without a problem.

As for English tech dictionaries marking stress, sorry, I never bothered to keep track. Too trivial to think twice about. You could probably find something as easily as I could.

I do remember seeing this in guides to Roman and Greek names, both historical and mythological, where the only guide to English pronunciation was an acute accent. I believe there are two reasons for doing that: (a) there are different traditions for how to pronounce Classical names in English, and it would create a mess to try to give them all, while upsetting people if the editor took sides, and (b) those pronunciations are generally predictable as long as the placement of the stress is known, so there's no need to give the pronunciation beyond that. The latter is exactly our situation with Russian. — kwami (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Novikoff, please stop misleading people. Other users and I have already commented on the alleged lack of a consensus on ruwiki. This is what I wrote: Those who remove stresses on ruwiki get quite astonished when they are told that removing the stresses that were already placed "is not welcomed", to put it mildly. Adding stresses on ruwiki is OK, while removing them, not so much. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

OMG, what a chaos. :(( You may repeat everything you've said some more times, in all possible threads, then it certainly becomes more convincing. :\ — Mike Novikoff 08:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL: Avoid condescension. No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to "grow up" or include any language along the lines of "if this were kindergarten" in your messages. — One way or another, even if I repeated a couple of my arguments, I only did so because this thread is very long and people might fail to notice them. Another reason for doing so is to rule out any possible misunderstanding; the fact is that some users tend to make clearly misleading arguments, which is not OK. P.S. I already asked you in this thread you to be civil, several times, but you keep ignoring my warnings. Should I ask an admin to intervene? — Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

In Hebrew Niqqud, e.g., vowel marking, is normal in, e.g., dictionaries, grammar texts, but is rare in, e.g., news, nonlinguistic texts. Would it be appropriate to make a similar distinction for stress marks? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chatul: I'm all for it. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary — Mike Novikoff 16:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Nobody claimed that it was. Wikipedia is, however, a collection of articles on diverse subjects, some of them on aspects of linguistics for which stress and vowel markings are appropriate. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Should a translation show its pronunciation?

Would someone not involved in the dispute please offer an opinion on my question at 02:38, 31 January 2021 above. Rephrased, that question concerns Old Believers which concerns a schism between groups with different religious beliefs. After defining "Old Believers" and giving its Russian equivalents, the lead says:

Russian speakers refer to the schism itself as raskol (раскол), etymologically indicating a "cleaving-apart".

My question: should the translation of schism show how to spell the word (раскол) or how to pronounce it (раско́л)? It is conventional for pronunciation to follow the lead words that mirror the article title, as done at Raskol. However, that does not apply to schism. The MOS at this subpage includes "Normally, pronunciation is given only for the subject of the article in its lead section." That suggests the Russian word for raskol (раскол) would not indicate pronunciation. The counter view is that stress marks for pronunciation are useful for the reader. Does MOS have guidance on this? What should happen—an RfC? Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from the involved users

I'm very sorry to intervene, but as far as I understand, pronunciation is this: 1) pronounced [rɐˈskoɫ] or 2) /ˈvɛnɪs/ VEH-niss. As to the stress mark in Russian words, it only shows where the phonetic stress is to be placed, nothing more. A stress mark helps with the pronunciation (basically, it's the only thing you need to know to pronounce a Russian word), but a stressed word doesn't constitute a pronunciation as such. That would be the IPA. The Russians have their own phonetic transcription which uses Cyrillic symbols: 1) [рʌско́л] or 2) /трʌнскр'и́пцыэjъ/ (IPA: /trɐnskrʲˈipt͡sᵻjə/). See Russian Phonetic Transcription Translator and Pronunciation Dictionary or Orphoepic dictionary (in Russian). On the second site, just type the Russian word in and click the first button on the left (ПОИСК = search). For "raskol", the second site says: Транскрипция слова «раско́л»: [рʌско́л]. Translation: Transcription of the word «раско́л»: [рʌско́л]. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC) @Kwamikagami: Any comment on this? There seems to be a misunderstanding as to what pronunciation is. (I'll take all the blame for calling an involved user, lol.) — Taurus Littrow (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC) The pronunciation is already there in the article linked to. But personally I think it would be nice to show where the stress is here too, so readers won't need to follow a link to know what sound should be in their heads when they read this article. Many readers won't and might end up hearing it as "rascal", so I'd add an acute accent. But since we're giving a transliteration, it might be better to put the accent mark there instead: raskól (раскол). But that's just a suggestion. — kwami (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC) Comment. I noticed that the Venice article includes both the IPA and the "pronunciation respelling key" (H:RESPELL), so it looks like it's not really forbidden to use both the IPA and other pronunciation keys (that would be a stress mark in Russian words). Therefore, the argument "No stresses, only IPA!" is void. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC) P.S. I wonder what would happen if someone started removing respelling from all the articles, arguing that this stuff "is not part of the regular English orthography", "doesn't represent the common spelling", "there's no consensus to use it", "it's madness done by those who just don't know what they're doing", etc. etc. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It's such an obscure situation, to a general English-speaking reader, that it is not possible to resolve this by adopting some standard style for Wikipedia (and bearing in mind that readers hardly ever read the Wikimedia Manual of Style). So it would be necessary to indicate one of the symbol sequences is the word in Cyrillic script, and one of the symbol sequences is a pronunciation (and indicate which system of pronunciation symbols was used). Jc3s5h (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from the involved users

@Jc3s5h: I'm compelled to intervene once again and repeat that "раско́л" is not a pronunciation but a word. Please read my explanations in the collapsed section above. This looks like a case of misinterpretation on Johnuniq's (and apparently your) part. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Misinterpretations all around! Can we just let the uninvolved users talk without us? That's what this section is apparently created for. Without you and me, in particular. — Mike Novikoff 20:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Like I said in the edit history, I'm not commenting on the MoS as such here, just clearing up an obvious misunderstanding. Oh well, I hope the two above users saw my explanations. P.S. Also, I didn't notice that your comment was there, so you really need to calm down. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Certainly you are doing The Most Important Thing Possible, which is above anything. — Mike Novikoff 22:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Yevgeny Petrosyan — Taurus Littrow (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC?

@Johnuniq: This topic is going to be archived without any decision in a couple of days, and it worries me much. One of my opponents once said that he just wants to stop me, and exactly that is going to happen. (That's what ruwiki is infamous for, and that's why their content is always so poor: they have a rule to discuss almost everything, as an amendment to the fundamental WP:BOLD, and then they do bludgeoning or even a filibuster). I still deeply believe that every Russian term should be shown in its common spelling reflected in RS, yet I'm now prone to be accused of not having a consensus for such edits, so I'll probably cease to edit (and perhaps to even read) any articles containing my native language altogether, to save me a trouble. Which would be much pity indeed. And the articles would inconsistently have one kind of spelling or the other. Can we somehow arrange a wider discussion to reach any determined conclusion? — Mike Novikoff 05:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Novikoff: The "stop me" diff does not necessarily mean to stop you—it can be read another way, namely that the editor disagrees with edits which remove stress marks, and wants to stop that removal. Re the issue, I naively imagined that my question at #Should a translation show its pronunciation? above would get a clear answer from uninvolved MOS addicts who are normally very resilient and able to make themselves heard over bickering. However, the uninvolved replies have been very hesitant and I think the only outcome would be that there is no consensus to systematically add or remove stress marks. If you want to start an RfC, I suggest a new section where you focus on the issue to be discussed and minimize mention of past discussions (adding an RfC to this section would be very unlikely to get a reasonable response due to the lengthy and convoluted debate). I would suggest including three diffs with example edits where the question would be whether the edit is helpful. From the response so far, I would guess that removing stress marks is not going to get consensus. That might change if some source were available that supported removal. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Having mulled this over for a while, my conclusions are that:

• WP (en.WP, anyway) should just use normal Cyrillic language and markup, since this is what we do for all other langauges, and is what the majority of reliable sources do (both in Russian and in English when writing about Russian). To the extent children's and other learners' works use the pronunciation markup, WP has no reason to care, because those are categorically unreliable sources (see WP:CHILDRENSLIT, WP:TERTIARYUSE).
• To indicate pronunciation where this is actually important (mostly in the lead of an article on a Russian subject, in linguistic material when comparing phonetics between dialects, etc.), use IPA markup (see ((IPA-ru))). For sight-impaired readers, one of the purposes of ((lang|ru)) and ((lang|ru-Latn)) is triggering screen-reader software to switch to a pronunciation appropriate to the language in question instead of trying to parse it with default English phonetics (and in this we're dependent on the makers of the screen readers doing a good job of this; I know of no evidence that these marks would help them do it better, and it might actually confuse them).
• Our own article at Stress (linguistics)#Znaki udareniya says it all: "In general [Russian/Belarusian/Ukrainian] texts, stress marks are rare, typically used either when required for disambiguation of homographs (compare в больши́х количествах 'in great quantities', and в бо́льших количествах 'in greater quantities'), or in rare words and names that are likely to be mispronounced. Materials for foreign learners may have stress marks throughout the text."
• For any unusual case in which the pronunciation marks are provably the overwhelmingly preferred version in reliable sources with regard to a particular subject (e.g., maybe a Russian singer insists on spelling her name with them, or whatever), then we would use that version in that case; this is already covered by MOS:DIACRITICS, MOS:TM, etc.
• So, I don't think that any rule needs to change (there is no contradiction or other error in the guidelines), nor that efforts to force en.WP to use the spellings (in Cyrillic or in Latin-alphabet tranliterations) that have pronunciation marks as a general matter are defensible. Their pedagogical nature is at odds with WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK.
• That said, I have no particular objection to the guidelines being updated to say that we by default do not use these marks. It's really pretty close to the opposite of Vietnamese, which kinda-sorta can be written without the language's tone marks, at least for common terms like pho, but which usually is not in RS, so we do usually include the tone marks. It's a regular feature of that language, not a tack-on for learners like these Russian marks are. Znaki udareniya are even more directly parallel to Japanese and Korean "ruby" markup, which WP has debated and decided against using, in general. The language at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Ruby is a good model: "Do not use the <ruby> tag to further annotate the kanji with ruby characters, except in articles about ruby characters themselves, or where they are needed to accurately quote something that includes ruby characters." Something like this could be added to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Russia-related articles#Orthography. While that is just a draft guideline, it's a good place to put it.
• If we wanted to add this stuff to the main MoS, I would suggest putting a combined line-item about both ruby and the Russian markup, and anything similar (so we don't have to do it again when some dispute breaks out about Elbonian or Kerblachistinian orthography), at MOS:FOREIGN. Maybe something like this, just after the material about diacritics:

  Do not use auxiliary, pedagogical diacritics (including Russian, Ukranian, and Belarusian znaki udareniya stress marks, Tagalog tuldik, and Indonesian "dictionary é"), nor other auxiliary spelling or pronunciation devices (including Japanese and Korean "ruby" characters), except: where they are needed to accurately quote something that contains them; where they are used (e.g. for disambiguation of homographs) in the predominant spelling of a particular term or name in reliable sources other than pedagogical material; or in content that is about these symbols themselves. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation for how and where to provide pronunciation guidance with standardized templates.)

