Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:24, 6 January 2013 editEnric Naval (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,509 edits →What multiple reliable sources explicitly say - continuing: vague assertions... but never mind← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:54, 19 January 2025 edit undoLargoplazo (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers120,154 edits →Order of explanation for placing ref as per MOS:REFPUNCT Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header \|WT:MOS \|search=no }}
	{{Mbox
			{{FAQ\|quickedit=no\|collapsed=no}}
	\| type = content
			{{Round in circles\|search=yes}}
	\| image = ]
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	\| text= This page (along with all other MOS pages and ]) is subject to ] ]. See ]
			\|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive index

			\|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive <#>
	] and ] are subject to ] as a unit, one ] per editor on either the MOS page or its talk page ''per 24 hour period'', until 15 January, 2013.
			\|leading_zeros=0
	{{#switch: {{NAMESPACE}}
			\|indexhere=yes
	\| {{ns:0}} = ]<!-- Template:Article probation -->
			}}
	\| {{ns:Template}} = ]
			{{Section sizes}}
	}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell \|1=
			{{WikiProject Manual of Style}}
			{{Misplaced Pages Help Project\|importance=Top}}
	}}		}}
	{{talk header\|WT:MOS}}
	{{MOS/R}}
	{{tmbox\|small=yes\|text=For a list of suggested abbreviations for referring to style guides , see ].}}
	{{auto archiving notice\|bot=MiszaBot II\|age=7\|small=yes}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|algo = old(30d)
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive %(counter)d
	\|maxarchivesize = 200K
	\|counter = ~~134~~		\|counter = 228
			\|maxarchivesize = 900K
	\|algo = old(7d)
			\|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive %(counter)d
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|minthreadsleft = 4
	}}		}}
			]
			__TOC__
			{{clear right}}
			{{stb}}

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

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

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

			{{block indent\|1=<nowiki />
	"than", "from", "till", "Until" – ''... from ... Until...'' looks weird, does it not?
			'''Capitalization-specific:'''
			{{Excerpt\| Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters\|Current\|subsections=no}}
			}}

			===Concluded===
	To conform to this, '']'' had just been changed to '']'' – problem is, it seems to be spelled ''From Dusk Till Dawn'' virtually ''everywhere'' else (a similar case would be '']'' vs. IMDb's ''Stranger Than Fiction'');
			{{collapse top\|left=y\|title=Extended content}}

			<!--Please put newer additions at the top, by order of closure. -->
	also, it's still '']'', although "until" is just a one-letter-longer variant form of "till".
			* ] – Use en dash not hyphen in four paired names? ''Result:'' Yes.

			* ] – In short, should we use odd-ball stylization of band names and the like to match their marketing? (July–Aug. 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but a clear consensus against this idea, and against the underlying "conflict" premise; the proponent simply did not understand the policy.
	But if "till" were changed to "Till", we'd still have the lowercase "from", making for constructions like ''... from ... Until...'' and ''... from ... Till...''.
			** Various simultaneously executed RMs by the same proponent all concluded against the desired over-stylizations (usually ALL-CAPS) – some by affirmative consensus against, some by no consensus to move.

			* ] – Should British peers use their peerage title in place of their name in infoboxes? (June–July 2004) ''Result:'' archived without resolution. This needs to be RfCed.
	Changing "Until" to lowercase in turn would then be at variance with a whole host of other five-letters-or-longer prepositions and conjunctions.
			* ] – ]: "Shays'" or "Shays's"? ''Result:'' "Shays's". No objective rationale was presented for an exception to the guideline, and evidence shows "Shays's" common in source material even if "Shays'" is also common, especially in older sources.

			* ] – Should multiple entries be formatted as a list or a single phrase? (Apr.–May 2024) ''Result:'' 4:1 against proposed change to a list format; alternative idea at end neither accepted nor rejected.
	Seriously, what the heck? I'm confused out of my mind...
			* ] – Do flags in this infobox serve a "useful purpose" per ] or are they primarily decorative and should be removed? (Apr.–May 2004) ''Result:'' 3:1 against inclusion; the 1 did not read or understand the entire guideline. See also later ].

			* ] – Primarily on a recent habit of military-conflict articles having collages of 4, 6, or even more images in their infobox. (Mar.–May 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but a clear consensus against this practice; image galleries (when appropriate at all per ]) belong in the article body.
	:As a followup, more contradictory examples:
			* ] – ] (and ]) in "day of year" (DoY) article candidates for "featured list". (Feb. 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, and little clear consensus other than that ] / ] apply, as does ].
	:
			* ] – On ] vs. ], etc. (Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' No clear consensus reached; a great deal of sourcing is provided, but there's a feeling that real-world usage varies considerably on a case-by-case basis, so ] might invididually trump ]. Worth revisiting in a few years to see whether source usage has shifted.
	:'']''
			* ] (moved from WP:VPPOL) – Yet another round of this long-term, multi-RfC process. Consensus about "deadnames" seemed possible this time but was mostly elusive. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' no consensus to change the wording of MOS:GENDERID based on this proposal; consensus against changing "should be included" to "may be included".
	:
			** Related: See numerous previous deadname-related and more general GENDERID discussions listed below.
	:vs.
			* ] – Proposal to merge a "guideline in all but name" into MoS. (Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' consensus to promote to a guideline (after some significant revisions).
	:
			* ] – Peripherally related to ] and ]. (Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Consensus to increase to 250px.
	:'']''
			* ] – ] has long been considered too complicated and hard to follow. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' input stalled out over the holidays, then it was archived without resolution.
	:'']''
			** ] – Abortive, unclear RfC that resolved nothing. (May–Sep. 2023) ''Result:'' unanimously opposed.
	:'']''
			* ] – Involves ], ], ], ]. (Oct.2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Archived without closure. There does not seem to be a compelling reason for this ALL-CAPS behavior in the template/module, but it was still happening in Nov. 2024.
	:'']''
			** Discussion re-opened at ] (Nov. 2024). Changed to lowercase ; we'll see if that sticks.
	:
			* ] – Involves ], ], ], ], ], etc. (Oct. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but there seems to be no appetite for diverging from ], and the OP commingled unrelated cases like stagenames of real people.
	:''Please'', someone knowledgeable (What's the basis for the"shorter than five letters" rule? Where does it come from? Sources?) comment. While I ''do'' have a preference
			* ] – About use of {{tlx\|sronly}} around table captions (which are primarily for screen readers) to hide them from the usual non-screen-reader view, only when their content repeats what is in the table headers. (Nov.–Dec. 2023) ''Result'': Archived without firm resolion. As there was but one opposer of the idea, there is no consensus against doing this. If more opposition arose or some reason, open an RfC about it.
	:
			* ] – Involves ]. (Oct. 2023 – Feb. 2024) ''Result:'' Thinly attended, but there does seem to be a linguistics standard to render ]s in {{sc2\|smallcaps}}, so this has been accounted for and added to the exception lists at ] (since our articles are consistently doing it based on that sourcing).
	:– Honestly, don't the lowercased variations look downright weird to you, too? Like, did you ''ever'' see "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" given as "... over ..."? –,
			* ] – On ] and whether to add another example to it. (Oct. 2023) ''Result'': Discussion archived without a clear conclusion.
	:
			* ] – On use of a template to link Korean characters to Wiktionary (Jan. 2024). ''Result'': general consensus to not do that excessive linking; and a bot request made to clean it up.
	:I'm ready to put that aside if presented with ''logical'' and ''consistent'' guidelines. As is, it's confusing (I didn't change '']'' to ''... Over ...'' out of spite, but simply because I had its spelling elsewhere ''and'' entries like '']'' in mind) and handled ''in''consistently. – ] (]) 19:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
			* ] – Use an en dash instead of a hyphen? ''Result'': Withdrawn
	::The correct approach is to defer to common usage, and spell things the way the rest of the world spells them. Anything else is original research and is prohibited in wikipedia. ] (]) 20:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
			*] – Move review on Pākehā settlers vs. European settlers in New Zealand, related to ], ], ], ] (Feb. 2024). ''Result:'' There were many steps in this process but ultimately ] was moved to ].
	:::We've always imposed local capitalization rules, regardless of how they are capitalized in the original or other sources. That's what ] is about. I tend to agree wth this editor (whose name I can't type) that this particular rule is on shaky ground.—](]) 20:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
			* ] – To treat word-substitutions ("U" for "You", "❤️" for "Heart", {{nowrap\|"..."}} for elided wording), as "words" for the purposes of a particular line-item about title-case treatment. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Done, with unanimous support.
	::::I'm in favor of styling the caps consistently, but yeah, I think the 5-letter rule needs to be improved. Either an explicit list of words (and usages, for words that might be prepositions sometimes and other parts of speech others), or an explicit list of exceptions to the 5-letter rule, if the first list is unwieldy. -- ] (]) 20:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
			* ] – To merge a line-item (about stylization of stage/pen names) out of MOS:INITIALS (where the one of the examples is only semi-pertinent anyway) and into ], leaving behind a cross-reference to MOS:TM from ]. (Nov.–Dec. 2023) ''Result:'' Because of some things that apply to personal not corporate names, this ended up not being practical; intead the MOS:BIO material was cleaned up and cross-references between the two MOS sections was improved; description at: ]. No objections or other issues have come up.
	:::House style guidelines are not original research. -- ] (]) 20:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
			* ] – Proposal to add something to ]. (Oct.–Dec. 2023) ''Result:'' "no consensus as to whether or how to standardize ISBNs or whether to subject them to a CITEVAR-like rule .... The closest thing we have to a consensus here is that spaces (option 4) should not be used."
	::::I for one will not wilfully go directly against the MoS in its current form (though, I might again by mistake). However, if the powers that be are insisting on sticking to that rule, I think the uninformed readers and editors deserve an explanation as to why the Encyclopædia Britannica, IMDb, AllRovi, Rotten Tomatoes, blu-ray.com, IGN, NNDB, Amazon, cduniverse.com, ''The New York Times'', the ''Washington Post'', the ''L.A. Times'', ''Time'' magazine, the marketing divisions of film studios and countless others supposedly have got it so wrong. – ] <small>(or, romanized, "ho oistros")</small> (]) 21:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
			* ] – About changing ] to specify a format (new or otherwise) for betting-odds ratios. (Oct.–Dec. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but apparent general agreement that the <code>:</code> style for ratios in general applies to odds ratio in particular like the rest, and MOS:RATIOS updated to say this.
	:::::It's possibly a British/American English thing. All those sources are American, but the British Film Institute opts for lower capitalisation: . ] (]) 21:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
			* ] – Primarily a matter of article title, but there are related issues such as capitalisation. (Nov. 2023) ''Result:'' basically stalled out, without resolution/action. Specific revision proposal is needed.

			* ] – Also involves ]. RfC on "season 3, episode 7" vs. "season three, episode seven" styles (and probably also "seventh season" vs. "7th season", etc.). (Oct.–Nov. 2023) ''Result:'' "season and episode numbers should be expressed as numerals in tables, headings, and article body" (revision of a previous, less clear close).
	:::::Variations in style need not be explained as errors. ] (]) 21:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
			* ] – On how WP uses terms like "terrorist/terrorism" and "freedom fighter", specifically to add a requirement "these words should only be used in quotations or referencing third-party use of the term". (Oct. 2023) ''Result:'' "nearly unanimously opposed".

			* ] – Involves ], ], etc. (Sep.–Oct. 2023) ''Result:'' "rough consensus to allow for lowercase or capital letters after dashes or colons in article titles, section titles, and list items".
	::Styles vary. Among guides that resemble ours on this four-letter rule are and and . ] (]) 21:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
			* ] – ] / ] and Northern Ireland again. (Sep.–Oct. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but near-unanimous consensus against using national flags as ethnicity symbols.

			* ] – Involves ] and could have implications for what the guideline says due to wildfire news bringing many more editorial eyes to that page than to ]. (Aug.–Sep. 2023) ''Result:'' Archived without closure or any clear consensus; the general gist seems to be that the state of Hawaii is named Hawaii, the island is named Hawaiʻi, and diacritics (] and ]) should not be suppressed in the more localized names (and the US Geological Survey, which sets official placenames, along with the Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names, which basically tells USGS what to do in Hawaii/Hawaiʻi, both agree).
	:::Thanks for the links. However, two weren't searchable and within the excerpts of the third that were accessible I couldn't find any pertaining sections. There certainly must be a stronger case for that choice, right? How was it arrived at in the first place? Was it ever properly hashed out with broad participation?
			* ] – ] stuff. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' Not moved. Lots of invalid arguments, and confused attempt to pit ] against MoS (COMMONNAME is not a style policy, never has been one, and never will be; every proposal to incorporate a style matter into a policy has failed).
	::::The first gives the rule {{quote\|Capitalize the main words in a title and the first and last word, but do not capitalize a, the, to, or prepositions and conjunctions of fewer than five letters when they occur in the middle of the title.}}
			* ] – Wikiproject propsal to change ] or ]. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' wrong venue, and to the extent people commented on using 24-hour time, it was mostly opposed.