  This would be consistent with actual practice, in agreement with (though more precisely worded than) other guidelines, and compliant with policy like WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK and WP:NOTDICT (the equivalents of which ru.Wikipedia clearly lacks).
  

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC); wording revised based on input below: 13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC); clarified again after more input: 16:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis which I imagine Mike Novikoff would want to see. @Mike Novikoff: The above is currently just an opinion and I would not use it to purge pronunciations just yet. Johnuniq (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish and Johnuniq:
Indeed, I'm really glad to see the thorough analysis by SMcCandlish, that's what I've hoped for. And I strongly support his proposed addition to the MoS. Of course I'll wait until it's established, I don't start to edit the articles just yet, but I hope we don't lose our efforts all in vain. I suggest that it would be added to the MoS within a month starting from today (that is, before the topic is archived), unless someone presents some really strong arguments to the contrary. — Mike Novikoff 23:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Since this is basically rooted directly in WP:NOTDICT policy, we needn't wait that long, especially given how long this thread's been open. I proposed this on 21 March, so 21 April is fine as a target date. RfCs and other proposals generally run for 1 month (aside from RMs, which are a week unless relisted, and various XfDs are also more like a week). I'll "advertise" this thread in a few relevant places.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a comment on the above wording: the expression "optional stress marks (including Japanese and Korean Ruby..." is extremely odd. So-called Ruby has nothing to do with stress, and is typographically completely different from stress indications, so I do not think it should be included in this way. I agree with both recommendations, by the way: not to use Ruby except in exceptional circumstances (because it is typographically incompatible with English), and not to show stress marks in (e.g.) Russian where they are not part of the normal writing of the word, even though personally I find it easier to read the Cyrillic stress indications than the IPA ones. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

We have ((Respell)) for providing simpler-than-IPA pronunciation guides that include stress indication. Since we already have two ways to indicate this, we have no reason to "pollute" the actual words/names in running text with additional stress indicators.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose removal of pronunciation from what is supposed to be a pronunciation. Why not just use Cyrillic without Latin? Or Latin without Cyrillic? NOTADICT is not the issue: if we were anal about that, we couldn't have any guide to pronunciation of any word on WP. The point of having Cyrillic is so that readers can search for the name/word in its original form, and the purpose of the Latin/stress marks is so that they know how to pronounce it.

Maybe we could amend the MOS with the following:

When recording an audio version of a Wikipedia article, you cannot give the pronunciation of foreign words, because that's a violation of NOTADICT. Instead, just say "gobbledegook".

— kwami (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, I think you've misunderstood this discussion and proposal. This isn't about removing stress indicators from pronunciations; if you use ((IPA-ru)) and/or ((Respell)), they would still indicate stress (similarly, we also have ((Ruby)) for circumstances in which its use is actually sensible in an encyclopedia). What this is about: not changing the spelling of a name or other word when used normally. I.e., it's about not doing the Russian or Japanese equivalent of changing impeller to im·PEL·ler at first occurrence (much less later ones). Even most major dictionaries don't do this sort of thing, and save stress and syllabification information for the pronunciation guide that comes elsewhere in the definition (i.e., in their equivalent of an article).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: So, basically, instead of

Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (Russian: Ле́в Никола́евич Толсто́й),

we would have

Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (Russian: Лев Николаевич Толстой, Lév Nikoláyevich Tolstóy)?

That's a lot of clutter, but I suppose as long as we don't force people to use ((IPA-ru)) in order to indicate basic pronunciation (and thus delete pronunciations anywhere that doesn't have IPA), that would work for me. — kwami (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I still don't think you're following this. Maybe just start from the top and re-read the discussion. There is no reason to include ((transl|ru|Lév Nikoláyevich Tolstóy)) there. This proposal does not seek to add additional such clutter, which is very redundant. If it is thought that stress and syllabification information is needed here, it would be done with ((IPA-ru)), ((Respell)) or both, but we usually do not do this with well-known names. Trying to do it with acute accents is pointless because no one but people who are Russian learners (or teachers) is going to understand what they signify.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Support SMcCandlish's proposal, but replace "stress marks" with "diacritics and auxilliary spellings" per Imaginatorium's comment. The native spelling should reflect the common spelling, without auxilliary diacritics which are only used in limited contexts. Although some systems are self-explanatory (like the znaki udareniya), many are not (like the tuldik); further, it might create the misledaing impression that these are commonly used spelling devices. If we want to indicate stress or more details about pronunciation, we have IPA for that purpose. Austronesier (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier and Imaginatorium: We couldn't use wording quite that vague; there is long-established consensus that WP does in fact use diacritics when RS tell us they belong there (it's fiancée not fiancee, even if the latter dumbed-down spelling can be found in some sources). We've had debate after debate about this for 20 years and the answer is always the same. Consensus is not going to change on that. But the point about "stress marks" being insufficient to cover Ruby is on-point. I've revised the proposed wording above to try to address this. I'm not entirely sure "auxiliary spellings" is the perfect term for Ruby marks, either.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Sure, I didn't want to trade one inaccuracy for another. What about this: Do not use auxilliary/pedagogical diacritics (including stress marks such as Russian, Ukranian, and Belarusian znaki udareniya diacritics) and other auxilliary/pedagogical spelling devices (such as Japanese and Korean "ruby" characters) which are not part of the common spelling.... My point is that auxilliary diacritics (thus not the one in fiancée) can indicate more than stress in various languages. This includes the Tagalog tuldik mentioned above (which is never used in common writing unless for rare disambiguation purposes), or Indonesian é as a dictionary-only device for disambiguating front /e/ from central /ə/; in common spelling both are just ⟨e⟩. –Austronesier (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at, but your version is saying the same thing several times. I'll try to revise to integrate some of this, though, including those other specifics. See what you think of the version up there now. Also may address Kwamikagami's concerns.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Looks good now (referring to this version)! –Austronesier (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Limited support I can only speak to Ukrainian—stress marks are almost always included in leads on Ukrainian wiki and from what i gather reading this discussion are more commonly used than in Russian. I support the suggested inclusion of stress marks on Ukrainian words—blindlynx (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

But why should the practice in the lede in Ukrainian WP matter? Our readers need in the first place the spelling they're going to encounter in books and online media, and any other kind of natural text material. The capital of Ukraine is Київ, not Ки́їв. The stress sign is a tool, but not part of the actual spelling. It's not even "optional": what will happen in real life if a journalist submits a news report complete with stress marks on every polysyllabic word? The editor will tell them to resubmit, but certainly not leave it as is. Austronesier (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

My point is that stress marks are reasonably common in Ukrainian particularly in educational or reference texts—such as encyclopedias—I was using wiki as an example. The cases where we would include words in Ukrainian on this wiki are more or less the same cases as would include stress marks in Ukrainian. I doubt that anyone copying single words from wiki will be capable of generating anything coherent.—blindlynx (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Here we go again: some special "educational" language instead of the real one. Anyone copying single words from wiki can at least search for them, and most search utilities by default will only find a literal match. — Mike Novikoff 02:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Blindlynx Please read the discussion above this (and the proposal). There is no "suggested inclusion" of stress diacritics for Ukrainian words here, but the opposite. The entire reason this discussion and proposal are open is that we already know that uk.wikipedia and ru.wikipedia regularly use these pedagogical spellings, and that this does not match en.Wikipedia practice, because our policies are different and the practices built on them are different. This is not a discussion about making a sweeping change to en.WP practice to agree with ru.WP and uk.WP practice (which is not going to happen). It is about how to codify in MoS the fact that our practice is different and that we do not do what ru.WP and uk.WP do (because they lack close equivalents of en:WP:NOTDICT and en:WP:NOT#GUIDE policies). And yes, the marks are entirely optional, by definition, as they are not part of the name. Syllabic stress information belongs in the pronunciation guide, which is a different part of the lead sentence. It does not belong jammed into the name itself (much less over and over again, and across multiple pages).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Support I strongly agree with SMcCandlish's analysis and proposal. Thank you very much. Retimuko (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Remove stress marks in most contexts. Especially in articles’ first lines, where a reader might select and copy text. I do like these stress marks in Ukrainian and Russian dictionaries and glossaries. But syllabic stress is common to many languages, so we should use a universal coordinated method (currently, IPA) to convey this information in this comprehensive encyclopedia, and not start introducing overly-specific foreign conventions in contexts where they are not explained. This is potentially confusing and misleading. Maybe they can be useful in a domain-specific glossary where there is a prominent detailed explanation, but I doubt that would be better for our readers than using IPA. If we should embrace these, then create a guideline on exactly where and how to use them. —Michael Z. 23:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've requested a closure at WP:ANRFC. This has been open for over 100 days.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

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.

Post-closure comments

I disagree that WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:DIACRITICS are sufficient to tackle the kind of disruption that has led to this RfC. Both policies cannot be applied to the cases we have discussed here.

• WP:COMMONNAME is about article titles; however, the discussion was about additional material in the lede that follows the first mention of the article title.
• MOS:DIACRITICS is about usage in English; the objective of adding spellings in foreign languages/scripts is to inform our readers about how the lemma is natively spelled. The two schools of thought are: 1) use the spelling that is commonly used in writing regular text in the concerned language; 2) use the spelling which is used in that language to write an entry in similar formats as WP, e.g. encyclopedias or dictionaries (which may contain diacritics not used in other contexts).

Both policies are English-based; the problematic lede text material by its very nature falls out of these policies. –Austronesier (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to make a couple of notes regarding the present closure. It admits that there is a consensus to remove the stress marks, and I'm going to continue doing it now, finally after a long wait. However, even though the opponents are few, sometimes they are really aggressive and disruptive, so I'll definitely have to link to something in the summaries of my edits. And it would better be a paragraph of MoS than the whole discussion – it would be simply easier to read, if nothing else. And most frankly, as Bulgakov's character from Heart of a Dog, Prof. Preobrazhensky, had put it: "I don't care who issues it, when they issue it or what they issue, provided it's the sort of certificate which will mean that neither Shvonder nor anyone else can so much as knock on my door. The ultimate in certificates. Effective. Real. Armour-plated! I don't even want my name on it. The end."