			** ] – Above question was raised at a specific article as a "local consensus" matter. (Aug.–Sep. 2023) ''Result:'' unanimous opposition to 24-hour time.
	::::It goes on to say that "The Moon is Down" is wrong because is, though a short word is an important word, and that "Travels With Charley" is wrong. I would hasten to add that the advice, though, is to Hemingway or Steinbeck and to the publisher - were they to have chosen a capital letter, we would be constrained to report that error, in my opinion, although we would not be constrained to use all capitals, as many books do for their titles.
			* ] – Follow-up to "unfruitful" discussions at ], etc. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure; general agreement basically boils down to "write clearly and don't confuse or over-simplify with an adjective".

			* ] – Wikiproject proposal to change rank abbreviations (to NATO style) in ]. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' no formal closure, but overwhelming consensus to stick with MoS and ignore NATO preferences.
	::::The second uses the rule to "Capitalize significant words in titles", and here the advice given is to people like wikipedia editors, where the advise is not on how to construct a title, but how to report a title, although the advice on "importance" I would say is more easily determined by the creator of the work. It says {{quote\|The classic system is to capitalize the initial letters of the first and last words of a title or subtitle, as well as all major (or "significant") words. Do not capitalize articles (a, an, the), conjunctions (and, but, if) or short prepositions (at, in, on, of) unless they begin the title.}}
			* ] – And some alternative ideas, including merger into ]. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, and the idea was mostly opposed, with no effect but returning all of the shortcuts (], ], ], ], ]) that someone changed to point to the ] essay to now point back to the real guideline at ].

			** The essay has since been retooled to be an exegesis of the guideline, though attempts at ]ing are likely to continue, as this is one of our most hotbed internal topics. See also the guideline ], and the essays ] and ].
	::::The third gives the sage advice that {{quote\|The use of capital, or uppercase, letters is determined by custom. They are used to call attention to certain words, such as proper nouns and the first word of a sentence.}}
			** ] – Proposal to move the MoS material into WP:BLP. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' Procedurally closed as "premature".
	::::and goes on to say {{quote\|Capitalize the initial letters of the first and last words of the title of a book, an article, a play, or a film, as well as all major words in the title. Do not capitalize articles (a, an, the) or coordinating conjunctions (and, but, for, or, nor, yet, so), unless they bigin or end the title (The Lives of a Cell). Capitalize propositions within titles only when they contain more than four letters (Between, Within, Until, After), unless you are following a style that recommends otherwise.}}
			* ] – Should the en dash have spaces around it; should it be an em dash? ''Result:'' moved to spaced en dash.

			* ] and ] – Relating to concordance between wikidata descriptions and enwiki "short description". (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' Good summary: "as long as you choose a comprehensible form, your edits are fine. However, you should not change existing descriptions for stylistic reasons, and also not to unify desriptions for a given set of items"; also observations that various languages, e.g. Spanish, do not use an en dash for this purpose. So, Wikidata will not be changing away from hyphen as default, and any desire to have WD material, like automatically provided short descriptions, will have to do that change on our end.
	::::This advice appears to apply both to originators and reports of works. ] (]) 23:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
			* ] and ] – Use "&" or "and"? (see ]). ''Result:'' Follow ]; the essay ] conflicting with the guideline and with ] policy was noted, and this ] was fixed in Jan. 2024. The second of these actually closed as "no consensus" because the ] who closed it did not know of ] policy and incorrectly treated policy- and guideline-based arguments as no stronger than those based on a contrary essay.
	:::::''Down'' in "The Moon is Down" is an adjective, not a preposition. I.e., ''down'' is serving the same function as ''red'' in the construction ''the moon is red''. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 01:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
			* ] – Some re-wording proposals, and even a suggestion to remove the language entirely. (July 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, and did not result in wording changes, though a re-do might come to such a conclusion.
	:::Betty Logan, the BFI is an interesting find. On the other hand, a quick perusing of other British organs – such as ''The Daily Telegraph'', ''Financial Times'', ''The Guardian'' and ''The Independent'' – showed no support for the "shorter than five letters" rule. – ] (]) 22:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
			* ] – move to ] like ], or is there a reason to hyphenate as ]? (July 2023) ''Result:'' Not moved. The closer actually misunderstood the guideline wording badly, and this has created a ] policy failure with titles of other such entities including AFL–CIO, and the Famous Players-Lasky decision covered just below. This probably needs to be re-done.
	::::Where the MOS can become OR is if ''no one'' writes "Somewhere over the Rainbow", and ''only'' Misplaced Pages writes it that way, that clearly is OR. Ditto if ''no one'' changes all caps in RUBBER SOUL to Rubber Soul, that is also OR. WP reports what the world does, and is, without making things up, which is what OR is. ] (]) 22:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
			** ] – ditto. ''Result:'' Procedurally closed as a ] of the RM above.
	:::::It would be best not to keep confusing the content policy ] with styling guidelines; and this song is an odd case, since its actual title is ]. And it does appear in some sources with lower case "over", . And you're not seriously proposing that we use all caps in ], are you? ] (]) 23:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
			* ] – proposal to use dash instead of hyphen. (June–July 2023) ''Result:'' Use the dash per ]; a followup RM to add "Corporation" to the title rejected that idea despite ] supporting it, one of several recent RM incidents suggesting that at least some portions of the page do not enjoy consensus.

			* ] – Proposal to change ] that "encyclopaedic significance of the deadname established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources, or if they were notable prior to transitioning". (June–July 2023) ''Result:'' "no clear consensus".
	::The thing to do when you find such inconsistencies is just to work on them. It is not surprising that WP still has lots of style inconsistencies. The MOS provides the guidance for which way to go to make things better. For example, Gerschwin's ] can be moved to lower-case over, which is . See the first sentence of ], which is what distinguishes our style from some others. ] (]) 23:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
			* ] – Primarily about "When should Misplaced Pages articles include the former name of a deceased trans or nonbinary person who was not notable prior to transitioning?" (May–June 2023) ''Result:'' "there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. Where, exactly, the lines of encyclopedic interest and avoiding confusion are is not simple or clear and will likely need discussion on individual articles, although there is definitely space for more guidance in the MOS". This has let to a lot of follow-on discussion and dispute.
	:::There are two problems with that though - first does it appear to accurately represent the actual title, and second while some books use "over" instead of "Over", "Over" is the preferred choice. But that is misleading because Someone to Watch Over Me is a popular book title, used by perhaps dozens of authors. Click on the Ngram links at the bottom, and try to even find references to Gershwin in any of the more recent citations. ] (]) 01:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
			* ] – Proposal to move section to naming-convention guideline. (June 2023) ''Result:'' no pro or con input; re-opened (Jan. 2024) on main MoS page.

			* ] – Proposal to make anti-deadnaming rules apply to the long-deceased as well. (Apr.–May 2023) ''Result:'' No consensus to remove ''living'', so "the ''living'' qualifier, shall remain in place". The May–June 2023 RfC above was an outgrowth of this discussion.
	::::Since ''Google Ngram Viewer'' is all about quantity (not quality), I don't see how this would be a suitable tool for establishing guidelines. Like, there are also significant instances of
			* ] – essential information, or icon cruft? (Mar.–Apr. 2023) ''Result:'' "There is consensus against inclusion of rank icons."
	::::
			* ] – involves ] and ]. (Feb.–Mar. 2023) ''Result:'' no consensus to use "v"; continue to use "vs." or "vs" as suits the ] of the article.
	:::: <small>(treacherous, as the eponymous German valley actually is spelled "Neandertal")</small>
			* ] – Should an external style guide be used in place of ] in chapter lists (e.g. ])? (Jan.–Feb. 2023) ''Result:'' Insufficient input to reach a consensus. Needs to be RfCed. But the {{lang\|la\|status quo}} default principle is that a lack of consensus to create an exception to general rules does not result in such an exception.
	::::vs.
			* ] – Open discussion as to whether decimalized years should be used in personal biographies. (Jan. 2023) ''Result:'' discussion archived; majority felt that decimalized years are not standard in biographical prose and should be limited to a statistical/mathematical context.
	::::"Neanderthal" or
			<!--Please put newer entries at the top.-->
	::::
			{{block indent\|1=<nowiki />
	::::
			{{Excerpt\| Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters\|Concluded\|subsections=no}}
	::::vs.
			}}
	::::"minuscule".
			{{collapse bottom}}
	::::
	::::The BFI, the lonely major source brought up that seems to use lowercasing for prepositions such as "over", also is ''not'' consistent with Misplaced Pages's MoS; e.g.,
	::::
	::::
	::::vs.
	::::'']''. – ] (]) 12:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

	What I find interesting about all these style guides is that the question isn't really what to do with four character prepositions, it's what to do with five-and-longer ones. I think ''all'' of them would have "over" be in lower case, but some of them simply say that prepositions should be in lower case, and give no different rule for longer ones.—](]) 15:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
	:The more important rule is to capitalize "significant words" in a title. As to NGRAMs, that is a title issue, not a MOS issue. ] (]) 05:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

	{{outdent}}{{anchor\|Pc}}
	While I personally think we should just go the IMDb way (as ungainly as some of the titles there look) and style everything according to the guidelines used there, to take ] up on his proposal, how about modifying ] to accommodate for these spelling versions?:

	<small>]:]</small>
	*''From Dusk till Dawn'' (covered by current policy)
	*''Wait until Dark'' ('''not''' covered by current policy)
	*''Stranger than Fiction'' (covered by current policy)
	*''My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean'' / ''One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'' ('''not''' covered by current policy)
	*''20000 Leagues Under the Sea'' (covered by current policy)
	*''Once Upon a Time in America'' ('''not''' covered by current policy)
	*''Girl Walks into a Bar'' (covered by current policy) <small>– not sure it shouldn't be "Into", though (even if it looks as ugly as "Is")</small>
	*''The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain'' ('''not''' covered by current policy)
	*''It Came from Outer Space'' (covered by current policy)
	*''From Russia with Love'' (covered by current policy)
	<small>]:]</small>
	*''Blue Like Jazz'' ('''not''' covered by current policy)
	*''Bridge Over Troubled Water'' ('''not''' covered by current policy)
	*Alternate ''From Dusk Till Dawn'' ('''not''' covered by current policy)
	*''33⅓ Revolutions Per Monkee'' ('''not''' covered by current policy)
	*''Star Trek Into Darkness'' ('''not''' covered by current policy)
	*

	Would be a compromise / hybrid of "both worlds": even more lowercasing but at the same time allowing for some exceptions to avoid counter-intuitive "butt-ugliness". – ] (]) 12:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
	::The proper title of the last is logically ''Star Trek: Into Darkness'' (regardless what IMDb says - it is not a reliable source), so the "into" would be capitalized regardless of this debate (first or last word of a title or subtitle). 01:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	:Added an alternate result for ''From Dusk Till Dawn'', and added ''Bridge Over Troubled Water'', ''Blue Like Jazz'', and ''33⅓ Revolutions Per Monkee''. We can sort the ] into "capitalized (when used as a preposition, as long as it's not the first or last word in a title or subtitle)" and "uncapitalized (unless it's either not used as a preposition or the first or last word in a title or subtitle)" -- ] (]) 12:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

	::Seems to me you're advocating the IMDb model. I'd be all for that, the only constructions looking rather weird there that I can think of off the top of my head would be
	::
	::''... from ... Until...'' and
	::''... from ... Till....''
	::
	::(as already mentioned in my very first post). Also, there's the question of "into" vs. "Into". Case for the former: it's just "in" and "to" put together; case for the latter: "Upon" and the like (but then, at IMDb, it's "Up" vs. "in"). Good idea about using that list. – ] (]) 14:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::Thanks. I don't mean to advocate for deferring all of our titles to the IMDb's choice of caps. If we coincidentally land there, that's fine though. I don't think we should worry about which tiny words were assembled into which short words; the short words are now different enough and can't be simply replaced with their bits. Added one more: "Into Darkness" appears to be a subtitle in the new Star Trek film, even if they've made the weird call to omit a colon or hyphen or anything else. -- ] (]) 14:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

	::::I would not prefer IMDb's capitalization because it's IMDb, but because that ''seems'' to be the standard used, well, almost everywhere (if someone has the answer, I'd still like to know ''where'' they have borrowed it from).
	::::
	::::Under (section ''Capitalization and character sets''), they merely state:
	::::
	::::"English language words which must begin with a lower-case letter are: '''an and as at by for from in of on or the to with'''".
	::::
	::::It doesn't get simpler than that. Granted, it's a bit nonchalantly / loosely worded, omitting clarifications such as "unless they begin or end a title" (although that's taken into account), but I'm sure there are some Wikipedians who could elegantly and comprehensively incorporate the principles behind it into the existing MoS, while keeping it clear and readily accessible for everybody.
	::::
	::::I suggest either adopting that approach in whole (which would cover ''everything'' ] would like to see) or amending it by adding
	::::
	::::'''till''',
	::::'''until''',
	::::'''into''',
	::::'''onto''' and
	::::'''than''' (but not ''Then'')
	::::
	::::to their list and be done with it (good-bye, "shorter than five letters" rule).
	::::
	::::(By the way, browsing the database, you will find that IMDb is not always applying their own compass consistently, either, but in virtually every case that's just a matter of erroneous submissions that are open for correction – in the few cases where it's deliberate, then that's because they also do respect how the creators want their work spelled.) – ] (]) 19:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::I see; I had misunderstood the IMDb suggestion, sorry! Yes, I'd be fine adopting their list, or adopting a similar list (such as your additions). I think I'd capitalize Till and Until and Than, but I've got no heartburn if WP decides to lowercase them. -- ] (]) 19:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

	::::::That's the way I saw it, too. Actually, that's the reason all this started, as I – unwitting of the "shorter than five letters" rule – wanted to move '']'' to ''From Noon Till Three''. Meanwhile (primarily because of the unsightliness of "... from ... Till/Until ...", as in ''Lora from Morning Till Evening''), I'd lowercase those few words. But crossing a ''Bridge '''over''' Troubled Water''? I don't see that. – ] (]) 20:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
	'''Commment'''. This discussion seems to be quite film-centric, and maybe isn't taking fully into account the requirements of other projects that have prominent usage of composition titles, but surely we should be discussing any changes in terms of published style guides, and which we should take our lead from, rather than in terms of what other websites do. --] (]) 13:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
	:But surely we are not restricted to published styles guides as the only input to this discussion. -- ] (]) 13:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
	::I'm not sure. Isn't there an element of making up our own rules for the English language if we just copy what others do (or seem to do), rather than following established guidelines for usage? I guess it could be seen as ]. --] (]) 13:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
	::: Establish guidelines contradict each other, so we'll have to "make up our rules" (or make up our minds) regardless, no one's suggesting we "just" copy what others seem to do, and style guidelines are not encyclopedia articles, so it can't be seen as ]. Also, the problems above also include musical compositions/ -- ] (]) 14:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::: Yes, but we should be debating this in terms of the contradictions between the style guides and which established style we should adopt, not look to other websites to see what they do, without knowing their reasoning behind it (unless of course they have a published style guide). We don't know ''why'' the BFI or IMDB make the decisions they do. For all we know they could use a completely arbitrary system, so we shouldn't be following them. --] (]) 15:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::: I disagree. We should be debating this in terms of what makes the most sense (or best improvement) for Misplaced Pages. If a hypothetically arbitrary system makes the most sense for WP or results in the most improvement, we should use it. -- ] (]) 15:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::: That's just anarchy! :) Should we start using arbitrary systems of punctuation and spelling too? We need to ensure our style guide has some basis in established usage. Whether that proves to be slavishly following one manual, or cherrypicking between different manuals, that's fine by me, but we shouldn't be inventing our own rules without seeking a precedent. --] (]) 15:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::: I doubt any system (capitalization, spelling, or punctuation) that makes sense for WP will be arbitrary, and none of the systems under discussion are arbitrary or without precedent. -- ] (]) 16:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::: Well, there is a suggestion above to copy what IMDB do, but also to add a few four letter prepositions, but not all of them, and there is no mention of phrasal verbs (which is what brought me to this discussion!). This seems pretty arbitrary and doesn't seem to follow any of the accepted precedents for title capitalisation. I wasn't party to earlier discussions regarding the current style guideline, but they seem to have been well considered, and to me, the proposed changes seem whimsical. Any changes should be considered more widely, and we should seek broad input from other projects, particularly literature and language projects, rather than base the changes on what an internet movie database (that we don't even trust as a reliable source) use for their criteria of titling films, then adding a few arbitrarily chosen prepositions of our own. --] (]) 16:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::: No one's suggesting any change to the way we handle phrasal verbs (we continue to capitalize them in all cases). This discussion is just around prepositions, but without any arbitrariness (no one's suggesting we cast lots to see which prepositions are capitalized). -- ] (]) 17:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

	To respond to the original post, I have no idea where the "five letter" so-called rule came from, and disagree with it (and wonder who added it, with what supposed consensus), but it's a moot point. We don't change the titles of published works, last I looked, if they are consistently done a particular way. Now, if movie posters for ''From Dusk Till Dawn'' sometimes spelled it "till", we'd have a case for applying MOS's lower-casing rule, but otherwise we don't. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 02:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
	:Actually, we ignore the capitalization used in the work and all reliable sources in favor of our own MOS, and not doing so would be an even harder change to get through.—](]) 02:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
	::I think SMcCandlish's point is that we typically do something like what ] makes explicit: ''editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English''. It makes as much sense for composition titles as for trademarks, perhaps. ] (]) 05:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::Read again. He's saying we wouldn't apply our MOS rule to write "Dusk till Dawn" unless the movie posters used it inconsistently. That's just not the case.—](]) 06:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::Well, I won't try to speak for him. But I'm unclear on what you're saying. Are you stating your opinion of what we should do, or an interpretation of what we do do? In terms of "styles already in use", "till" is certainly , though maybe not in movie posters, which isn't were ] would suggest we look. If he really meant we should restrict to what we find on movie posters, I'd say, no, that's not what MOS suggests, nor what we do. ] (]) 06:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::I was using posters as an example (add in press releases, reviews, IMDb listing, DVD cover, etc., etc.) If the title of the work is consistently spelled/capitalized/punctuated one way, why would we change it? I haven't seen anyone move '']'' to a "correctly spelled" article name. On this micro-issue, I can only speak to what I do personally, which is name a work according to how it is spelled, if that's consistent, but if it hasn't been consistent and thus there is no "official" name, change it to what MOS prefers. I have not paid any attention to what others have been doing with such titles. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 01:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Spelling and styling are two different issues. Of course we shouldn't change a spelling, but as far as style goes we follow our own MOS for capitalisation of composition titles per ], regardless of the published capitalisation. --] (]) 11:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::Not everyone entirely agrees that they are different issues. If you look at our most noisy and fractious perennial disputes here, you'll see that quite a few of them (most recently dashes vs. hyphens) come about because not everyone agrees they're distinguishable concerns in all cases. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 22:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

	== What multiple reliable sources explicitly say - continuing ==

	Continuing from ], with permission from closing admin (]).

	As I was saying, the IAU is the authority to be followed in comet names, it has prescribed hyphens, and a personal email has confirmed that they don't want dashes used as a replacement for hyphens. Waiting for a comment from Peter Coxhead. --] (]) 18:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

	:It seems to me that all of these punctuation/capitalization arguments for named things (comets, airports, works of art, trademarks) boil down to a choice among three possibilities:
	:'''A. Authoritative''' – As published by the naming authority, inventor, etc.
	:* What if the authority is typographically unreliable, routinely using all-caps, inconsistent style, or doesn't seem to know that there's a difference between a dash and a hyphen? <small></small>
	:'''B. ]''' – The way it is usually seen by the general public in print.
	:* How do we filter out the sources that don't know the difference between a dash and a hyphen, or have inconsistent editing/styles (creeping into even the most well respected of pubs)? <small></small>
	:'''C. Misplaced Pages style''' – According to ], using "proper English grammar and punctuation", ignoring that it is a given name.
	:* MOS ] about "proper English grammar and punctuation". MOS, determined by consensus, makes no pretense that it has discovered what is "proper", but rather '''MOS has selected, from many possibilities, a set of simple rules that editors can follow for consistency.''' The argument presented here also fails to understand that ]. <small>— <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 04:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)</small>
	:I'm pretty sure I don't like '''C''', but the other two are problematic in their own ways, and I'm not sure there can be a one-fits-all rule for when they disagree or do not yield clear majorities after filtering (not that it even seems reasonable to do that much work in each case). I'm leaning towards '''B''' in the hope that reasonably typographically and editorially reliable sources still predominate. <font color="red">—[</font>](])<font color="red">]—</font> 20:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::I've clarified C so that the ] fallacy in it is important, and suggested alternative wording, in bold. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 06:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::For years A and B were the only options. When C was introduced last year it wrecked havoc, causing things to be very oddly named. Choosing between A and B is a constant theme at WP:RM, and there will never be any option of not doing so (William Jefferson Clinton vs. Bill Clinton). ] (]) 21:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::No havoc was wreaked. Editors who disagree with the consensus disagree, and a small subset portray that disagreement in apocalyptic terms. -- ] (]) 21:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::That is obviously disputed. Creating names that do not exist for hundreds of items is in my view clearly havoc. ] (]) 01:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::It's not clear what you mean by "creating names that do not exist". Personally, when choosing styling for article titles, I follow the advice in ], and choose from among styles used in reliable sources. I'm pretty sure that of all of the articles with en dashes that you have complained about and challenged, all are found with the same en dash styling in reliable sources. I'm not saying the MOS requires this (except for trademarks), just that I restrict my moves to such cases, to avoid controversy. I can't recall the last time anyone challenged such titles with sensible en dashes backed up by sources (besides you and now Enric who has joined you). I agree that "Creating names that do not exist for hundreds of items" might be a bad idea, but it's nothing like what's happening that you're bitching about. Your claim "This is obviously disputed" is just more whining. Cut it out. ] (]) 07:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Exactly. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 05:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Also, this idea that styling of titles like text per the MOS is something that started last year is wrong. We've been doing that for all the years I've been at WP, at least since 2005 (like ), and I've seen some en dash titles go back to even earlier. Most do not provoke any controversy. ] (]) 07:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::As far as I could tell, without checking them closely, all of those are pedantically correct, but annoying to anyone who does not like dashes in titles. But prior to 2008 there were technical restrictions on using dashes in titles anyway. None of those were proper nouns as far as I could tell. While it is annoying to me to see dashes used for something like the Michelson-Morley experiment - something that is rarely spelled with a dash, it is the proper nouns that are of more concern. But strictly speaking all should be named following common usage and not try to be pedantically correct. It is pretty easy to form an analogy between learning a little bit about something and then going out and applying that knowledge in areas that it no longer applies, which is exactly what was done. Show me one style guide that has an example of a bridge, war, airport, comet, or any other proper noun spelled with a dash. I can not find any in New Hart's Rules. I think we just made that up, and it just is not justifiable. ] (]) 08:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::{{strong\|That's the crux of the matter: {{tq\|"anyone who does not like dashes in titles"}}. That's a baldfaced ] argument, and no basis for a change in MOS.}} There is probably no one on WP who can't think of something they don't like in MOS, but they deal with it and don't throw months-long, forum-shopping, disruptive hissy fits about it. And this "rarely spelled with a dash" crap is nonsense and you know it. It's been explained to you dozens of times that dashes are somewhat uncommon in news and other run-of-the-mill prose, simply for expediency reasons: keyboards don't have dash keys, and people on deadline won't bother to figure out how to insert one. You know this is true, but you ] to your ridiculously ]. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 05:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::@ Alan: COMMONNAME governs names, the MOS the formatting of those names. Trying to follow COMMONNAME for stylistic choices and punctuation results in all sorts of inconsistencies, which is why print publishers drew up MOS's in the first place. — ] (]) 21:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::And we are not a print publisher. ] (]) 08:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::This is not a ] matter; as usual, you do not appear to have understood the policy you are making reference to. There is no conflict between what WP is doing and what a print encyclopedia would do on this issue. In actuality, WP needs an MoS even more than a print publisher would, because we have orders of magnitude more writer-editors and readers, facing orders of magnitude more subjects, the specialists in all of which would blissfully impose their own style on "]" and its articles, regardless of the effects this might have on non-specialists (and on specialists in other fields). Until you actually absorb and understand WP policies and guidelines better, you'd do well to steer clear of trying to cite them in arguments on which almost everyone is disagreeing with you (hint: you're probably making a mistake if this happens), especially ones you're already being RFC/U'd for. You should not even be squabbling here about this at all, unless your intent is to further convince people that your ] is to ], until you get ]ed. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 04:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}
	B is often the worst of all possible choices, it seems to me. It will often lead to inconsistency and dispute, especially in an international encyclopaedia, since what is "common" in a topic area in one country is often not in another.

	I strongly support following internationally recognized authorities whose remit is nomenclature, where these exist. Where they don't, Misplaced Pages is entitled to draw up its own guidance, but this must be based on ''consensus'' not the dictatorship of the majority.