Another concern is that the good-faith newbie editors will have no way of knowing whether to put or remove these stress marks unless we codify the rule properly, so we eventually have to do it anyway. — Mike Novikoff 16:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Manual of Style, under Science, links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Command-line examples, which redirects to the subsection Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing (failed proposal)#Command-line examples. Shouldn't the Manual of Style bottom navigation template not link to a failed proposal? I'm 90% sure this is a mistake but I just wanted to make sure. Leijurv (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Leijurv: Yes, I'd agree that's undesirable. It looks like the issue is that @SMcCandlish: moved the entirety of what was MOS:COMPUTING to that failed-proposal page, back in November. In the wake of that move, the entry should be removed from the navbox. I'll do that now. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done I looked through the "What links here?" for that redirect as well. Most of the listed pages were in either a Talk namespace or the Wikipedia namespace. I did scrub a few links from template documentation, a disambiguation page, and a couple of project pages. It's also worth noting that MOS:CS is still in place, and has some relevant style guidelines that overlap with the topics MOS:COMPUTING covered. (Though, it also referenced MOS:COMPUTING, and was one of the pages I scrubbed of links to that now-defunct guideline. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks; I figured there would probably be some kind of cleanup to do after MOS:COMPUTING basically failed the WP:PROPOSAL process. I couldn't even convince the regulars at WT:MOSCOMPSCI to adopt any parts of it that weren't the controversial ones. Basically, hardly anyone thought MOS:COMP was guideline-worthy in any part.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Kanna930 has been adding traditional Chinese characters to a number of articles, some of which are directly relating to China but some that are not. For instance, at Toyota Corolla (E210) they changed a segment to the following hard-to-swallow cud of text:

In November 2020, the long-wheelbase derivatives were revealed as the Allion (simplified Chinese: 亚洲狮; traditional Chinese: 亞洲獅; pinyin: Yàzhōushī; lit. 'Asian Lion', originally "傲澜" (pinyin: Àolán); changed due to the latter name may sound offensive to Teochew dialect speakers) and the Levin GT (Chinese: 凌尚; pinyin: Língshàng)

To me, having two kinds of Chinese script as well as pinyin (and sometimes translations) for every Chinese name used for a car is redundant, and as far as I can tell, most cars manufactured in China (excepting Taiwan) stick to simplified. Is there a rule to apply for these kinds of situations? Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  07:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why an article about a Toyota Corolla would include any Chinese names at all.. Toyota is a Japanese company. If any language other than English were to be included, should it not be Japanese? As for Chinese articles, though: I agree that having all three in the article prose is clunky as all hell, but it seems to me there's tended to be endless warring over traditional vs simplified Chinese, so that including both is the only way to appease all camps. Firejuggler86 (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. If the name is of Chinese derivation, and that's somehow worth noting, that can be addressed in the body of the article. EEng 03:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

In this case, the words above appear to be in a section of the article on the China market here, so a heavy dose of Chinese is probably appropriate in that section. Chinese characters outside that section are arguably less desirable. Chumpih. (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was editing drunk. Ignore me. EEng 07:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sir/Madam, you shall be saluted, celebrated, challenged, but never, never ignored. Chumpih. (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like I've crated a Frankenstein. EEng 20:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Regretting not using the term "a double-dose of his pinyin". (cf. Idiocracy) Chumpih. (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chumpih: Curse missed opportunities. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

At minimum these should probably have |labels=no—that by itself would cut them down pretty substantially. I'm not sure if MOS can help with whether the traditional Chinese should be stated, though; that seems like a potential (rather tedious) content dispute. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 10:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Even though the Corolla is Japanese, when it is sold in the Chinese market it is often sold and badged with a Chinese name because many locals cannot read English. However, Chinese markets don't all use the same scripts. Mainland China uses simplified characters (typically less strokes) from a common use of approx. 7000 characters. Hong Kong and Taiwan use traditional characters (which often have more strokes) from a common use of approx. 13000. I used to write EFTPOS software for Asian markets and once had to verify that every one of those 7000+13000 characters displayed correctly - a very boring few weeks. Anyway, it is reasonable to show the local name in whichever market. For Mainland China, the local name should be shown in simplified characters. For other Chinese markets, it reasonable to show the local name in traditional Chinese characters. However, beware that some Chinese markets just use the English name (eg Hong Kong used "Corolla" badges without Chinese characters when I lived there in the 1990s).  Stepho  talk  23:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Approved.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SdkbBot. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 01:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Moved from Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 76 § Do explanatory footnotes go before or after references?

Question: When a sentence ends with both an ((efn)) explanatory footnote and a reference, as in the second sentence here, do we have any guidance on which should go first? If not, does anyone have preferences? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 11:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that this is the wrong venue for that question. Perhaps better answered at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout or some other venue that deals with article style issues.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Moved. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Refs before notes, unless the same ref is used for the sentence that follows. The ref supports what's just been stated in the text, and that's paramount – because the reader needs to see the source supporting the statement before being presented with an aside (that is, the point made in an explanatory footnote), which may come via a different source. But it's not the venue for this issue, strictly speaking. JG66 (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

No, we do not need to fragment discussion venues for every single MOS subpage; the subpages are split off to make navigating and reading the guideline pages themselves easier, but that has nothing to do with the discussion pages, and having discussions in a million different places where no one is likely to see them I don't see as beneficial. Anyway, I respectfully disagree with user:JG66 here (this is merely my opinion, though, and theirs is equally valid). I don't think there is any need to have strict adherence to references being placed after the exactly text that they support - as long as they're in the right order and in the right paragraph that's perfectly fine (some articles do not even use inline citations at all, and while inline citations are always encouraged, there certain styles that do not use them that are also acceptable on WP). Explanatory notes, though, may not make sense unless they are placed after the text they reference. Firejuggler86 (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Oops, a bit of miscommunication above; JG66 was talking about WT:CS1 being the incorrect venue, not here; it was before I moved this. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 15:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If the explanatory note has a different or no citation then it might make sense to place the note after the reference to help ensure that people don't think it's being cited from that reference. But I don't think it's a vital issue. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 13:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi! The MOS Seems to contradict in an area and I could use some clarification.

MOS:SO states that Internal links to related English Wikipedia articles, with section heading "See also"; link templates for sister-project content also usually go at the top of this section when it is present (otherwise in the last section on the page).

This is in apparent contradiction to MOS:ELLAYOUT, which states that Links to Wikimedia sister projects and Spoken Wikipedia should generally appear in "External links", not under "See also". If the article has no "External links" section, then place sister links at the top of the last section in the article. Two exceptions: Wiktionary and Wikisource links may be linked inline (e.g. to an unusual word or the text of a document being discussed).

So, which is it? Should I put sister project boxes in External links or See also? Thanks, Tyrone Madera (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing out this conflict. I would place them under “external links”. Blueboar (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

SMcCandlish added the first one with this edit in November 2020. I believe it's just an error since it was supposed to be restating MOS:LAYOUT, which then as now stated that they belong under "External links". —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 10:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I've changed MOS:SO to reflect MOS:ELLAYOUT. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 09:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Nizolan, So does that mean Argentina is wrong with portals then? Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrone Madera: This criterion is about sister project content, so Wiktionary, Wikisource etc., whereas portals are links to other stuff on Wikipedia itself—in other words portals are internal, not external, links. MOS:SEEALSO covers portals. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 18:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Nizolan, Oops, right. I got them mixed up just for a second when I posted. Thanks, Tyrone Madera (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

My bad. Yes, the SO material is meant to summarize ELLAYOUT on this point, so it should say to use the EL section not the SA section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the general rule for WP:ENGVAR (that is to say, the rule that is applied to all non-STRONGTIES articles when determining which spelling conventions to use) are not applied to MOS:Retaining existing styles more generally? While it inevitably does result in certain articles using a convention that any given editor happens to not like best, it IS an all-in-all fair and easy to determine measure for determining which convention to use if ever contention comes up.

But the way "Retaining existing styles" is currently written, it basically means that whomever inappropriately switches the article's existing convention (take WP:ERA for example, which applies the rule from here) from one convention to another and happens to do so during some time when nobody was paying attention can then, after a bit of time has gone by, enforce keeping it that way against any editor that tries to change it back (i.e., "The MOS says its is inappropriate for an editor to change from the existing style to another! Please respect the existing style of this article! (even though I didn't when I switched it myself from the other style to this one; but, ye snooze ye lose, sucker! sorry bout it!"

If this kind of behaviour CAN be easily prevented (which the ENGVAR rule does: that is, using the convention that was used in the earliest revision after the article ceased being a stub), it should be. If a guideline inadvertently encourages that kind of editing behaviour, it ought to be reexamined. Any reasonable argument for why it shouldn't be? Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I concur. BilCat (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firejuggler86 and BilCat: Devil's advocate: Is it really true that this kind of behaviour CAN be easily prevented by modifying the policy as you propose?

1. I'd argue that no form of any policy can "prevent" bad behaviors. The best policies discourage bad behaviors and make users less likely to engage in them, and failing that they at least give other editors ammunition and easy justification for reversing bad behaviors. (To be clearer: The behaviors which the guidelines attempt to influence are the changes editors make to article content. Whereas the thing you're describing as "bad behavior" isn't an editorial action, but rather an argument made by someone in defense of an editorial action. Writing guidelines to provide pre-decided outcomes in content disputes is not, IMHO, a worthwhile use of the MOS namespace, because WP:IAR means there are no pre-decided consensus discussions.

2. Case in point: What comes immediately before the MOS:RETAIN stub "rule" you mentioned is, When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue... — IOW, the stub-rule isn't meant to prevent someone imposing a convention, nor to avoid having to have a consensus discussion about their edit should it become controversial (at any point in time). MOS:RETAIN is merely suggesting a last-resort means of resolving such a discussion, should it become hopelessly deadlocked. The conversation still has to come first, and should ideally be resolved among its participants.

   If your straw person who swooped in and imposed a convention but then pretended otherwise really acted the way you describe, other editors are not idiots and can easily call them out on it. There is no "getting off on a technicality" in consensus discussions, none very few of us are idiots and we can all read edit histories.

3. That "rule" you characterize as so clear-cut is really anything but. use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety is actually a lot more vague than it may seem. Somewhat arbitrary definition of when an article ceases to be a stub aside, take these scenarios:
   • Someone points to a revision A, which they view as the first relevant post-stub edit, in which an editor added some text that contained the word "color". Aha! Clearly the article is written in US English.
   • But then another participant points out that in the immediately previous edit, a "DD Month, YYYY" date was inserted. Gadzooks! It seems the article is actually required to stick with British Eglish.
   • ...OK, NOW imagine that, instead of revisions A and A-1, the introduction of "color" and "DD Month, YYYY" dates were actually both part of the same edit.