	If the IAU explicitly mandates hyphens rather than dashes in comet names, then this style should, of course, be followed. ] (]) 23:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

	:But they don't mandate anything about, or even recognize the existence of, en dashes. Enric didn't ask about en dashes, and the response didn't say; the guy interpreted the question about "dash" to be about the sentence punctuation dash, not the en dash, as his response makes clear: "Dashes are marks like semi-colons, commas, and periods, used grammatically in sentence structure. Hyphens link words together, not dashes." He thereby declared himself ignorant of the concept of an en dash, which is not so unusual. He did say "It is strictly not correct to write 'Comet Hale-Bopp'", which I assume applies also to the form with an en dash. But that's not so useful here, since Comet Hale–Bopp is what it's commonly called, and we use COMMONNAME (option B) for titles, not official designators (option A) like his suggestion "Comet C/1995 O1 (Hale-Bopp)". Styling is a different matter. Option C is not an alternative to A or B, but goes along with either or both; perhaps better with B. On whether the IAU mandates, or even recommends, a typographical styling, one could ask them if always gets it wrong; or ; or . They probably won't understand the question, just as they didn't understand Enric's. ] (]) 00:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
	::(I mean to respond to AlanM1, not Dicklyon, but couldn't figure out how to do so with the out-dent.) I don't really think it matters what the IAU thinks is the best name. Even leaving aside the possibility of a gramatically-ignorant official source – which seems to possibly be the case here – I nonetheless think that "C" is the best option of these. Are we really going to create a whole list of exceptions to the en-dash formatting rules for particular situations where "official" sources disagree with us? What if there are multiple competing "official" sources with different rules? Or what if common usage is ambiguous? Do we discount sources that appear not to distinguish between hyphens and dashes? Personally I think that the MOS' rules about dash use are confusing enough without a laundry list of particular exceptions for instances where the "official" or common name uses a hyphen rather than a dash. ] ] 01:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::How about another email, this time asking explicitly for en dashes?

	:::@Agnosticaphid. In this case there is only only one naming authority and only one rule, just like the case of the cultivar names. --] (]) 13:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::I just meant that the MOS would have to say, "instead of an en dash to link these independent elements, comets use hyphens per the IAU," and then presumably there are other instances where the "official" source uses a hyphen, so we'd have to add whatever those things are, and to me it all seems a bit unmanageable and inconsistent with the purpose of the MOS which I think is to ensure stylistic consistency.] ] 15:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Well, this is an encyclopedia, it should write hyphenated names with a hyphen. It shouldn't force dash usage to enforce stylistic consistency. I can't imagine Britannica or Merriam-Webster writing Hale-Bopp with a dash just to enforce some internal style rule. They write it with a hyphen.

	:::::The Chicago MOS 16 th edition defers to external naming authorities in several places:
	:::::* 8.118. Scientific terms–additional resources. (...) The ultimate authorities are the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), whose guidelines are followed in the botanical examples below, and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) (see bibliog. 5). Note that some fields, such as virology, have slightly different rules. Writers and editors should try to follow the standards established within those fields.
	:::::* "8.136. Astronomical terms–additional resources. The following paragraphs offer only the most general guidelines. Writers or editors working in astronomy or astrophysics should consult Scientific Style and Format (bibliog. 1.1) and the website of the International Astronomical Union."
	:::::* "10.66 Naming Conventions for Chemical Elements. 'he International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) is the recognized body that formally approves element names. (...)"

	:::::--] (]) 12:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::That's their option. Most of ''CMoS'' consists of points on which they do not defer to anyone, but insist on their own prescriptive rules. MOS happens to do this more than ''CMoS'' does on certain points (and less on others). Oh well; live with it and move on. You're also confusing {{em\|names}} with {{em\|how they are styled}}. This is like confusing the content of this page with the font styles in which you are viewing it (hint: they can vary from browser to browser, be modified by CSS, and even be inapplicable, e.g. in a screen reader for the visually impaired). Information on a topic is severable from the style in which that content is marked up, online or offline. Fighting over en dashes (being used as long hyphens, as pointed out below) is not like trying to contradict ICBN or ICZN on what the actual name of a species is. Again, see the logic in ]: A source being reliable on what the name or other underlying facts are about something in a particular field does not somehow make it a reliable source for how to punctuate English-language prose in a general-purpose encyclopedia. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 04:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	*Please focus. The only option under discussion is including C. A and B always exist, and are not the issue. ] (]) 01:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

	, the opponents of the MOS dash guidelines (consensually derived in 2011 by 60 contributing editors, under ArbCom supervision) need to read something systematic and enlightened on the topic under dispute. Then, and only then, can they engage meaningfully in dialogue with editors who ''do'' know the theory behind these things, and ''do'' understand the difference between ''content'' and the ''styling'' of content.

	I referred earlier to CGEL's chapter on punctuation. Any takers? Any interest? Or should we tightly restrict deliberations, so that off-the-cuff responses from such non-style "authorities" as IAU (to leading questions) will determine style on Misplaced Pages? Note, of course, that the vice-president of IAU evinces no acquaintance with the en dash ''at all''. Contrast the major guides that inspire the best-practice guidelines consensually presented in MOS. Those major guides discuss naming of comets and the like also, remember.

	Please: just let me know. I can help. But if editors prefer to remain ''beyond'' help, inform me so I can do something less futile – instead of attempting to engage people who are fanatically committed to ignoring how hyphens and en dashes actually work, in actual high-quality publication.

	♥

	<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
	:Thanks. Please do a careful read of the entire CGEL (Cambridge Grammar of the English Language ISBN 978-0521431460}, and tell me if there is an example of an airport, bridge, war, comet, or any other proper noun spelled with an endash anywhere in the entire book. I am pretty much up to speed on knowing how to correctly use endashes, emdashes, and hyphens in sentences, but see no reason to extend dashes to named items, which, by definition have a specific name. ] (]) 08:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

	::But what difference could that make, Apteva? If I pointed out that ''nowhere'' in CGEL is there any support for your wild surmise that proper names never have an en dash, how would that move things along? If I did present such an example from CGEL, what difference would that hard evidence make? To you, I mean. Would it terminate or even shorten your ridiculous campaign?
	::Very well, let's see. From CGEL, p. 1762:
	::<blockquote>the Lewis–Jones Company</blockquote>
	::Nor is CGEL idiosyncratic in this. From ''The Penguin Dictionary of <u>Proper Names</u>'' (revised edition, 1991; my usual underlining for emphasis), on p. 230:
	::<blockquote>Hitler–Stalin Pact ("sometimes called the Ribbentrop–Molotov Pact")</blockquote>
	::And on the very next page:
	::<blockquote>Hoare–Laval Pact</blockquote>
	::That dictionary of proper names does not apply distracting title case to its entries; there are plenty in which main words are in lower case, like "Hobson Memorial lectures" and "Odder–Neisse line". Not everyone thinks that every construction functioning as a proper name has its status marked by capitalisation. One more for good measure:
	::<blockquote>Panhard–Levassor ("French firm of car manufacturers")</blockquote>
	::So will you stop now, please? Can we ''all'' stop, in fact? The RFC ''has'' ended, remember. So have most of the other drawn-out diatribes over en dashes, in scattered theatres of conflict where editors' reserves of time and patience are squandered.
	::The community has spoken, as it did in 2011. Live with it – as we all must live with not getting our way in an imperfect world.
	::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::Noetica, welcome back! I'm glad you've got that fat book! ] (]) 16:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::Thanks, and it is correct that even if it had a list of all the comets in the world with endashes it would not change the fact that the preferred spelling is with a hyphen. And if it had no proper nouns with an endash that also would not change anything, but it does confirm that one book on grammar, not style, but grammar, does have some examples of using an endash in a proper noun. The acid test still is, is that the most common spelling of Panhard–Levassor, Hoare–Laval Pact, and Hitler–Stalin Pact, and is the official or most common spelling of Lewis–Jones Company (likely a made up example - there are lots of Lewis Jones Companies but they all use a space, and of course Mcgraw-Hill uses a hyphen). I will also note that CGEL does not attempt to be representative, but calls pronouns nouns, and explains the reasoning, though that falls on deaf ears of every teacher teaching grammar, and so should we turn a deaf ear. So no, it does not change anything, and no there is still not any consensus on hyphens and dashes, although it would be trivial to reach consensus if everyone was interested in finding out which areas there is consensus and which there is not. For example, it is pedantically correct to write Michelson–Morley experiment, but that is not the way most people write it, so that is out. No one writes comets or airports with an endash so that is out, and ditto for wars and bridges. And as to the places that dashes are correctly used - in sentences like this one, what is all the fuss about, the sentence does not change its meaning because of three missing pixels. ] (]) 11:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::So why make this request at all:
	::::<blockquote>'''"Tell me if there is an example of an airport, bridge, war, comet, or any other proper noun spelled with an endash anywhere in the entire book." – Apteva'''</blockquote>
	::::Why did you waste my time, and everyone else's, yet again? I answered your challenge. But why did you make it?
	::::'''If you are immune to evidence, don't ask for it.''' If you do not believe in rational dialogue that can change opinions, don't pretend to engage in it.
	::::(Hence ].)
	::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::It was not a waste of time and I am appreciative of the effort it took. The question was did WP editors make this up or did any of them see it in a book somewhere. Clearly it is not a standard interpretation, as few books are published using an endash within a proper noun, and is not an appropriate interpretation for wikipedia. I knew that some books do but none of the style guides that I have access to suggest doing so. I have tried isolating the anomalies to publishers but have not done a rigorous analysis. It seems more random than anything else - for example the paper that used endashes for everything, and a minus sign for a range. ] (]) 05:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

	::::One problem here may be that the words ''dash'' and ''hyphen'' are both used with different meanings.
	::::*On the one hand, we have the terminology (used, for instance, by the CGEL - and apparently by the IAU) where
	::::**''dash'' is used to designate (syntactically) a punctuation mark that can be represented typographically by a spaced en rule or an unspaced em rule (for instance to indicate parenthetical information) and
	::::**''hyphen'' is used to designate a mark that is used to connect two words and takes the typographic form of an (ordinary) hyphen or a long hyphen (represented by an en rule), depending on the relationship between the two words thus connected.
	::::*On the other hand we have the terminology - which may risk a conflation of the syntactic and typographic roles - where
	::::**''dash'' is used for various types of horizontal rule, including
	::::**the "en dash" and
	::::**the "em dash".
	::::--] (]) 12:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Good way to look at it. Apteva, Enric and Wikid: Misplaced Pages uses a normal (short) hyphen most of the time. When juxtaposing two separate entities ({{xt\|Mexican–American War}}, {{xt\|Seattle–Tacoma Airport}}) in a name or title, Misplaced Pages {{em\|uses a longer hyphen}}, to distinguish such a case from the case of a two-part hyphenated name ({{xt\|Lord Baden-Powell}}. This longer hyphen incidentally uses the same glyph as the en-dash that is sometimes (when the unspaced em-dash is not used) used as a spaced indicator of a parenthetical. The long hyphen is a simple disambiguator. You are free to not bother with it; someone else will correct it if you use the short hyphen where MOS wants a longer one. Now please ] and ]. Please ] about the matter. ], and ]. If you won't, then you are clearly ], but rather to ] and engage in ] for its own sake. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 04:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::: do look at it that way. The glyph is known to many as the "en rule", and the function as "long hyphen". Others merge these into "en dash". ] (]) 05:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::I propose we adopt this in MOS to reduce confusion and strife. Immediately. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 06:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	:Short version: Read ]. Summary: Reliable sources on astronomy are not reliable sources on English language usage, and on style matters do not trump our in-house style (likewise MOS doesn't dictate how people stylize and punctuate in astronomy textbooks and journals). PS: Atpeva, when you're being RFC/U'd for disruption and tendentiousness on this issue, it's probably not wise to bring it up yet again. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 01:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::Let's point out please that that is your personal essay, not something that has consensus, though no doubt there are other MOS regulars who agree with it. --] (]) 01:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::I never claimed it was anything but an essay. It's not whether it has a special tag on it declaring it a guideline, it's the fact that it has logic in it that no one has been able to refute. The argument that an astronomy source is automatically a reliable source on how Misplaced Pages should style English writing in a general purpose encyclopedia just because astronomy is involved is absurd on its face. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 01:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::The difference between an essay and a guideline (well, the difference relevant in this case, anyway) is not a tag; it's consensus. As for it being a matter of "logic", that's just not so. You have a normative view that there should be a centralized style; others have a normative view that style should follow the usage of the field of study. Each view has merits and demerits, but neither is a matter of logic. --] (]) 01:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::I never asserted the essay had consensus; if it did, it would be a guideline. I'm not sure what point you think you're making, but it's not working. You keep basically rebutting the idea that WP:SSF has the force of a policy or guideline, but ], and mistaking that as being the central issue means you are not understanding what WP:SSF is, why it exists or why what it says matters. You can keep telling yourself it's all just a matter of opinion, but the essay completely shreds the "follow the usage of the field of study" argument on logical grounds, demonstrating its numerous fallacies. The essay has its own talk page; feel free to take up any issues you have with it there. The short version of why it matters is that virtually every single specialty, vocational and avocational, in the world has stylistic nitpicks {{em\|used within its own specialist publications}} that conflict with general English usage and even more directly conflict with in-field usage by specialists in other fields. Even aside from the fact that no one can be expected to remember the weird style bugbears of every field there is, the fact that they conflict with each other, and most importantly ], logically means we cannot kowtow to every stylistic whim of specializations, but have to stick to general English usage, as we have codified it at MOS, or the encyclopedia's writing will have a confusing lack of consistency that makes it harder to read and understand, and even worse to edit. More detailed discussion of WP:SSF is rather off-topic at WT:MOS; it has its own talk page for a reason. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 04:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::: You have not made any such claims ''explicitly''. In my opinion it is — or at the very least, risks ''appearing'' &mdash disingenuous, to answer a question by giving a link that ''looks'' guideline-like, without mentioning that this thing is almost entirely your work and can be assumed to be mainly your personal opinion (though, as I say, there will of course be others who agree).
	::::::: I completely disagree with you, of course, as to the success of the essay, at least the parts of it I've read (you do tend to go on a bit, frankly). My basic analysis is that you treat the argument of your opponents as identifying the use of reliable sources for content with copying their style, as though no distinction could be made between the two things. If that were the actual argument, it would still not be a mistake of ''logic'', but it would be a pretty obvious mistake.
	::::::: But almost no one, I think, takes that actual position. The strongest ''real'' position along that lines that your are likely to encounter is that it is not ''desirable'' to make such a distinction. That, clearly, ''cannot'' be refuted as matter of ''logic'', though you might certainly attempt to refute it on other grounds.
	::::::: It may be that people sometimes ''say'' that there is no distinction between using reliable sources for content, and copying their style. It is generally polite, when people say things they obviously cannot literally mean, to address what they probably meant, while pointing out gently that it isn't what they said. --] (]) 05:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::I'm not aware of anyone, major author of it or not, who prefaces or postscripts their links to any essay with something like "by the way, this is an essay not a guideline or policy". Editors can read, and the page clearly has an essay tag on it. I don't like to insult other editors' intelligence. I never tell people they have to do this or that based on WP:SSF; I ask them to see WP:SSF for why a particular argument is fallacious and unhelpful on WP. As for the substantive matter, I would love to be able to agree with you, but the fact of the matter is that most of the cases of SSF that arise are in fact people asserting that WP "must" do it the same way as journals or newsletters or whatever in field {{em\|X}} simply because that's how they do it, that it is "wrong", not just undesirable, to separate content and style when it comes to their particular peccadillo. Proponents of SSF-inflected arguments usually cannot at all see any difference between citing facts from their favored sources and aping the style of those sources when it comes to those facts, and see the two as utterly non-severable. They do "take that actual position", and will sometimes defend it to the point of ] threats to quit WP if they don't get their way. I wouldn't have needed to write WP:SSF otherwise. Apteva is doing this right now. He does not believe that how the name ''comet Hale–Bopp'' is styled can legitimately be done, in any publication of any kind, other than how the IAU does it in astronomy journals. He's fought half way to death over the issue, with no signs of letting up, despite the RFC/U. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 06:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Pretty much any specialty tends to capitalize their own important terms, and they tend to drop hyphens from compound modifiers that are familiar within their specialty (like the AMA guide that in recent years changed to recommend dropping the hyphen from ]). Both of these specialist tendencies are contrary to what makes sense for a general readership, and contrary to what our MOS should recommend (in my opinion). Some of these ideas should propagate from the essay to the guidelines, I think. ] (]) 04:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::I think you overestimate how much of the capitalization thing is about ''importance''. Sometimes it serves some quite distinct function (as in ''American Robin'' versus ''American robin'', to take an emotionally charged example). But in any case I am happy to agree that we should not ''slavishly'' copy every minuscule detail of style from specialist usage (though I think we owe a certain amount of deference to reasonably founded claims that some details serve a purpose). My beef here with SMcC is that he thinks he's identified a basic flaw of ''logic'', and I say he has not, at least not with the serious arguments for following usage in the field. --] (]) 05:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::More people than ] will admit simply don't buy that that this supposed ''American Robin'' vs. ''American robin'' distinction is actually special or linguistically necessary. "Importance" is probably the wrong word; "emphasis" is more accurate. People in all fields, from academics to hobbyists, like to use capitalization as a form of emphasis, and it's usually not questioned in their in-field publications. Most of them also have the sense to not try to port their field's stylistic quirks to more general publications. Even ornithologists know not to capitalize bird common names when writing for more general zoology or science journals. (It's a shame that around a dozen of them on WP don't and refuse to acknowledge this.) Capitalizing "American Robin" to distinguish it from "American robins", in the "robins of the Americas" (or of the US or of North America, whatever) sense, is also simply a form of emphasis, whether birders want to admit it or not. The proof is in the fact that you can simply word more precisely: "The American robin is easily confused with several other species of robins found in North America", for example, in place of the bollocksy "The American robin should not be confused with other American robins" pseudo-example that birders like to trot out as why they "need" capitalization, when in reality no one but a moron would write that. Virtually no other field of zoology or botany has relied on such a lame excuse, and they all do just fine without capitalizing common names of species.<p>As I've pointed out before, the birders' solidarity on this issue (aside from being illusory - most members of WP:BIRDS simply don't care and refuse to participate in such arguments) is based on a misunderstanding of the factual history of the issue to begin with. Birdwatching field guides do {{em\|not}} capitalize bird species common names because this is an ornithological standard. They do it {{em\|for blatant emphasis}}. Virtually all field guides about everything do it, from wildflowers to amphibians, because it makes it easier to quickly scan species names in the prose when you are in the field trying to ID something. They've been doing this since at least the 19th century, long before the IOU came up with an academic standard calling for capitalization. It's pure coincidence.</p><p>Regardless, MOS says do not use capitalization as a form of emphasis. ] a field guide or an academic journal. MOS actually gives a lot of deference to specialist styles, from how measures and units are written to how royal and noble styles are presented to how mathematics are represented – as long as it ]. If it would produce a "WTF? I should fix that typo..." reaction in the average editor, MOS deprecates it. I'm not going to debate WP:SSF in any detail here. (And, yes, it is too rambling.)</p><p>— <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 06:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)</p>
	::::::::::I'm not quite sure how this turned into yet another discussion of the merits or otherwise of capitalizing common names (it might suggest that SMcCandlish is as obsessed with this issue as he claims his opponents are). However, it's a bit off the point. If anyone has claimed that the styles which happen to be used in specialist sources should be copied in articles concerned with that specialism solely because they are used in specialist sources, then they have put forward a weak argument (if not necessarily an illogical one). However, if an authoritative body explicitly specifies preferred styles for its specialist area, then there is nothing illogical about choosing to follow these styles. If the IAU explicitly recommended the use of hyphens rather than en-dashes in the names of comets, then it would be no more illogical to adopt this style than it is to italicize the scientific names of organisms at the genus level or below (but not above) based on the IC(B)N or the ICZN. (As it happens, the evidence that the IAU does this is at present not very convincing.) ] (]) 01:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Trovatore brought up the birds, not me. And it was germane anyway, since we were talking about WP:SSF, which was written largely in response to the birds debate (though has proven applicable to many, many others, clearly including this "must use a hyphen because my preferred sources use one, and I am making wild assumptions about why, yet insisting my interpretation is righteously correct and going on a holy war about it" case). Capitalizing the common names of species just because journals in a particular field mostly do so is, for better or worse, the establishing and "canonical" example of the specialist style fallacy on Misplaced Pages. I already acknowledged the sub-thread was off the point, and have twice pointed to ] as where to talk about it. Any other things you want to whack me for that I didn't actually do or which aren't my fault? The (very) weak argument you point to, that the style from a type of specialist source "must" be used in WP articles on the same topic {{em\|because}} of its use in those specialist sources, {{em\|demonstrably is}} put forth by proponents of SSF arguments; that's the entire point of that essay existing. WP:SSF is not a mischaracterizing straw man, it's based on direct, long-term observation of the irrational arguments made by those advocating specialist style fallacies, which are always based in a faulting understanding of "follow the sources", and contingent upon browbeating, incessant assertion that because reliable sources in that field/on that topic use {{var\|style quirk X}}, WP must follow suit. It is this argument that makes it the SS {{em\|fallacy}} to begin with. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 22:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}
	O, this goes on and on! How can it be? There was an RFC; it was closed. And then the discussion rises with new heads like the ]. We need to decide: do RFCs settle matters here, or not?

	About IAU:

	* They are unaware of the ''existence'' of en dashes, let alone the use of en dashes to serve as substitutes for an ordinary hyphen when certain semantic distinctions are to be made (the "long hyphen" function, which Dicklyon and Boson have mentioned on this page following CGEL, and which SMcCandlish has enthusiastically embraced).
	* Other respected style authorities flatly disagree with IAU's style-ignorant rulings. NHR and its associated publications – like ''Oxford Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors'' (ODSWE), to say nothing of OED – give ''style-aware'' rulings, for general publication for ordinary real readers. Like ours. They do distinguish ordinary hyphen and its variant: the "long hyphen", realised by en dash and frequently referred to by that name. And they rule ''differently'' from IAU.
	* Our style choices are nearly always based on NHR, CMOS, OED, and such best-practice, industry-standard, widely subscribed and reliable sources.
	* If nothing else will decide the matter, we are entitled to spurn IAU's blinkered ways when we see that they want the hyphen ''removed'' from the double-barreled surname of a discoverer of a comet. '''However well that works for the comet-spotting community, it blends like oil in water on Misplaced Pages.''' It does not accord with ''any'' other MOS recommendations; and it is bound to confuse our readers.

	I propose that we drop this topic for the new year. An RFC has run its long winding course; another, similarly long, has snaked to a similar hole of oblivion at the Village Pump; the community has dismissed the alternative view at several polemical and time-consuming RMs; MOS editors who ''care'' and who worked tirelessly to settle all of this in 2011 are all but pilloried for continuing to defend a consensus that proves its robustness again and again; and we are waiting on a formal conclusion to a decisive RFC/U for the editor who did most to make clear waters turbid ''yet again''.

	Drop it. Next topic, please?

	<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

	:I submit that it is more likely to confuse Misplaced Pages's readers when the Misplaced Pages MOS mandates spellings that aren't found in the vast majority of our sources. It puts Misplaced Pages in the position of promoting idiosyncratic spellings not favored by most reliable sources. It astounds me that people simultaneously hold that most Misplaced Pages readers are completely blind to the distinction between hyphens and dashes and yet at the same time stridently maintain that failure to strictly hew to a very complex and intricate set of dash rules will cause endless and widespread confusion. Logically there's no way that both of these things can be true, but I've seen this argument made here over and over again. I don't think there's any evidence that hyphens in place of dashes cause any confusion in actual practice. I do think there's ample evidence that en-dashes are strongly preferred for some uncontroversial uses such as date and numeric ranges. ] (]) 05:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

	::What the heck are you going on about? Where does the MOS have anything to say about spelling? Only in ], ], and ]. None of these mandate unusual spellings. And who are you talking about that holds that "most Misplaced Pages readers are completely blind to the distinction between hyphens and dashes" and/or that "maintain that failure to strictly hew to a very complex and intricate set of dash rules will cause endless and widespread confusion". I haven't seen either of those positions espoused here. The MOS is flexible in what it allows from editors, and makes no real mandates. It does provide guidance toward what would be considered an improvement, however, and we wouldn't bother if we thought nobody would notice. ] (]) 05:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