There's really no wikilegislating our way out of sometimes just having to have a consensus discussion, if an edit is controversial or disputed. Nor can (or should!) the MOS attempt to pre-decide the outcomes of those discussions, for all scenarios. (Again, IMHO.) ---- FeRDNYC (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Another thing people forget or misunderstand is that defaulting to what was chosen in the first major (i.e. non-stub) edit is a last resort. It's what we do when consensus discussion fails. Nor does it come up frequently.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Greetings and felicitations. Currently Section headings disagrees with the Template:Anchor documentation on the placement of anchors. The current examples in the MOS show the templates inside the section headings. Template:Anchor#Basic format states

In general, place an anchor on the line above a section header:
((anchor|Anchor name 1|Anchor name 2))
== Section header ==

The reason is explained in Template:Anchor#Rationale for placement above header. I'd like to change the examples to follow the template's own usage. Comments? —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

((Anchor)) is correct — be bold — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

To me, they are both problematic. Having the anchor above the section makes editing them counterintuitive - you have to edit the previous section to adjust the anchors, sometimes this leads to duplication. Placing the anchor in the section header means that after publishing, I am taken to the top of the page along with a really long url with the anchors added. Is there anyone around who knows anything about computers and could fix this? The most logiacl would be to place the anchor following the header and just have the code appropriately adjust where one lands. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the reason for placing them above is that the page will default to the line the ((anchor)) is on when loading the page as the top of the display. If you place it on the same line as the heading, it breaks things (regardless of if it's within or outside the ==equals signs== or not). If you place it a line below, it won't show the section header but only the first line of text in the section. I'm unsure as to whether images may get cut off if they are not well below the section header either - but I suspect that can be worked around. The reason it ideally should be placed immediately above, with no empty lines in-between, the section header is so that the section header is shown as well. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I understand all that. I am just saying it would be nice if using the anchor made the page load with an extra line or two above it, which would enable us to place the anchor in a more logical spot.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd go with Mr.choppers' suggestion, though I am unable to implement it, and it would potentially mean cleaning up the placement of many, many existing templates. If it was implemented, a bot would likely need to be created or modified to take care of that task. (Given the direction of this discussion, I'm going to place a notice on the Anchor template's talk page pointing to here.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@DocWatson42: - I should have looked at the template page... there is a workaround; one just adds ((subst:anchor|Foo bar)) to the section title.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I've just removed that sentence. Doing that is worse than using the ((Anchor)) within the section heading. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussions show there is no good place to put an anchor although putting it before the associated heading is definitely the worst method. If I put an anchor for section 5 at the end of section 4, it is guaranteed that the anchor will be damaged or removed by someone editing section 4 in the future. Consider what it looks like: I want to add something to the end of section 4 so I hit edit for that section. I scroll to the end to type my text. I see ((anchor|whatever)) with no explanation (please don't recommend adding one because wikitext is already too bloated). I'm going to add my text at the end of the section (after the anchor), or I might replace the anchor because it serves no visible purpose. Also, some people move sections by, for example, editing section 5 and deleting it after copying the wikitext to their clipboard. Then they edit (say) section 10 and paste section 5 at the end. They never even see the anchor in section 4. Or consider a significant rewrite of section 5 which ends up changing its purpose, again with the editor not even knowing the section has an anchor for specific terms. Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Placing the anchor above the section heading is the only "correct" solution, regardless of how tricky that is when editing. Adding a comment above the anchor should slow down most people who feel the need to remove it. Putting the anchor inside the heading or on the same line as the heading is a Really Bad Thing. In the end, many anchors just end up under their heading, because this is just simpler for the editor. Having the browser "nudge" up a bit to show the heading when the user lands there is not going to be viable. Scrolling the window to have the anchor at the top is basic browser behavior and adding some JavaScript to alter that is not going to be trivial. Not impossible, but it would not happen this decade. Of course, the "right" solution is to use the section heading as the anchor and never change the section heading text or change it and then always fix all of the inbound links to it. That way we would never need the anchor template. However, we live in the real world and positioning the template above the heading with a suitable comment is the best compromise — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 09:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I put the ((anchor))s into List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation, as noted before each section. (They used to be referenced by number, so they could change every year.) It seems that there is a blank line between each one and the section. I check every year or three to make sure that they are still right. They have to go before, and yes editors might mess them up. But then editors can mess up enough other things, and we survive. There are no comments, and I don't remember any actual problems with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gah4 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

There are 3 places to put anchors:

• Above the heading: inbound links do the right thing. but as John said, the anchor is technically in a different section and sometimes gets screwed up when editors move sections around. This doesn't happen very often but it does happen.
• In the heading: inbound links do the right thing. Very hard to mess up. But it makes edit summaries a lot longer than they need to be. I find this makes the history too hard to read.
• Below the heading: inbound links jump to below the heading (ie the heading is hidden just above the top of the browser window). It does solve all the other problems of the other 2 methods but nobody likes what the reader is presented with.

Myself, I prefer above the heading as the lessor of evils. I see no true solution without modifying MediaWiki.  Stepho  talk  02:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the heading being off-screen. I just clicked on the link, it took me to that spot, therefor that's where I need to be. It would be nice if the heading was visible, but I don't see it as a deal-breaker. Placing an anchor for a section in the previous section just seems super dumb and placing it in the header makes it easier for someone who is changing the section title to miss it and delete it. Which, considering that one of the reasons for using anchors is to avoid having to change links when sections get renamed, seems counter productive. --Khajidha (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

When putting anchors in section headings, they must be substituted (as explained in MOS:HEADINGS). Substituted anchors don't appear in the edit summary, and after changes are published you are taken to the correct heading (which doesn't happen when not substituting the template). The biggest disadvantage is that it makes the wikicode even harder to read. I put some tests on my sandbox (which you are free to edit if you wish). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Khajidha: I don't see the problem with the heading being off-screen. I just clicked on the link, it took me to that spot, therefor that's where I need to be. It would be nice if the heading was visible, but I don't see it as a deal-breaker.

Oh, I definitely do! Links to sections may very often go through redirects or suffer from other forms of indirection, such that there can be very little indication why you've been dropped at that particular point in an article (exactly what article you don't even know, unless you scroll to the top) and what it could possibly have to do with whatever you were just previously reading.

Having the section heading visible isn't a perfect solution to that problem (like I said, it'd be nice to know what article the section was a part of), but at least it provides some sort of framing context for what you're about to read. How helpful that is depends on how helpful the section title is (something like "History" is less than enlightening), and how much of a submarine the original link you followed was.

Besides, I'm not sure the "previous section" thing is really that much of a concern these days as it was in the past, given all the Visual Editor users who'd be oblivious to it anyway. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

An alternative is doing ==Blah blah<span id="Yak yak"></span>==. That makes the incoming link to "#Yak_yak" to go the heading, not below it and not above it, and it also doesn't mangle the name of the heading in the "Edit summary" field when editing. This thread's own heading is an example.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that's indeed the best way. My biggest concern with putting the thing in the heading was that it'll make the wikicode look really bad (especially for pages like News style that have a lot of anchors), but that option seems to more or less solve it. I recently found this test page made by, oh hey that's you! But yeah this option appears to have far less bad disadvantages than the other ones. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The "invisibility" of the span tag will probably be an issue with some editing technologies and will probably be lost — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Above reply via a mobile device using the reply tool just to see if I could. Not a kind experience. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This whole thought starts with looking at the page for Ken Silverman, where they referred to the now two year old game Ion Fury as new. So at what point do we no longer call something "new"? While I am of the opinion that we should avoid its usage as much as possible on wikipedia, if it must be used, how long should it last on a page? It would be difficult to create a hard and fast rule, perhaps we could create a rule of thumb? I propose two years, as that seems fitting, however I am split on this, as different mediums have different longevities and some works may have more cultural presence than others. H28260100 (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• I believe that there us a US FTC ruling that products can be "new" for six months.^[1] That is mostly for advertising purposes, though. Gah4 (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• MOS:CURRENT. EEng 23:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• MOS:RELTIME? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 23:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  That too. EEng 23:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I generally treat it as though the page won't get any more updates and then somebody reads it in, say 2030. If new/recent doesn't make sense in 2030 then don't use those words in 2021.  Stepho  talk  00:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Why, it's almost as if you're following MOS:CURRENT and MOS:RELTIME! EEng 01:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not only about whether the page gets updates. Wikipedia content gets reproduced all over the place, so even if we update, there can still be old static copies around the web. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Old static copies around the web are beyond the scope of our concern. Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

We have some templates that can help if you want to insert a request to clarify the timeframe, such as ((when)), ((clarify timeframe)), ((year needed)), ((update-inline)), and ((update after)), and categories such as Category:Vague or ambiguous time and Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements. Using the |reason= parameter with the templates can help explain the concern. I think "new" is almost never appropriate. I agree with Stepho-wrs' comment that ten years without updating seems like a reasonable rule of thumb. Also watch out for "will", as in "Their new single will be released in August and the band will go on tour throughout the nation next Spring, building on the success of their hot new album." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

On the article for Canada's national anthem, the original French lyrics are presented. O Canada#Original French version. The original lyrics have a quote. Two editors believe that the English quotes should be replaced with guillemets. My reading of MOS:QUOTEMARKS says that they should not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Do not use … guillemet (« ») marks as quotation marks (except when such marks are internal to quoted non-English text – see MOS:CONFORM).