	::Quale, I do wonder sometimes. Did you read what I wrote about those appeals to conform with the style-blind content experts at IAU? '''They actually want to ''remove'' the hyphen from the surname of a comet-discoverer, contorting it to fit with their strange rules.''' You come here with a claim that MOS is against common, readable forms? "Most reliable sources", of which you speak, style their productions in all sorts of weird ways. The role of WP:MOS and its subpages is to sort that out in the interests of the general reader. Do you really think IAU does a better job? Note, for a start: ''IAU never set out to meet the needs of the general reader.'' NHR, OED, CMOS, and the other genuine authorities on language and style ''do'' set out with that purpose. So does Misplaced Pages; and therefore, MOS adopts and adapts the best guidance chosen from ''them''. And from high-quality publishers, who typically follow one or other of them. The decisions here are made consensually. I'm sure most editors here fervently hope that will continue. (Most, not all.) We have a firm consensus about use of en dashes. It has lasted well. Accept it, or challenge it as ''not'' a genuine consensus, because consensus has changed since it was tested in mid-2011, somehow. Do not challenge it with spurious arguments that have been traversed again and again, and that bring even the responsible editors here into disrepute when we resist die-hard partisans who ''will not'' drop the stick.
	::Guilt by association is grossly unfair; and we have a right to be fed up with it.
	::'''Time to close this thread. It will get us nowhere.'''
	::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::Strange rules? You mean IAU's prerogative to spell and capitalize names in whatever manner they find adequate? Oh, you have no idea....:
	:::* ] - - > ]
	:::* ] - - > ]
	:::* ] - - > ]
	:::* Bally-Urban + Clayton - - > Bally-Clayton (ironically, it's because the hyphen in Baly-Urban could be confused with the hyphens that separate discoverer names...)
	:::--] (]) 00:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::What do you mean by "you have no idea"? Since you seem determined to stop this thread getting archived by replying to me four days later, I will respond: IAU, as consenting adults, can do what they damn well like. But then so can ], NHR, ODSWE, and WP:MOS. Get it, and move on. Some scholarly sources speak of "Comet Singer Brewster", some of "Comet Singer-Brewster" – a comet discovered, after all, by ]. The major style guides that have ''heard'' of en dashes generally ''use'' them, enabling preservation of the universally accepted styling of the discoverer's name. WP:MOS is that sort of major style guide. Biggest, most comprehensive, most nuanced on the web, yet with consensually developed guidelines. Now can we stop? <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I hadn't noticed this was 4 days old. I just wanted to point out the glaring error in your argument: Misplaced Pages doesn't follow style guides or grammar rules when naming comets and minor planets. Instead, Misplaced Pages follows IAU's "strange rules":
	:::::* Aaron Burrows - - > ]
	:::::* Alena Šolcová - - > ]
	:::::* ] - - > ]
	:::::* ] - - > ]
	:::::* ] - - > ]
	:::::There are even weirder names, all of them following IAU's rules. Except, of course, ]. And all comets with multiple discoverers. And all because some people think that astronomical names need to follow English grammar rules in order to be correct. (Why not read and its helpful advice: "do not question the IAU about its rules" in all caps.) --] (]) 03:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Which argument are you talking about? And how have you pointed out a "glaring error" in it? Wait, let me preempt you so we can just wrap this up, OK?<br>Misplaced Pages articles have all sorts of irregular and inconsistent titles. Some conform to the consensual guidelines at WP:MOS (the central source of Wikipedian style recommendations, which trumps all others when there is a conflict). You cite this, from an external source that has no authority over Misplaced Pages and no assent in any consensus here: "do not question the IAU about its rules". O yeah? Sorry, Misplaced Pages will question what it damn well ''wants'' to question. IAU can do what they like. Publishers inclined to follow them are free to do so. Some do, some do not. Misplaced Pages's style guidelines do not. Live with it.<br>''Now'' can we stop?<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Your argument is that WP:MOS regulates comet and minor planet names in wikipedia. But the truth is that they are regulated by IAU's "strange rules". Misplaced Pages writes ] without a hyphen because the IAU says so, and the MOS doesn't have any say on it. --] (]) 04:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::In the article's context, "DO NOT QUESTION THE IAU ABOUT ITS RULES" was of course a joke. ] (]) 04:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::* Enric, no. My argument is that MOS can be applied in the styling of article titles, any time. That is part of its role. But do ''not'' take this as an opportunity to continue your old dispute about that, yet again. MOS is applied to the article ], according to strong consensus recognised by ArbCom. MOS has not yet been applied to ''all'' such titles, but it ''could'' be. WP:MOS, as I have said, is recognised as the main style resource, and in cases of dispute we default to its recommendations. Again, this not an invitation to recycle your dissent from consensus and ArbCom's view on that topic, either.
	:::::::* Art, yes. It's a joke here too. Who could take it seriously? (That's a rhetorical question. Can we stop now?)
	:::::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::* Ah, the vague assertions that MOS applies to all articles, even in articles where it clearly doesn't, like ].... OK, no point in continuing this. I'll end up thinking of an email for the IAU, and I'll post their reply. Who knows, maybe they will tell me that en dashes are acceptable, I have no idea. --] (]) 05:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

	Can we dial this back? There is no question this section could be improved—there is always room for improvement—but there is no point in continuing until the current pattern of disruptions has been resolved. ] has been going since Nov. 30, with endorsement from 18 editors (in addition to the two editors who initiated it) and a ] has been endorsed by 28 editors. Yet, the editor who is the subject of this RFC/U is still on this MOS page, inserting the same remarks. ] (]) 09:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

	:No, we cannot "dial this back". Enough is enough. Of course the provision under "discussion" here could be improved! ''Every'' section could be improved; and I have just negotiated with Peter Coxhead that we should consider a fresh draft of one portion, for clarification. But this campaign from Enric Naval and Apteva is not about improvement (that is, moving closer to consensus). It is about overturning decisions for which consensus ''has not changed'' (at least, there is no ''evidence'' that it has changed). For reasons that have no force here on Misplaced Pages.
	:Apteva is the subject of that RFC/U mentioned above, where "18 editors" + 2 misrepresents the strong consensus regarding his conduct, by the way. (Look again at the opinions of almost all 36 who contributed there.) Apteva and Enric Naval persist no matter what evidence is presented, what arguments are produced, what broad consensus is shown, what pointy RM discussions they initiate and fail at, or what sprawling RFCs (initiated in several forums) bring disrepute on all editors associated with MOS, and then fail anyway. We saw all this in the past, when admin Sandstein tried to clobber everyone with blocks and bans at WP:AN because banned sock-puppeteer and anti-MOS activist ] got everyone tarred with the same brush, and we're seeing it again now. Learn from history, and let's say now: enough is enough.
	:'''Time for genuine and definite decisions''', without the niceties, caveats, and qualifications that are appropriate in civil collegial dialogues, in the ''normal'' and productive business of this talkpage.
	:'''Time to close this thread. It will get us nowhere.'''
	:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::I concur. Also, for the record, the disruptive, ] editors on this topic are a triumvirate, not a duo: Apteva, Enric Naval, and Wikid77. On at least some points they also have support from Blueboar, which kind of surprises me, and LittleBen, which does not, since he has been ]'d for similar patterns of disruption before, blocked for it, and eventually topic-banned for it, on diacritics. A grand total of five editors whose heads asplode when they encounter dashes is certainly not enough to produce some kind of ]. I'm beginning to see that these things tend to run in threes; the main ] on such a topic will seek out two sidekicks, as just enough voices to convince some onlookers that there may be some real issue, instead of just a crank making noise. LittleBen did this, too, recruiting the aid of two other editors in his failed ] against diacritics in article titles and text. KimvdLinde was also aided principally by two like-minded "warriors" in her ]-based, unsuccessful campaign to change MOS to actively endorse capitalization of bird common names, in which AN/I found that she had canvassed to disrupt a poll on the matte. Like LittleBen and Apteva, KimvdLinde also forum-shopped her pet issue all over the place, even highjacking ] for that purpose. And so on. Other random people may chime in favoring the (inaccurately described) non-majority side of any given style "war" (as KimvdLinde termed it), but it seems to require three dedicated partisans to be genuinely disruptive about it on a large scale. I wouldn't be surprised if some of PMAnderson's quixotic quests show a similar triadic pattern. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 23:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

	== Why the exception? ==

	It's well established that the first and last words of names should be capitalised - be it those of books, films, songs, plays, paintings, whatever. But - and apologies of this is the wrong place to ask this - why are band names considered the odd ones out? It seems that a lowercase "the" is preferred, even if it's indisputably part of the band name, and I've never read a good reason why this should be. Even if it's historical, there must have been some sort of consensus to keep it up here on Misplaced Pages. This is a genuine question. It just seems rather arbitrary an exception to have become the norm. ] (]) 19:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

	:It's not just band names. ''The New York Times'' refers to itself with an italic capital 'T' in the "The", and the same capital 'T' is in the company's trademark, but the Chicago Manual of Style says to write it in running prose as "the ''New York Times''", the initial word written without italics and without caps. Similarly, the Beatles are given the same style guideline. ] (]) 20:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

	::Well, that's fair enough - though it seems that The Times (of London) and The Daily Telegraph (for instance) don't adhere to that same style. It could also be argued that the "The" is being dropped from the name in your example all together, so any article (definite or indefinite) that's subsequently added belongs to the prose rather than the title (if you see what I mean). But the question remains: why these exceptions? It seems arbitrary, and is something I've never heard properly explained. ] (]) 23:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

	:::It is also customary to lowercase ''the'' with political entities (''the Phillipines'', ''the United Kingdom'', ''the European Union'') with conventional exceptions (''The Hague'', ''The Gambia''). --] (]) 00:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

	::::True, but we're no nearer to answering the question of why bands follow different capitalisation rules from songs, films, books, plays, paintings, poems... Doesn't it seem arbitrary to anybody else? When the Misplaced Pages MOS was drawn up, there must have been some reason for this - or was it simply because other style guides take this route (in which case it's a chicken/egg situation)? Does it perhaps go back to the days when "the" was rarely the first word in the name of the act, as in Buddy Holly and the Crickets or Cliff Richard and the Shadows (in which case it's an anachronism)? Anyone? ] (]) 01:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

	:::::I don't see why you ''expect'' band names to follow the rules for titles of works, rather than names of other organizations. --] (]) 01:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

	::::::I'm not really expecting anything - I'm just trying to find out why the rules of capitalisation have these exceptions (and by extension, whether they ought to or not). As far as I'm concerned, a name is a name, and first and last words should be capitalised. If the first word is the definite (or indefinite) article and ''indisputably'' part of that name, I can see no good reason for it to be in lower case - can anyone provide me with one? Many thanks in advance. ] (]) 19:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::Your "a name is a name" assumption is the source of the confusion. Names of organizations, including bands, are handled differently from titles of published works. ''The Lord of the Rings'' is always ''The Lord of the Rings'', even in mid-sentence or when preceded by a possessive ("J. R. R. Tolkien's ''The Lord of the Rings''"), but not so with orgs, incl. bands ("] and ]'s Beatles had a more bluesy, less poppy sound than the later 'Fab Four' we're more familiar with"). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 06:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::Well, I'd make the case that you could describe a Tolkienesque piece of hackwork as "a ''Lord of the Rings'' rip-off" - no definite article, even though it's indisputably part of the name. Of course, it would be better to refer to it as "a rip-off of ''The Lord of the Rings''", but never "a ''The Lord of the Rings'' rip-off". By the same token, the sentence you quoted would more properly start with something like "The Best and Sutcliffe incarnation of (t/T)he Beatles...", but never "Best and Sutcliffe's (t/T)he Beatles..." Very similar. So should there be a difference if the definite article is indisputably part of the name of an organisation or band? Or does it depend on the band in question? Try your example (with suitable alterations so that it makes sense, of course) with (t/T)he Who or (t/T)he Knack - do band names which aren't plurals require different rules?
	:::::::::The way to avoid the problem with the Tolkien example, where some might feel that "a ''The Lord of the Rings'' rip-off" seem awkward, would be to reword: "a rip-off of ''The Lord of the Rings''", just as you did with that Beatles example, though it's less important to do something like that with that example, because "The Beatles" isn't the title of a published work, and it's normal to drop the article in mid-sentence (as I did when I wrote "that Beatles example"). I would say generally, no, there is not a special difference if the article is part of the official band name (which is the case with The Beatles), but as with everything in every guideline, there are always exceptions. ] pretty much always has to be written as such, because it's just too confusing otherwise. You can't really get away with "the critical reception of the third The album". — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 23:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::On a slight tangent, since you brought up books, are both of these correct? (Note the capitalisation of the definite article):
	::::::::- The first book in the series is ''Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone''.
	::::::::- The first book in the Harry Potter series is ''The Philosopher's Stone''. ] (]) 23:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::No; the second is a misstatement of fact. It {{em\|is}} common to truncate titles like this after the first instance, but the way to do that would be ''Philosopher's Stone'', I would say, because it's not a subtitle, but part of a longer unitary title: Harry's age in ''Philosopher's Stone'' was..." Contrast ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'', which is often shortened to ''The Next Generation'' or ''TNG''; it's a self-complete subtitle. It's such fine hair-splitting that an editwar would be incredibly ]. However, you still wouldn't write "the first book in the Harry Potter series is ''Philosopher's Stone''", because that's still a misstatement of fact, not being the actual title. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 23:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

	== Space between consecutive headings ==

	Under "Section Headings", the MOS says: "...Include one blank line above the heading...." This is a good idea, as it makes the headings easier to find on the edit screen. However, I think there should be an exception where there are two headings in a row, as above. There is no difficulty seeing that there is a level 3 heading immediately after the level 2 heading. Separating them by a blank line looks the same as no blank line in the article itself, but is less convenient to work with on the edit screen, because it fills up the edit screen with unneeded empty spaces. Can we add this exception, please, to make it at least optional? Thanks! -- ] (]) 00:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
	:*i agree with Ssilvers here; such a move makes total sense. ] (]) 06:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

	:I'd rather go the other way, and recommend also a blank line AFTER each heading. Headings are often hard to spot when scrolling through long articles, and this makes it a lot easier. And it's simpler than adding an exception. ] (]) 06:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
	::Yes, we'd still need to keep the one before the heading, too. I also think we want both (and this appears to be the norm, anyway):<blockquote><code>{{lorem}}<br /> <br />==Heading==<br /> <br />{{Str left\|{{Lorem ipsum}}\|123}}</code></blockquote>While the following is not optimal, it's not exactly unbearable (and is very common):<blockquote><code>{{lorem}}<br /> <br />==Heading==<br />{{Str left\|{{Lorem ipsum}}\|123}}</code></blockquote>What we really, really do not want to see is this:<blockquote><code>{{lorem}}<br />==Heading==<br /> <br />{{Str left\|{{Lorem ipsum}}\|123}}</code></blockquote>or this:<blockquote><code>{{lorem}}<br />==Heading==<br />{{Str left\|{{Lorem ipsum}}\|123}}</code></blockquote>NB: It's also common for people to use the space between the heading and the text for hatnote templates; I do this myself, and don't see it as problematic.<br />— <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 22:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

	== Clarifying one issue concerning the use of hyphens ==

	This is emphatically '''not''' an attempt to change the current advice re hyphens and en-dashes, and I hope no-one will hijack the discussion to this end.