I don't see any ambiguity. — HTGS (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

A Wikipedia user in another discussion argued that we need to replace template character combinations such as ((ndash)) with "what you see if what you get" such as "–". This is because few people remaining would use non-Unicode operating systems like Windows 95. I agree with his argument and would propose amending the MOS and specifically asking for the replacement of such templates with Unicode. I think explicitly asking for replacement will make it easier for non-technical users to edit Wikipedia. @Graeme Bartlett: @Skews Peas: @Beyond My Ken: WhisperToMe (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I would support preferring the use of the unicode character instead of the template. I don't think we should delete the templates, or even deprecate them yet, just prefer the simpler Unicode. Also I do not suggest that editors go around mass converting anything, just change when there are other edits to do, as these changes would be cosmetic for editors, and would not affect readers. AWB could include the rules. Another template to substitute is the spaced ndash Template:Spaced en dash. Also ((bull)), ((dot)), ((middot)) could be discouraged. I do think that the non-breaking space should not be inserted as a Unicode character. Also I seriously question the use of half-width spaces. The advantage of using the characters is that editors can see what it is in the Wikitext. It is also simpler to edit in the visual editor. There is less wikitext, less work for the parser, and less chance of hitting a limit if the Unicode is used. Years ago I think I mangled some articles by editing from a browser/operating system that did not support Unicode. But I don't think we would have any editors doing that nowadays. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Absofuckinglutely not. People who think the reason for using templates or html escapes is something about "non-Unicode operating systems" need to educate themselves about the issue before making such a proposal. And arguments about "work for the parser" are laughable. EEng 02:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  @EEng: I'm all ears to learn about it, but I'm not sure where to learn more as I'm not sure what the discussion would be called (otherwise I'd search the archives) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  See below. EEng 06:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is a terrible idea. The problem with just writing the "horizontal line" character is that anyone looking at it cannot tell what it is, except by guessing, then searching to see if it matches. See the series of edits here, where a well-meaning editor kept replacing m-dashes (—) by the Chinese numeral for one (一). In any event, how does replacing explicit, readable indications of what a mark is by a picture of the mark help "non-technical" users? Is it because they only do WYSIQPSEE ("something else entirely"), and don't care what a mark is as long as it looks about right? Imaginatorium (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • User:Imaginatorium, I suggest you try harder to distinguish, or get new reading glasses. Tony (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

    Seriously? The two horizontal lines in my comment above look completely different to you? (Of course this is possible, if you have a particular sort of font...) Imaginatorium (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  • @Imaginatorium: In that case do you feel it should be other way around, with ((mdash)) replacing the unicode character for disambiguation purposes? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    • We currently have a mix. I happen to use a font that lets me easily see the difference, and I know how to type them (since I learned on my Mac in 1984, and it hasn't changed). So I tend to use the characters directly. But I spend a lot time fixing things where people can't see or don't know the difference, so if I see the templates, I leave those as a good clue to other editors. This is not an MOS issue, at it only affects source style, not what readers see. No need to push one way or the other. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't think it is necessary to mandate the human-distinguishable version, but the MOS could reasonably point out the value of this distinction, and explicitly warn editors not to change to the Unicode mark. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
        • @Imaginatorium: I agree that the MOS should be pointing out why the distinction is important WhisperToMe (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What does "WYSIQPSEE" mean? If I google it, this page is literally the only thing that shows up. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
    • What you see is quite possibly something else entirely. I suspect that the term was first coined by Imaginatorium just above here ... — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 14:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• I, for one, cannot easily distinguish the visual appearance of the minus sign (−, −) from the en-dash (–, –) and frequently edit articles where they should be properly distinguished from each other. This proposal would make this much more difficult. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• No. Just no. Editors use a whole range of devices and technologies to edit, so using templates is often the only way to input symbols that are difficult (or impossible) to type — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 08:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Not only no but hell no. If anything it should be the other way around. It can be excruciatingly difficult to visually distinguish between different characters even without taking into account the various spaces and dashes. Consider Α versus A, μ versus u, ν versus v, Ο versus O. Also, input of, e.g., foreign alphabets, mathematical symbols, is awkward even on systems that fully support Unicode. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Editors should just chill, relax and stop getting so worked up about different types of dash. MapReader (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I totally agree..it seems like 3⁄4 of MOS discussions are about dashes..I find it a bit ridiculous. Firejuggler86 (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Explicit HTML entities are generally as usable as templates to allow editors to easily distinguish/input specific Unicode characters. I would not object to deprecating templates in favour of these unless no spelled-out HTML entity is available. —Quondum 14:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  Most editors know little or nothing about html, and I would expect that the html character entity names would be off-putting to many. With templates, at least there's a way to find their docs inside Wikipedia. So the html may be "as usable" by those who know how to write them, but may be less usable by those who don't know how to read them. Dicklyon (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's a great point. EEng 23:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'm surprised, I think – I would have assumed that those same editors would not know to use the templates either; "at least there's a way" does not count for much. It would then be for others to clean up. Anyhow, it seems clear to me that the original suggestion (of using only the Unicode characters) is not going to fly. The question now would be whether any guidance should change. —Quondum 23:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  I would like to see the rationale for using templates and unicode written in somewhere so people know why to use them WhisperToMe (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  I endorse that: this is a concrete suggestion that makes sense to me. —Quondum 00:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  Looking more closely, I see that what I had in mind is addressed in the last paragraph of MOS:MARKUP already, so I do not feel the need for change. —Quondum 14:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  How about linking the style guide to lists of appropriate named character entities and templates, and deprecating numeric character references. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  Some other HTML entities might be worse, but I don't see much difference between the code "–" and "((ndash))". Same keyword, just delimited differently. Interesting point about the template documentation, though I wonder how much extra usability that really adds. Wouldn't people who are advanced enough to know about template documentation also generally be capable of learning about entity markup? Pelagic ( messages ) – (11:57 Sat 24, AEDT) 00:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• I notice that several users above have signed with "— name" not "((mdash)) name". :P
  On a less frivolous note: consider that in the "classic" / "2010" editing UI, the en and em dashes appear in the CharInsert panel and also in the toolbar under Special characters → Symbols. If there is a strong consensus for using ((ndash)), then should that be in CharInsert instead of "–"? — Pelagic ( messages ) – (11:40 Sat 24, AEDT) 00:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • How about changing the tooltips to show what each character in CharInsert is? 11:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk)
• Comment If Whisper to Me is referring in his opening comment to me, he misconstrued what I meant. I never said or meant that "((ndash))" should be replaced with a horizontal line. I did object to an editor making unnecessary mass replacements of " –" and " -" with "((snd))", since the change was unnecessary as it made no difference in the rendered page, clogged up people's watchlists with unnecessary edits, and replaced a very clear piece of code with one that was unclear: if one didn't know what "((snd))" meant, it's not intuitively obvious from looking at it. That being said, I have no objections to editors writing article using whatever they're most comfortable using, my entire argument was about unnecessary mass changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: The opening comment refers to a different user who did propose this WhisperToMe (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I disagree with the proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I still don't know how to insert Unicode characters on Windows. I never quite understood the notation. I presume you're meant to click the Windows key and then hold a bunch of random numbers you're expected to remember? Not sure (easier on a Mac with option + -). So that might be one reason to keep the templates. As for char insert, that doesn't show in the new Reply Tool (in Preferences -> Beta features) or in the Reply Link script. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think we should keep this as is. How clearly the various dashes render depends on the details of the display and font. I know how to tell, and I know the various possibilities. Not everyone does. I learned html from almost the beginning, and I've been finding out that quite a variety of people around WP still know html, like it, and use it. I tend to employ unicode only when essential. Others do differently.. I think it's a pooor idea to remove options that people know, in favor of uniformity, when our actual markup can do the conversions. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • There is a list of commonly used characters a the bottom of the editing window. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Those would be more useful if they were annotated. Also, it van be difficult to distinguish, e.g., "−" from "–". Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Leaving a note since this is a more widely watched talk page that I've requested clarification regarding whether the guideline recommending McCune–Reischauer romanisation in articles about pre-division Korea is actually in force at "MRR guideline?" here. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 21:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I am very new to Wikipedia. The first article I try to read is the article wikipedia("Manual of Style").

The first sentence of that article immediately leaves me wondering if I am reading the actual MoS itself and should keep reading or an article _about_ the MoS and should instead go off to find the MoS.

I suggest that the very first sentence of the "Manual of Style" article explicitly clarify whether it _is_ the MoS or whether it is _about_ the MoS.

   "The Manual of Style (MoS or MOS) is the style manual for all English Wikipedia articles."

would be clearer to this reader if it instead said something more along the lines of:

   "The Manual of Style (MoS or MOS, which is the article you are reading) is the style manual for all English Wikipedia articles."

Sometimes "You are here." signs help, even in text.

Yes, I know that "everybody" understands what that sentence means, where "everybody" is defined as people who are complete novices reading the very first page they have been pointed to for learning about wikipedia.

2601:1C1:C100:F420:E45B:C0E1:383F:12 (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC) Yet another random minor contributor without portfolio

I changed the first word from The to This to address this point. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Manual of Style has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the section here, add as an example a sports score, for example "Germany beat Portugal 4–2 in the group stage." or "The Washington Nationals beat the New York Mets 5–2." 76.103.46.252 (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You're not satisfied with the examples in the line that begins, a 51–30 win;   a 22–17 majority vote? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Should "virtual reality" when used as an attributive adjective, such as in "virtual reality headset", be hyphenated or unhyphenated? --Masem (t) 06:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Background

At a resent move request at Talk:Virtual reality headset#Requested move 24 March 2021, the issue came up that under MOS:HYPHEN, the article should be at "Virtual-reality headset", specifically as A hyphen can help to disambiguate... and Compounds that are hyphenated when used attributively (adjectives before the nouns they qualify.. As noted by the discussion, this style of hyphenating "virtual reality" as an attributive adjective has some support in reliable sources including the Encyclopedia Britannica, but more commonly in the reliable industry sources in computing and video games, the adjective phrase is left without a hyphen, and some of the argument at the move request was about retaining the industry's presentation, which is in contrast to the WP:Specialized-style fallacy. The move request was closed without consensus.

Given how frequently "virtual reality" as an attributive adjective is used on Wikipedia both as article titles and in body, it makes sense to seek an RFC to determine how WP should standardize on the use of the hyphen or not. This RFC would also be expected to affect related phrases like "augmented reality" and "mixed reality" which are both commonly used as attributive adjectives and have the same type of problem with the industry literature that serves as reliable sourcing tending to omit the hyphen. --Masem (t) 06:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: The move's non-admin closure has been challenged by three editors already [8] and would have probably proceeded to WP:MR tomorrow if not rescinded, had this RfC not been opened.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Support (hyphenation: "virtual-reality headset")

• Support, since there is no reason that MOS:HYPHEN should not apply to this one topic out of millions of topics. Encyclopaedia Britannica uses "virtual-reality headset", and is a much, much better model of encyclopedic writing than what a newspaper or gamer website or CS journal is doing. As I noted at the original RM discussion, which also involved "virtual-reality game", this is clearly ambiguous at least for some readers, since "reality game" is a source-attested term with at least three distinct meanings, in gaming (where "reality game" is becoming a genre term and not connected to VR in particular), in philosophy, and in gaming-theory network analysis: "Immersive Reality Game of the Year: The single game released on an immersive reality platform that best utilizes the attributes of the platform to entertain users"; "creative adventure reality game"; "this choose-your-own-adventure reality game"; "Reality game: Contemporary violence and denaturization of language"; "Plato, a reality game in four levels"; "A reality game to cross disciplines: Fostering networks and collaboration .... The rise of reality gaming introduces a new possibility: that games can directly shape real-world networks, even as they educate."