	The MOS currently has a short section containing the following text (I've removed the parts which aren't relevant to the point I want to make):

	<blockquote>A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities.
	*Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people ...
	*John Lennard-Jones, an individual named after two families
	*McGraw-Hill, a publishing house named after two founders
	</blockquote>

	I see what is being attempted here, but it doesn't really work. Theorems and comets are named after the people who discovered them, and follow the logic of the approach currently adopted in the MOS of using an en-dash, although they are clearly "compounded proper names of single entities". It may be that the cases where hyphens are used cannot be covered by a general rule. Double-barrelled surnames are one special case; long-established names of firms where the sense of distinct founders has been lost are another; and so on. The nature of natural languages is such that there are always oddities and exceptions. Either a more convincing explanation is needed or we should just say that there are special cases such as those below. What is clear is that the "rule" as given here isn't useful to editors seeking guidance. ] (]) 01:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

	:A fair question, Peter. When ] was ironed out last year, the consensual draft accepted by ArbCom had this wording:

	::By default, follow the dominant convention that a hyphen is used in compounded place names, not an en dash.
	::* {{xt\|Guinea-Bissau}}; Bissau is the capital, and this distinguishes the country from neighboring Guinea
	::* {{xt\|Austria-Hungary}}; the two are judged to be merged as one political and cultural entity
	::A few place names are exceptional, with components that refer to independent parts of a larger political or cultural whole.
	::* {{!xt\|Poland-Lithuania}}; an en dash is used: {{xt\|Poland–Lithuania}} (see ])

	:This all came after provisions that included examples of proper names with en dash: "the {{xt\|Roman–Syrian War}}"; "{{xt\|Comet Hale–Bopp}} or just {{xt\|Hale–Bopp}}". The provision was intended to give a ''default ruling'' for cases not otherwise covered, and in which the separateness of entities was not relevant.
	:Later A di M broadened the scope to include {{xt\|McGraw-Hill}}; and he therefore put "proper name" instead of "place name".
	:'''It is important to note what has remained constant: the provision "by default". Where any more focused provision applies, the default advice is overridden.'''
	:Does that help? I agree: that part of the guidelines is not optimally expressed; but it does seem necessary. 60 interested and active editors laboured for weeks to forestall time-wasting confusion, and to counter opportunistic attacks on MOS that capitalise on any point of omission or weakness. In any consensually developed set of guidelines, perfection is impossible. But if anyone knows of a more subtle and robust set of guidelines to deal with dashes (committee-designed or not, on the web or not), I want to see it. Please! ☺
	:Incidentally, there is another account to give of "John Lennard-Jones". I think Kwami added that example, and that explanation. Anyway, both abstracted explanations converge on the same almost universal ruling for compounded surnames.
	:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
	::I think it's confusing, too. I was thinking about this the other day, but I gave up. What exactly is the difference between Wilkes-Barre and Hale–Bopp? Aren't they both compound names of a single entity that is named after two people? I suspect there is some difference that I'm overlooking, but maybe it could be made a little bit more clear to make it easier to figure out which mark to use when. ] ] 05:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::The town of Wilkes-Barre is not thought of as commemorating two people. Comets, however, are normally named after their discoverers, who sometimes have hyphenated names. There isn't always a clear line: punctuation is always going to be inadequate to convey all aspects of language. You see something of the distinction in Austria~Hungary, which is sometimes written with a dash as a dual monarchy, and sometimes with a hyphen as a unitary state. — ] (]) 07:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::I agree with Kwami. In addition, when you're not sure, sources can often be illuminating. You won't find McGraw-Hill or Hewlett-Packard or Wilkes-Barre with an en dash in reliable sources, I bet; certainly less than 1 in 1000. But Hale–Bopp with en dash is at least 20%, which is nearly as high as you'll find en-dash-based styles in books and scholarly papers. Any object commemorating two people will typical be found with en dash in at least a few percent of sources, indicating that it is the type of thing that our style would use an en dash for. Stadiums, airports, bridges, buildings, comets, theorems, diseases, algorithms, laws, etc. Looks for articles like ] for lots of examples. The styling is mostly fairly consistent and uncontroversial in WP. The airport situation was a bit of a mess because lots of airport names were formed with city names attached to airport names with spaced hyphens, which DashBot changed to spaced en dashes, which were wrong as often as not. I've tried to work through those and figure out the various names and what they should really be, based on information in sources. It was made more difficult by a certain anti-en-dash attitude of one editor. ] (]) 07:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::I like those responses well enough. I will contribute more on this tomorrow (Australian time), when I will be able to see better what more is called for. <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Agree with Kwami. ] ] 13:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::Although I see where Kwami's logic is coming from, it seems a little subjective really. When does one thing pass from being named after its separate inspirations to gaining a status of its own? I would also, despite the encouragement to do otherwise, take this opportunity to again wonder why we don't simply revert to doing to what most publishers – print and online – do, what most keyboards make it easy to do and what we used to do here on WP for a long while AFAICT, and simply use hyphens for all joins of whatever sort, from prefixes and suffixes to compound names of all varieties and, even, dare I say it, date ranges. It won't kill anyone, it won't lessen clarity of content and will save hours of debate and hours of gnoming. And no, again, it is no less "correct" than the alternative of insisting on making a distinction and agonising over when and where exactly we need to do that. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 17:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::I think the reason is that most editors agree that it ''will'' lessen the clarity to give up on the distinctions of meaning that en dashes convey relative to hyphens. That's why they're used, when they are. The fact that there are grey areas where the best choice is not obvious doesn't make it any more of problem than choosing capitalization, or disambiguation, or other things that editors usually agree on but sometimes disagree on. These things only become annoying problems when someone refuses to acknowledge consensus. ] (]) 21:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::Rather like hyphenation itself. — ] (]) 22:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::The choice of a hyphen, space (open), or closed is somewhat determined by Am/Brit - British English prefers "end point", American English prefers "endpoint". Consulting a dictionary reveals that double-breasted and good-looking are hyphenated. So basically, look it up in the dictionary, and if it not there, use what reliable sources use. Not really something that even needs to be in the MOS. ] (]) 22:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Consulting a dictionary will resolve few cases. Dictionaries list words, not phrases. As for RS's, that's what the MOS guidelines we based our MOS on are. — ] (]) 22:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}
	I asked people not to hijack this section. Please don't. Here I am asking those who understand the "60 editor consensus" to clarify a small part of the explanation of that policy. We can continue discussing ''elsewhere'' whether that policy is the right one. ] (]) 00:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
	:Fine, Peter. Do you think things have been dealt with adequately now? I am ready to discuss refinements to that catch-all provision. What remains uncertain (if anything), and how might it be fixed?
	:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
	::Despite having had a strong opinion about this before, I'm less certain now that for comets it shouldn't be a hyphen (except in cases where one of two or more parties a comet is named after has a "double-barreled" surname). The logic seems to be difficult to distinguish from that of "Wilkes-Barr" and "McGraw-Hill" other than the (weirdly archaic, reversed) adjectival form of the "Comet Hale-Bopp" (would we write "Wilkes–Barr City" with a dash if the place used this longer name?). I don't buy that no one thinks of Wilkes-Barr as commemorating two people; of course they do, and it was named that way specifically to do so! I do see a difference in that comets are named for their discoverers, but how would we codify such a distinction? But it's also at least reasonably likely that direct descendants of Hill and McGraw are still on the board of that company, and obviously would think of it as named after these founders (directly analogous to discoverers). Airports named after two cities, however, are directly comparable to wars named after two countries. It's "Seattle–Tacoma Airport", not "Seattle-Tacoma Airport". The difference between this and Wilkes-Barr or potentially Hale-Bopp is that in these latter cases they're honorary, abstract references, while in the case of wars and airports, they are references to {{em\|palpably involved entities}}. Mexico and the United States of America actually fought the Mexican–American war; Sea–Tac airport actually does serve the communities of Tacoma and Seattle. By contrast, Bopp and Hale are never going to set foot on that comet; Barr and Wilkes did not live in that city, just in the area where the city was eventually founded after they were gone. Is there a simple way to distinguish between the "Mexican–American War" and "Wilkes-Barr" cases? PS: I'm also a little skeptical about this reasoning: "Austria-Hungary; the two are judged to be merged as one political and cultural entity", since they're both clearly "components that refer to independent parts of a larger political or cultural whole" as in Poland–Lithuania. At very least I'm tempted to use a dash in "Austro–Hungarian Empire". — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 04:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::“Austro-Hungarian” is a very different animal from “Austria-Hungary”; because “Austro-” is a combining form that can’t stand alone, I would never use anything but a hyphen. Likewise for “Franco-Prussian War”, “Sino-Syrian relations”, &c.—] (]) 06:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::Right! I momentarily "spaced" that. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 23:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::SMcCandlish, I respond to you with details that newcomers can follow also:
	:::# I agree with Odysseus. Guides and dictionaries are almost unanimous in realising ~ in forms like ''Austro~'' with a hyphen (or with null, to make a closed-up word). I recall seeing one exception; and in about 2004 I briefly supported en dash myself, before I checked the sources and analysed the reasoning.
	:::# Again in the cases of comets, we look to the sources (for MOS, that means specialised and general guides and dictionaries in particular) and to best practice in publishing; and we analyse the reasoning. The sources differ; so the burden is shifted to our analysis. We compare what various sources suggest, for various contexts of use, and we evaluate how the alternative proposals fit with choices that have already been settled here on Misplaced Pages.
	:::# Comets are not exactly aligned with surnames or with geographical placenames (including names for streets, lakes, mountains, and the like), though there are resemblances. Placenames and surnames are common linguistic currency; we all use them everyday. By widespread convention in English publication, almost all placenames do without the apostrophe. By almost universal agreement, surnames are formed only with letters, apostrophes, and ordinary hyphens. There is no such universal agreement for comets, companies, airports, political borders, structures like bridges, historical events like wars, and other items beyond surnames and plain geographical placenames.
	:::# '''Surnames and plain geographical placenames are ''coordinates on our shared map'', and we demand consistency in their styling so that society can function. So that we can ''find'' each other, even. Subject to those forces and that pressure, essential consistency of styling has been achieved. Not so with comets, wars, airports, and all those other miscellaneous features of the world.'''
	:::# Moving to particulars, '']'' is an ordinary, everyday, gazetted placename; so regardless of its etymological origins, it has an ordinary hyphen. No dispute, anywhere. Similarly, ''Klimpschs Lane'' (note the nine-letter word with just one vowel, discovered in the wild in New South Wales) has no apostrophe. No dispute. Contrast '']'' (disputed in sources) and '']'' (not disputed?).
	:::# Where guides, dictionaries, and other sources disagree, we weigh their relative importance and their relative competence. We assess any arguments they present, and we see how the alternatives fit with Misplaced Pages's established style guidelines. For en dashes contrasting with ordinary hyphens, this was done with great elaboration in 2011. Consensus can change. But not through chaotic or capricious activism; not through partisan campaigning that refuses to appreciate others' contributions or that disregards new evidence no matter how powerful it may be.
	:::# I defend the current guidelines for en dashes, though I think the hyphen guidelines need some refinement (as many of us agreed, in 2011). I track this issue carefully, and I have seen no compelling argument for substantial change. One consideration, though it must be balanced against others, is stability. We are talking about guidelines for {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles, in the world's most consulted and most comprehensive encyclopedia.
	:::I hope that answers some of your concerns. I would prefer to leave the topic alone for a while now, because the community grows intolerant of us all on account of disruption from a very small minority – currently under consideration at an RFC/U. Unfair? Sure! That's the nature of communities. Those who maintain style guidelines to promote excellence in the articles have a thankless task. It is a specialised, demanding, applied intellectual exercise; but unlike most others, this field is one in which everyone feels like an expert. We have to respect that, of course. In a certain way, there's truth in it. Myself, I always want as much community participation as possible in the development of Misplaced Pages's manual of style. That's what will keep it the best of its kind on the web – and among the best ''anywhere'', for punctuation at least.
	:::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