  Even "virtual reality headset" is problematic. I'm also finding "reality headset" without "virtual", including "augmented", "mixed", or "alternat[iv]e", and increasingly with some other, less common modifier ("extended", "enhanced", "hybrid", etc.). These terms all seem to refer to AR/MR (not VR) gear. But none of this is going to be clear to people not intimately familiar with this stuff. (I'm ignoring a case of "Reality Headset" as a brand name, and others hyperbolically named "Actual Reality Headsets" and "New Reality Headset". However, there are some potentially confusing trademarks out there, such as Cellet Reality Headset.) The reality–virtuality continuum and the profusion of rapidly introduced and changing terminology like "extended reality", "enhanced reality", "hybrid reality", "visuo-haptic mixed reality", "computer-mediated reality", etc., etc., make for a lot of potential reader confusion. I.e., there's a lot of ambiguity in the "headset" case, just to the left of "reality" instead of to the right of it as in the "game" case.

  The argument presented against hyphenation so far has been a mixture of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, the WP:Common-style fallacy ("the hyphenated form isn't the most common", as if WP:COMMONNAME were a style policy and had anything to do with such punctuation questions, which it does not, never has, and never will), and the WP:Specialized-style fallacy ("gamer mags and computer science journals usually don't hyphenate it", which mistakes the fact that WP isn't written like gamer mag or a CS journal, and has its own style guide). Insider-to-insider writing is notorious for dropping punctuation that isn't needed for convenying meaning between people deeply steeped in a subject.

  There is no WP:RECOGNIZABILITY down-side to hyphenating this, since there is no one competent enough at English to read en.WP who is not also already familiar with the fact that compound adjectives are hyphenated in more formal writing. But there is a WP:PRECISE failure in not hyphenating them, since only subject-matter experts are going to be entirely certain of the meaning, and this problem is going to increase not decrease over time, as terms like "reality game" and "[augmented/mixed/some other word than virtual] reality headset" become more common.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support as before. WP needs to take every opportunity to make it easier for non-experts to recognise such word strings. Experts see them every day; we don't. Tony (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. No exceptions for a generic invention. Especially any inventor could, without analysing English, write this. "I was nearly there. Our work had brought to fruition a virtual (virtually a) reality headset". They omit the brackets, the readers have the wrong gist.- Adam37 Talk 15:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - If proper punctuation isn't a good enough reason, surely an obvious gain in clarity is. Primergrey (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support as with other compounds used as modifiers in front of a noun. Omitting the hyphen has no positive effect for any reader, while including it helps the unfamiliar reader parse the multi-word phrase correctly. English grammar affords the opportunity to make the meaning easier to see for all readers, so why would we write it in a lazy way that's just OK for already-familiar readers, even if that's commonly done in contexts where people are already familiar? Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Hyphenating attributive compounds is generally standard English usage, and I'm not convinced that this is an exception. Take, for instance, these articles from the New Yorker, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the BBC, all of which hyphenate the phrase. And this is not just nitpicking. As Adam37 notes above, hyphenation has the potential to reduce ambiguity in some cases. I therefore see no need to depart from the traditional rule. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• A search on the BBC website for "virtual-reality headset" revealed just two articles with the hyphenated form on the first 100 results. We can conclude that the hyphenated form is atypical there. Is the same low frequency of the hyphenated form apparent on those US sites also? Would it be fair to say "the overwhelming majority of articles on the BBC websites use the unhyphenated form of Virtual Reality Headset"? Or is there some evidence that the hyphenated form is anything other than a rarity? Chumpih. (talk) 01:00 + 22:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• The New Yorker would appear to use the hyphenated form exclusively. The others do indeed use both forms. Since the evidence is equivocal, I still believe that we should use the clearer and more traditional form. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to see the evidence here that supports the notion that the hyphenated form is traditional? A search on New Yorker didn't turn up much, and the few articles that contained "virtual-reality headset" were paywalled. Washington Post was completely paywalled. NY Times looks to have the vast majority of results being unhyphenated - something like 12:2 within the sample that could be mustered. Chumpih. (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• By "traditional", I meant to say that hyphenating attributive compounds is, in a general sense, the traditional rule. I don't believe this to be contested. A few more results: My examination of 16 JSTOR (scholarly journals, etc.) results found that 6 used a hyphen, showing a clear split. The WSJ's headlines lean strongly (but not exclusively) toward hyphenation: see this. My point here isn't to say that there's a consensus in reliable sources for hyphenation, but instead to say that there isn't a consensus against it. In such cases, I would simply apply MOS:HYPHEN as written, using hyphens to "link related terms in compound modifiers" like this one. Doing so would also enhance clarity, as discussed above. Barring a clear and unequivocal consensus in reliable sources to the contrary, we should not depart from that which conforms both with policy and with prudence. In my view, such a consensus does not exist here. (Only on Wikipedia could I wax loquacious in defense of a hyphen. Alas...) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Agree, there's no consensus against the hyphenated form. It's out there for sure. Where does that leave us? Perhaps we need to see the relative frequency of the hyphenated to unhyphenated form. As previously stated, results from a search on duck duck go with hyphen, the hyphenated form appears nowhere on the first 2 pages of results (outside of the URLs), which suggests the hyphenated form is not widely done - but is that good enough? We can weight by quality: on the one hand we have New Yorker, WSJ and possibly some others to be identified; on the other hand we have most other publications discussed, showing the hyphenated form in a minority - sometimes a significant minority, sometimes a tiny 2% minority. Non-rhetorically: what else can we do?
  Looking to policy, we have a duty not to misinform. Apologies for the repetition, but here's an argument: It would be a poor show if some reader of the article were to walk away thinking that the hyphenated form is the correct, common, or preferred representation.
  (That aside, may I say right back at you that it's a genuine pleasure debating the hyphen with you.) Chumpih. (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• If one is to do a survey of what is out there, it would be rather helpful to try to separate results between general interest/non-tech sources (which would include NYTimes, BBC, WaPost, .etc) from tech industry ones. My gut tells me that within the industry, the use of the hyphen will likely be non-existent, but in the general interest works, the ratio will be rather different and interesting. --Masem (t) 04:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• My view is that when reliable sources are in conflict, we're permitted to choose on our own what best fulfills the needs of the project instead of simply deferring to to the view of the perceived majority. This is, for instance, why we use logical quotations. (If there's a clear consensus in reliable sources, we are in my view generally best off deferring, but we've agreed that isn't the case here.) In my opinion, the benefits of hyphenation outweigh the harms. The primary reason is that hyphenation reduces ambiguity. SMcCandlish aptly explained the possible ambiguities in the RM, and it seems clear that the chance of confusion is essentially zero when a hyphen is added. English-language learners (note the hyphen!) and those who are not subject-matter experts (another one!) would benefit the most. Since they're our main audience, the needs of the project would suggest that we prioritize the clearer form. Plus, it's consonant with policy and with traditional English usage, and it seems to be particularly prevalent among outlets (New Yorker, WSJ, some academic journals) that have a reputation for editorial control. The possible harms appear to be minimal, particularly considering the fact that it's a well-attested usage. Extraordinary Writ (talk), Defender of the Hyphen, 21:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• There appears to be a conflict between the widely-accepted form (demonstrably 20x more widely used, by multiple methods) and the minority form imposed by sites with strong editorial control. The New Yorker has an iron grip. It's arguable that the strong editorial control is the issue here - it caused an artificial and unwarranted 'correction' in order to satisfy some grammatical diktat. While many of us are hyphen-loving people, the counter argument is that we don't have the right to 'correct' the names of things, even if there is a belief it will be 'clearer'.
  Here's another comparison of frequency from Google Trends showing the hyphenated form is exceedingly uncommon. (And try this link or this link to forestall arguments about folks being too lazy to hyphenate.) Chumpih. (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• A bit more digging with DuckDuckGo: Washington post looks to be about 2:1 preferring unhyphenated. New Yorker does indeed significantly prefer the hyphenated form, though it's not quite exclusive. Chumpih. (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• The New Yorker example is a transcript, so it presumably wasn't subjected to editorial review. The headline, which presumably was, does hyphenates "virtual-reality app", which is also an attributive compound. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Agree, it's plausible that one New Yorker example escaped editorial review. Chumpih. (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - the non-hyphenated variant would would mean that the headset itself is virtual, not the reality. Blueboar (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  By that logic, "high school student" would mean the student is high. And while I'm sure there are many for whom that is true, it's not the meaning of the established phrase. oknazevad (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Objectively, hyphen is the pedantically correct usage, and tends to be used by sources such as Britannica that generally exhibit pedantry. Applying our pedantic MOS:HYPHEN consistently is supposed to override quibbles such as endless appeals to "common name" (hint: common name does not apply to styling), fruitless analyses such as Washington post looks to be about 2:1 preferring unhyphenated and prevent inconsistency in our titles (for example, shall we have "virtual-reality headset" because its sources prefer a hyphen, but "virtual reality game" because those do not?!) Yeah, WP:CONSISTENCY may not be the most important criterion among the five, but if it can be achieved chiefly and without much fuss (well, we have fuss already), why not? I mean, I understand that many people do not care about pedantry, but why obstructing those who do? I strongly agree with Extraordinary Writ that when reliable sources are in conflict, we're permitted to choose on our own what best fulfills the needs of the project instead of simply deferring to to the view of the perceived majority. No such user (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Interesting: the WP:CONSISTENT guidance on titles also states "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for". Nobody searches for "virtual-reality headset" with the hyphen. Would you like a little evidence to back up that claim? Well, here's Exhibit A. Chumpih. (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Repeating myself (just noticed I already supported above, so I'm just reformatting my second take at it) – I support hyphenation wherever it can help the unfamiliar reader to correctly parse the content. It's not a matter of what's "correct", since both forms are correct, or what's done outside wikipedia, which both are, but rather a matter of how best to apply the standard affordances of English punctuation to help the reader. I do grant that most readers won't stumble too much over it, but the hyphen also won't slow anyone down or read as weird, while the lack of hyphen will provide a garden-path parse to consider for those not already in the know. We can do better, and it is our style to do better, so we should. Dicklyon (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support—there is no doubt that readers pick it up more easily with the hyphen. The exception might be those who encounter the item every day, but we're not addressing experts. Tony (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support — This is about a headset that relates to virtual reality, not a virtual headset that relates to plain, or any kind of other reality. Standalone, virtual reality is not hyphenated. -Mardus /talk 07:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose (no hyphenation: "virtual reality headset")

• Oppose It's not widely done outside Wikipedia. While there's no question that a compound adjective should be hyphenated, this is a compound noun used in an adjectival form. Wikipedia appears somewhat atypical in its application of hyphens in this case, including Near Field Communication which is hyphenated on Wikipedia but practically nowhere else on the Internet. Light Emitting Diode gets a similar treatment here, and again it's grammatical 'correctness' versus common practice. Contrast to Passive electronically scanned array, for example. Chumpih. (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, it is widely done outside Wikipedia, considering how many such uses are common enough to make it into n-gram stats; the fact that it's more often omitted has been stipulated, and is due largely to nerds writing for nerds; let's not be that. And you're missing the point with "there's no question that a compound adjective should be hyphenated"; I don't know why you say that. What is a compound adjective? There's really no question that a compound noun used as a modifier before another noun should be hyphenated; that's what all the style guides recommend. It's not hard to find books (if you look beyond the specialist VR books, that hyphenate the compound when it's used as a modifier, e.g this one. Dicklyon (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  And if you delete the hyphen in that Ngram Viewer query, the usages of "virtual reality" without a hyphen in a compound adjective are a bit more common (pay attention to the higher percentages along the vertical axis). --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Dicklyon:, the n-gram stats is interesting, but is there a decent comparison of the frequency of "virtual reality headset" to "virtual-reality headset" etc? Using the technique Coolcaesar suggested, the n-gram viewer results for the unhyphenated form suggest it's roughly 20x more prevalent than the hyphenated form.

Or to put it another way, results from a search on duck duck go with hyphen, the hyphenated form appears nowhere on the first 2 pages of results (outside of the URLs). Is there good evidence to show the hyphenated form is widely used? Chumpih. (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the hyphen is most commonly omitted, as it's most commonly insiders writing for insiders. Just as in other specialties. E.g. the AMA decided that now that every doctor knows what a small-cell carcinoma is, they recommend dropping the hyphen; of course, for the poor guy that thinks he just has a small cancer, this is very misleading. Specialists have their own style; we should write in a way that conveys the meaning to those who don't already know. There is no down side to including the hyphen where it helps. Dicklyon (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The "down side" is that the hyphen is atypical. In the case of VR headset, the hyphenated form is seldom used. There may be punctilious grammarians who are becalmed by the inclusion of the hyphen here, but "virtual reality headset" is a common, consumer term. Saying "it's most commonly insiders writing for insiders" looks to be specious, given that the search engine results cites listings on Amazon, etc.
Why would hyphenating this bring additional clarity? Are we certain it won't actually cause confusion in this "general audience"? What evidence is there that the hyphenated form is actually clearer, easier to parse, or more useful?
It's probably not for us to recast and alter common terms when they're the things getting referenced and used. It would be a poor show if some reader of the article were to walk away thinking that the hyphenated form is the correct, common, or preferred representation. Clarity is great, but let's not misinform. Chumpih. (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

As for your strawman about Passive electronically scanned array, I don't get it. That would never use a hyphen according to standard rules; are you thinking after the -ly adverb? That's never done. See Synthetic-aperture radar where the hyphen is important, in distinguishing a radar using a synthetic aperture from an aperture radar (whatever that might be) that is synthetic. That hyphen is similarly used in less than 10% of sources, but since our style is to write for the general audience that doesn't already know how to parse it, we include it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. For the same reasons as argued by User:Chumpih. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. As above, it appears to be small minority usage in reliable sources (noting that as a tertiary source Britannica is nowadays not preferred). It's already well on its way to being a readily recognisable descriptor, and likely heading toward becoming simply "VR" in the same way that PR is used in "PR manager" (noting incidentally that the full phrase is 'public relations manager', not 'public-relations manager', anyway). It's comparable to Artificial Intelligence in the phrase 'artificial intelligence program', which also is not hyphenated. MapReader (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above arguments noting that the common term, even in consumer/non-specialist usage, is without the hyphen. CapitalSasha ~ talk 23:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. A hyphen does not help the reader's understanding if the reader is expecting to see something without it; indeed, in such a case, it hinders. Vaticidalprophet 00:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's less common in general usage (not a specialist term at all), and does nothing to improve clarity, because the term "reality headset" is meaningless, so there is no such thing as a virtual version of a reality headset. In other words, the only way to read "virtual reality headset" is a headset that allows a virtual reality experience, a common term that been established for over two decades. oknazevad (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish already pointed out numerous meaningful uses of "reality headset". And even if it were not meaningul, the hyphen helps the unfamiliar reader to parse and understand the phrase.

  • No, he pointed out other similar terms. None of those use the "reality headset" with no preceding modifier. With out a modifier "reality headset" is useless. In this case the term is a single modifier of a fixed compound term. oknazevad (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons described in the RM. Wikipedia should defer to outside use. To back up to first principles... it is clearly incorrect to "fix" spelling (and sometimes borderline insulting, see people who complain about non-standard name variants) to a standardized form when the actual usage is something that is clearly not the standardized form. That doesn't mean that there's a problem that needs fixing, that just means that language is inconsistent sometimes. So if we accept that spelling can be unusual sometimes, so too can hyphenization rules. I'm not saying that there can't be a default guideline for hyphenization, that's fine. But it needs to be a guideline (not a firm rule) that defers to outside usage, in exactly the same way that "i before e except after c" defers to "weird", "seize", etc. Absolutely any rule in "proper" English usage can be overruled if the actual usage differs. If an editor thinks that all of this non-hyphenated usage in reliable sources is "wrong", that's great, but take it up with them, not on Wikipedia. If and when the usual form within the New York Times, books on virtual reality, etc. starts using the hyphen, then sure, Wikipedia will switch too. Per evidence in the RM, that isn't true currently. SnowFire (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's a silly strawman. Nobody has suggested that omitting the hyphen is "wrong", or needs to be "fixed". It's not very different from the thousands of other compounds that we hyphenate when used as modifiers, to help the reader. This is a standard affordance of English punctuation, which is widely used in the exact phrase "virtual-reality headset" even, not something we're making up. Just because a lot of writers don't bother with it, mostly assuming that their readers will be familiar enough to not stumble over the ambiguity, doesn't mean we should give up on doing the best job possible for our wider readership. Dicklyon (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  You are making an almost assuredly incorrect assumption here, that writers "know" the pro-hyphen side is correct but simply "don't bother with it." If you actually ask these writers, they are not going to tell you "yeah, you're right, but pressing the hyphen key is just too much work." They are going to say that the non-hyphenated form is the standard and expected way to write it. It's certainly what I would say if my writing was challenged on the topic. Humor me here: if it could be proven to your satisfaction that most writers are intentionally using the non-hyphenated form, would this actually affect your stance at all, and would you reconsider? Or would you say that even in that scenario, too bad, hyphens help the reader, we should just ignore the outside world? SnowFire (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Chumpih, and SnowFire. The term is much more widely used without the hyphen. Polyamorph (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  We don't generally just copy stylings because they are more widely used. We have our own MOS, and we strive to do the best job for the general reader, who might not be familiar with the term, or how to interpret it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

As you have mentioned already, I disagree. Polyamorph (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is the more common way to style the term. I know we have our own style guide, but Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum. I don't think anyone would be confused by the lack of hyphen either. -- Calidum 22:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I ummed and ahh'd over this for a long time, because after all I'm the editor who thought we really ought to write "open-world game". But it doesn't reflect real-world use among gamers or non-gamers, and I'm unconvinced by the arguments that this adds any clarity. I think non-hyphenation is simply cleaner when there's no real risk of ambiguity to address (as opposed to "black cab drivers" vs "black-cab drivers", to use the Guardian's example). Popcornfud (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - In print I usually see just VR after first use. Rarely do I see vitual-reality and the trend in outside sources is to use hyphens only to avoid ambiguity. "Virtual reality" is very unlikely to be misunderstood, and since we have an adverb/adjective combination why the need to hyphenate? Plus when I read the opening statement that says this hyphen will carry over to terms like "augmented reality" and "mixed reality" etc... that seemed overly inclusive and a little scary what else might later be included. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The two words should not be hyphenated. Per proper grammar and existing style guides. I would not want to, a year from now, be reading articles on "augmented-reality" and "mixed-reality" either. None of these even look right. GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It probably should be clear that the hyphen would only be in place when these terms are used in an adjective form. If we are using the sentence "Oculus is a leader in the field of virtual reality." there would be no hyphen. --Masem (t) 23:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

• Either is acceptable. Virtual reality is an open compound, and normally you'd hyphenate it when used as an adjective preceding a noun. That is my hyphen-loving personal preference. But this rule is not absolute, and usage matters. One commonly speaks of a real estate agent or a high school student rather than a real-estate agent or a high-school student. When the unhyphenated form is common, it is acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone argued that omitting the hyphen is "unacceptable". Rather, it's WP style to do what we can to help the reader. I dare say that real estate agent and high school student are familiar to almost all readers, while virtual reality game is much less so; so let's help the readers parse that expression by choosing the more helpful of the acceptable alternatives, as MOS:HYPHEN suggests. Dicklyon (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  I expect that "real estate agent" and "high school student" are unfamiliar to non-Americans, since those terms aren't used in most of the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  I suspect you're right. And when I write for an international audience, I include the hyphens, because there's no down side to doing so. But the no-hyphen usage has been so strongly established for those ones in the US that they are listed as examples of exceptions in dictionaries; so at least in articles in US English, we're not going to hyphenate them. The situation is different with virtual-reality games, synthetic-aperture radar, small-cell carcinoma, narrow-gauge railway, etc., where the hyphen is in the minority (as with almost such writing, due to insiders writing for insiders), but is still common. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  What we could take it that as VR becomes more commonplace, then the idea that it will be like a term like "high school student" or "real estate agent" without hyphen in the future. But while most of us (likely) are well aware of VR, its still a relatively new thing, so the arguments here are related to the current state of the state. Perhaps in 5-10 years (presuming this closes as to require hyphens) we can re-evaluate the current usage to see where it stands. (This also relates to ATS's comment below, in that we may not yet be at a point that "virtual reality" is widely used as there's no way to misconstrue it, ala the same way we handle "high school student". --Masem (t) 23:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  Don't worry! Thanks to Hollywood and Netflix, we all know exactly what life in America is like. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Either per WAID. The pedant (and, to quote Jeff Foxworthy, "I are one") would say the hyphenate is correct. The same pedant could also point out that the term is so ingrained in the lexicon that its meaning cannot be misconstrued ('[virtual reality] headset' v 'virtual [reality headset]'). —ATS (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed. But pedantry does not figure in concerns over clarity. Primergrey (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  Interesting. I always thought that was pedantry's job. 😏 —ATS (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Either: A native speaker should find either natural when not in a sentence. English uses hyphenation primarily to disambiguate tightness of word grouping (a sort of syntactic disambiguator). What I do not see noted is that the use of spaces, hyphens and en dashes can depend on the immediate context (e.g. whether connected constructions include spaces or hyphens), including awkward combinations and meaning disambiguation. This is skewed for common phrases, which might depart from general usage for specific word groups. In all, this means that one cannot make a context-free recommendation, other than to make editors aware of the primary contributory language dynamics. —Quondum 14:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Either. WhatamIdoing nailed it. ... Even the OED gives examples of both spellings under: virtual reality, n. » Compounds » General derivative. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 15:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Man eating fish

Man-eating fish

–EEng

(Just for illustration, not taking a position on the present question)

• Here's a classic video of David, a high school student, showing symptoms of acute de-hyphenation. nagualdesign 02:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  You rarely see high school students that young. EEng 05:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Here's a relevant snippet regarding hyphens:

  The New Yorker regularly places hyphens in teen-age and teen-ager; it's a long time since I last saw a hyphen in these words in works printed in Britain.

  — R. W. Burchfield, Fowler's Modern English Usage (1998)

• Another amusing example: As of 2021, [Elizabeth II] is also the 4th longest serving monarch in world history. [9] nagualdesign 14:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Judging from his name, John of Gaunt was likely very long as well. See also WP:Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water. EEng 16:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• There's a xkcd for everything. – The Grid (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

With a slip of the razor my barber uncrewed me. pburka (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

And so your crewing days are over, I guess. Crewed, blewed, and tattooed, as sailors say. EEng 23:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Yup… Adjective vs verb - Completely different connotations. Blueboar (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and I've been feeling bad about all the unarmed people in my neighborhood. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

Per Dicklyon. Tony (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• a 51–30 win;   a 22–17 majority vote;   but prefer spelling out when using words instead of numerals: a six-to-two majority decision, not with the awkward six–two;  avoid confusingly reversed order: a 17–22 majority vote^[a]

Proposed text

• a 51–30 win;   a 12–0 perfect season;  a 22–17 majority vote;   but prefer spelling out when using words instead of numerals: a six-to-two majority decision, not with the awkward six–two;  avoid confusingly reversed order: a 17–22 majority vote^[b]

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

• 2020 Dallas Cowboys season or Tom Landry
• 2019–20 Los Angeles Lakers season or Pat Riley
• 2021 Boston Red Sox season
• 2020–21 Montreal Canadiens season
• 1930 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team or Knute Rockne

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Support The de facto convention of any editor who already follows MOS:NDASH for scores is to also use it for won–loss records.—Bagumba (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Too much talking. I added the example. EEng 02:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

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:

• If you want to get technical, "Former Canadian hockey player" can be taken to mean "hockey player who was formerly Canadian"
• And if anybody ever wants to get technical, it's a Wikipedia editor
• And the status-before-nationality rule in some cases doesn't seem as strict as most of the others. "Canadian former hockey player" doesn't, for some reason, grate as badly as "Canadian old hockey player" or ""Canadian blue hockey player" (which would anyway be better rendered as "Canadian hockey player who, for some inexplicable reason, is blue") etc.

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?

• A: No, it's fine.
• B: Yes, and it should suggest status before nationality.
• C: Yes, and it should suggest nationality before status.
• 4: Yes, and it should say "Do as you think works best, but if somebody has already written it leave it as you found it".
• E: I don't care. And never mention this again.
• F: Mu. I unask the question, as all answers are absurd.
• G: Other (describe)
• H: Other (don't describe)
  Herostratus (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

• Whatever the right answer is, I'm sure it's not this: "Oshiomogho Isaac "O.J." Atogwe is a Canadian former American football player..." pburka (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  Oh yikes, that one's worst than you said. Oshiomogho Isaac "O.J." Atogwe (born June 23, 1981) is a Canadian former professional American football free safety[....]

  I think losing Canadian from the initial description would be a start, in line with my general remarks about nationality, and also "professional" and "free safety". Those things can be treated later. How about Oshiomogho Isaac "O.J." Atogwe (born June 23, 1981) is a former player of American football, of Canadian nationality. He played primarily at the free safety position. We don't need "professional" at all; it's normally understood that sports bios are of pros unless stated otherwise. --Trovatore (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  "is a Canadian former professional player of American football who was a free safety ..."—Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Blueboar: I think you're confusing him with a "Canadien former American football player." pburka (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• C Use "Canadian former hockey player". Former is an adjective operator that modifies what immediately follows it.[10] Order matters. Consider "child former actress", a child who used to be an actress, versus "former child actress" for an adult who used to act as a child.—Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • No, I would still say "former child actress", even if the girl were still a child who happened to quit acting. Consider two things: one, child actresses, present or former, whose acting career never extended into adulthood (or has not yet) are virtually never referred to as just "actresses" - always "child actresses". And, on the flip side of that, if the subject is still a child, we would not start off the article with "Lucy Brown, age 9, is a child and a former actress." We would say shes a "former child actress"; no one could construe that to mean shes a 9 year old that's no longer a child. Firejuggler86 (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

    I'll trust the reliable source, Slate, and the linguists they quoted: "The Secret Rules of Adjective Order". Slate. August 6, 2004. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• G I think we overdo adjective stacking in lead sentences. When country-of-origin and country-of-activity are different, why not say "is a former football player from Canada who played in the American National Football League", "is a cricket player from Malaysia who played for Germany", "is a retired Olympic swimmer from Australia who competed for Brunei", "is a former hockey player from the United States who played in the Canadian Hockey League"? Struck bad examples. "Is a retired hockey player from Canada". Schazjmd (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  Schazjmd: Actually, the case of a Canadian playing American football was not part of the original question.—Bagumba (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Not part of the original question, but is an extension of the original question with additional high-confusion-risk variables thrown in, for which we have an actual example...so, still on topic, methinks. BTW, Schazjmd, I don't think the examples you struck are bad at all - they seem to me like good, well written solutions :). Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• A or B - On the fence. In the particular example you gave, Herostratus, the way it should be written is "former Canadian hockey player"; the alternative reads as exceedingly clunky at best, and broken English at worst. I mean no unkindness here, but to anyone that would interpret that phrase as meaning the person is a "former Canadian" would be well advised to continue studying correct English grammar/usage; for that usage just does not exist in our language (but I do fully understand that other languages might phrase their sentences that way and how a second language English speaker coould be confused because of differences between phrasing in English vs phrasing in their native language). If we were describing a hockey player that was Canadian and is no longer so (let's say he defected to Soviet Russia or something), we would say "is a hockey player, formerly of Canada..." or similar.

• BUT, I am hesitant to commit to B because there may be other specific cases we aren't considering where nationality first would be optimal. Which is why I think it's generally best to avoid such fine-detailed prescription in MOS guidelines... Firejuggler86 (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

• I think that MOS:QUOTE is largely concerned with copying written text and doesn't consider transcription of spoken statements. I agree that this guidance would make sense, but only when quoting from an audio or video source, or from an unambiguously literal transcription of such a source (e.g. a court transcription). Such quotations should only be used very rarely, as they're likely primary sources, but it would be reasonable to, e.g., quote from Roger Ebert's video-recorded review in an article about a film. pburka (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Isn't this already covered in the second sentence of ⁋2 in MOS:PMC?

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

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

• And notice that WP:PMC says to use an ellipsis in substitution. EEng 15:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

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

• is a [[Japanese people|Japanese]]
• is a [[Japan|Japanese]] or is a [[Japan]]ese
• is an [[Americans|American]]
• is an [[United States|American]]
• is an [[Indian people|Indian]]
• is an [[India|Indian]] or is an [[India]]n, and so on

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)

I will also note that searching shows that this is somewhat of a widespread practice. The first three examples I gave appear in:

• 2,683 articles (for "is a Japanese"), 728 (for "was a Japanese")
• 217 (for "is a Japanese") and 66 (for "was a Japanese")
• 4,357 (for "is a Japanese") and 1,446 (for "was a Japanese") — Goszei (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I routinely unlink these when I run across them as usually not useful in "understanding the article". MB 16:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Only link the demonym in lede sentence if it is some very obscure nationality/ethnicity, and especially if it plays a significant role in the subject's notability. Responding to Jochem van Hees, if the subject of a people should arise in the article text (in a similar way as a language would), then I support wikilinking. This post seems to be specifically about wikilinking the demonym in the lede sentence of a biographical article. That would be ridiculous, IMO. Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  That would make sense I'd say; knowing more about someone's nationality is in most cases not important for understanding the article. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• These are generally not linked per MOS:OVERLINK.—Bagumba (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

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.[17] 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)

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)

• • I'm sorry, I find it extremely implausible that anyone proficient in English could possibly misconstrue "anti-death penalty laws" as "penalty laws that are against death" - one, because the phrase "death penalty" is near universally known, and two, even if it weren't "penalty laws that are against death" is completely nonsensical. As would be "punishment laws that are against capital" (maybe in Stalinist Russia 😁). I know that was somewhat the point you are arguing, and your focus was strictly on the construction rather than the words themselves, but honestly (and this is not said to any one particular editor), these types of abstract discussions wherein no example is produced that could reasonably cause confusion somewhat seem like solutions in search of a problem. Firejuggler86 (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    • It's not so much that I misunderstand the construction, it's that it takes longer to understand it at all because it doesn't fit the patterns I expect.--Khajidha (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. This seems like a hard issue to splice. It would seem unusual to me to follow MOS:PREFIXDASH but not MOS:SUFFIXDASH. It would be easier to adopt the same approach one way or the other. I was not aware that there was a recent no consensus decision on the proposal to use MOS:SUFFIXDASH in categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
• Perhaps my close was misguided. Normally if there is no consensus, we default to Keep. But if there's no consensus against MOS, should we instead default to apply MOS? (Any practical difficulties with dashes would easily be overcome using redirects.) – Fayenatic London 16:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, there clearly was no consensus in that discussion to apply the MOS, so you're not to be faulted for that. Applying the MOS as a default is an interesting suggestion, but I fear that doing that might be too controversial in discussions that fail to reach a consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - in addition to what I said above, I thought I should point out that likely more than 99% of readers have no clue about the difference between any of these kinds of dashes, and probably neither do the vast majority of editors. And the ones that do know the difference aren't going to be confused if the wrong one is used - annoyed, but not genuinely confused. I understand that fixing mjstakes is a very genuine pain in the ass, and I'm thankful to all the editors that do that kind of thing, and sympathise with their irritation that most editors can't be bothered to do these things correctly. However, I think volumes and volumes of MOS space dedicated to the proper use of dashes is largely preaching to the choir. Firejuggler86 (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)