	::::#Me too; I was just having a momentary brain-fart.
	::::#I agree this is the process, and not just for comets, but generally. The ] essay I'm the principal author of hinges on it, in fact.
	::::#Agreed, though I have raised before a point that seems really obvious to me: Comets, like "seas" (craters) on the moon, the moon itself, and other astronomical places are in fact places. I dislike inconsistently treating a place simply because it's on a different chunk of rock in space than where my bed is.
	::::#Okay. My take is that part of MOS's purpose is to impose a (sometimes rather arbitrary) similar consistency on these other features of reality, to make it easier on our editors and readers.
	::::#It is certainly not undisputed that placenames have no apostrophe. Most British/Commonwealth ones do not (because they are, or in the British diaspora areas derive from, placenames that predate standardized spelling and punctuation in English), but apostrophes are actually fairly common in North American placenames, and even a British example with one (done in archaic ''KJV'' style) was given by someone else above. Another Commonwealth example is ], now ], ]. There are others. I think we can say that it is undisputed on Misplaced Pages that we do not change what the official or conventional "apostrophization" of a placename just to be consistent with how MOS would otherwise treat apostraphes. I have not (and likely will not, because most of my books are still in storage, post-move) done enough research to be certain that the claim that a placename like Wilkes-Barr is never done with a dash, but concede that if it is, it's probably rare. I've never in my life see "Barnards Star" and would never expect to. If a place was named after me, in awkward possessive form, I would expect it to be "McCandlish's Point" or whatever, not "McCandlishs", since it would not go back to the Elizabethan or earlier periods of English.
	::::#Agreed entirely, but this is not really addressing my question about how we distinguish a comet (or theorem or whatever) in which MOS wants us to use a dash to separate the names of parties for whom the topic was named, from cases where MOS does not want us to do that, e.g. Wilkes-Barr. "It's a placename" does not strike me as a strong argument, for more than one reason (the most obvious being that there's nothing magically special about placenames). I'm intelligent and am not going to have a psychotic break over intense confusion on the matter if we simply declare that placenames, of a single place, are conventional exceptions, but we need to just declare them as such, and not try to make really tortured pseudo-logical arguments to "explain" the exception.
	::::#Agreed as well, except on stability; I do what MOS says even when I disagree with it, unless it raises a problem that triggers ] in a particular case (as it sometimes does); if it's something that really bugs me, I raise the issue here and try to shift things a bit. I don't agree that stability is a compelling argument for much of anything on WP. If it were, many quite major changes, e.g. date unlinking, would never have happened. The WP community absorbs such changes with remarkable facility, rapidly and with a comparative minimum of fuss. Partly for ] reasons and partly because bots and ] runs can fix so many of these things ''en masse''. I think the stability argument is akin to the "server load" argument that the developers tell us is almost always not one to bother making.
	::::And I agree with your closing statements. This issue does need to be dropped for a while. There is clearly no consensus generated by the tendentious campaigning of Apteva and friends to change this section. But I'm still not sure there's a clear rationale to distinguish between "Wilkes-Barr" with a hyphen and "comet Hale–Bopp" with a dash (or "Comet Hale–Bopp" as I would prefer to write it, with a capital ''C'', for the same reason I'd write "Mount Rushmore" not "mount Rushmore". — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 00:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

	::Returning to Noetica's question to me (do I think things have been dealt with adequately now), the answer is that I'm clearer but perhaps not quite there yet. Is the following accurate for words to be joined by either a hyphen or an en-dash?
	::1 If all (or virtually all?) sources use a hyphen, as with Wilkes-Barre or McGraw-Hill or double-barrelled surnames, then we accept this, regardless of the etymological origin.
	::2 Otherwise we apply the analysis in the MOS.
	:::2.1 If one of the specific cases in the MOS applies then we use a hyphen or an en-dash as per that case.
	:::2.2 Otherwise the default of a hyphen applies.
	::] (]) 02:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

	:::Peter! After all my labours to produce a manifesto for new year – stamped 00:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC), though I swear that was accidental – you ignore my impassioned rhetoric and return to the ''topic''? Tsk!
	:::Seriously now, I think your reading of the provision you earlier queried is about right. It was drafted in difficult circumstances: on one side editors wanted brevity, on another side editors wanted watertight and comprehensive guidelines; and some editors were calling for both, without suggesting how that could be achieved. All under the watchful eye of ArbCom. Interesting times; but the outcome has been peace. Yes, believe it or not: these are days of peace at WT:MOS. It's all relative.
	:::We are now in a position to clarify the wording, without changing the substance. Since I am used to all this and know the topic intimately, I can draft a new version of the provision for editors to comment and vote on. Would you like me to do that?
	:::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::Yes, that would be an excellent idea. ] (]) 04:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Right, I will then. Give me a day or two (during which we might get more input anyway), and I'll start a new section with a clear proposal for comments and voting. <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Sounds good to me. I think Peter's outline is sufficient as a flowchart. However, I also think it is going to be extremely prone to "Aptevizing", with hell-bent editors claiming incessantly that something like "comet Hale–Bopp" must instead use a hyphen because virtually all the sources they know of do so (as noted above, A. this is mainly due to expediency, and B. IAU in particular has proposed typographical weirdness of even weirder proportions yet, like dropping the hyphen from double-barreled surnames, so they are essentially proof that ] is founded on very sound reasoning – specialist publications reliable for style-independent facts about their speciality cannot be relied upon for style advice.) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 00:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Those who aren't prepared to abide by the current MOS aren't the target audience here. My concern is solely with those who want to go along with the MOS (whether they think it best practice or not), and who need clearer guidance. ] (]) 01:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::Peter, I wrote above: "Give me a day or two (during which we might get more input anyway), and I'll start a new section with a clear proposal for comments and voting." I'm going to have to delay that. There's simply too much going on; and problems of conduct affecting the development of MOS are not yet dealt with (at an RFC/U). Mind if we leave it till things settle down? The background work is all done in the discussion above, of course.<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

	== Modifying quotes ==

	It is not standard practice to make ''any'' modifications to a quote without noting that the quote has been modified. I would recommend removing the following {{quote\|However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct supercede to supersede and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is textually important.}}
	If a quote is modified, it is not a quote. Trivial misspellings etc., though, do not need to be marked with . --] (]) 22:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

	:Not according to the RS's we based that statement on. What you've described is a grammar-school simplification (one which I believed myself before getting into this). You need to base an argument on something more than just your own understanding. — ] (]) 22:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
	::I agree. Sometimes the mistake is on the source that reproduced the quote. For instance a politician makes a statement to the press and the a news agency reproduces it with a typo. In that case no "" is needed.
	::I also think that punctuation in quotes should follow the generic Manual of Style unless the quote is strongly related with its punctuation. Same holds for non-breaking spaces. -- ] (]) 23:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::Some examples given in New Hart's Rules include changing endashes to emdashes and archaic f to s, or vv (two v's) to w, and close unclosed quotation marks, but in an encyclopedia it does not seem warranted to make any changes without noting them, at least in the reference. The question is is the intent to convey the meaning of the quote or to convey the quote. Those are two different things. Without the sentence anyone is free to treat any changes as an exception, with the sentence it seems as though people should be making typographic and spelling corrections. Frankly if the source misspells a word I would rather know that instead of it being corrected. For example, if someone spells supercede with a c I would rather see it left that way, but only because this is an encyclopedia. ] (]) 04:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::JFTR what you call “archaic f” is actually a variant form of ''s'', called the '']'': look closely at an authentic example (as opposed to a jocular faux-archaism) and you’ll see it has no crossbar.—] (]) 06:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

	::::One of various problems with that is that people will see the typo and correct it anyway; this is a wiki. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 01:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	== Edit warring over passive voice ==

	Could someone review ? I've hit 3RR in an edit war there over an ungrammatical avoidance of the passive voice. (IMO the topic should be the subject, per the normal rules of English discourse.) — ] (]) 23:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

	*Classic example of trying to sneak something in to MoS to retrospectively legitimise bad behaviour. I oppose any such additions; especially in this case, where the aim is to perpetuate a paragraph with ''six'' consecutive instances of the passive voice. --] (]) 17:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

	:*Actually, , and decided not to. ] (]) 23:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

	:Since ] has deleted the link I placed on his talk page, I will place it here, for the benefit of anyone following the active/passive discussion. . Also worth looking at is the WP link that Kwami added to the page, also deleted: ]. ] (]) 01:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	::Passive voice is often actually useful in an encyclopedia, because active voice can very often lead to ] and ] problems (namely, asserting positive agency in the cause of something, without sufficient evidence of the alleged causality). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 01:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	:::Passive voice ''can'' be useful in an encyclopedia if carefully used. In general, there is far too much passive voice on Misplaced Pages, and it results from too many writers who think it sounds more "educated" to use it. I often (as in the case in point) encounter articles which are essentially written in passive voice from start to finish. This looks stupid and works against clarity and ease of understanding. Any change to the MoS which encourages this sort of pretentious, unclear, constipated writing is to be deplored. --] (]) 13:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	::::No one's made any such proposition. The one I made (new section) specifically talks about the V and NOR issues, nothing more. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 04:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

	===Similar prescriptionist disputes===
	Should we add a section for silly shibboleths such as final prepositions, split infinitives, which/that, etc? We occasionally have editors "fixing" hundreds of articles in an attempt to follow such fallacies, often creating awkward or even ungrammatical prose in the process. — ] (]) 00:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

	Maybe something like,
	:'''''Common grammatical disputes'''''
	:''Style guides sometimes advise against common grammatical constructions such as ], ]s, ], and ]. However, such advice goes against centuries of literary practice, and even proponents seldom follow it. For Misplaced Pages, decisions on such points should be based on tone, style, and clarity, rather than on an absolute rule.''

	Those are the main examples I can think of; singular "they" might be added (per Shakespeare etc), but I'm not sure how relevant it would be for WP, so we might not want to mention it specifically. — ] (]) 01:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
	::The "even proponents seldom follow it" bit is an unsupportable assertion, and appears to be a mild ''ad hominem'' attack on critics o passive voice, split infinitives, etc. It's probably actually true, but that's beside the point. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 02:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::Um, yeah, totally supportable, those who object to the passive often cannot even identify it. Much has been written about this on Language Log. I'll see if I can find something more specific. ] (]) 02:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::Okay, here's , Pullum's takedown of Strunk and White's ''Elements of Style''. The premise: "What's wrong is that the grammatical advice proffered in Elements is so misplaced and inaccurate that counterexamples often show up in the authors' own prose on the very same page." ] (]) 02:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Does not support your claim. That Strunk and White themselves were bad writers, 100-odd years ago, does not mean that current WP editors who care about this distinction cannot identify it or regularly violate or (or even that offline modern writers who care about the distinction do so either). This isn't a huge issue, it's just that your wording is effectively making an attack, for no reason, that it can't support anyway. The solution is not to bend over backward to trying find some tenuous support for the attack, it's to stop attacking. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 03:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Actually, if you read it, Pullum regards ] as quite a good writer. He did write Charlotte's Web, after all. But Pullum points out that 3 out of 4 of the "passive" examples in the book are not really passives. They are:
	::::::<blockquote>There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground" (no sign of any passive); "It was not long before she was very sorry that she had said what she had" (again, no sign of the passive); "The reason that he left college was that his health became impaired" (here became impaired is an example of the adjectival, not passive, use of the past participle). ] </blockquote>
	::::::Here's more from Pullum about the general inability to distinguish passive, along with several dozen links to other pieces. Apparently it's an epidemic. But of course I agree that any WP advice for editors should be couched in positive terms that builds on knowledge they already have, while making the reasoning self-evident. ] (]) 03:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	:Sounds good to me, as long as we can outlaw the singular they in article space. Happy holiday be had they with. ] (]) 02:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

	::Won't mention it then. It's not common in academic writing even if it is in literary English. — ] (]) 03:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

	:::Yes, please do add such a section; we've had problems for years with users trying to remove the passive voice whether or not it was appropriate. But I hope you do include the singular they. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::A lot of people support singular ''they'', though. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 02:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::That's why I suggest it be included. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Ah, I see what you mean; I mistook you for supporting someone's notion above to "forbid" it. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 02:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}

	I have reverted Kwami's addition of the following subsection. Apart from having an edit summary that is practically useless for documentation of changes to this core MOS page, it followed minimal discussion between just two editors:

	<blockquote>'''Common grammatical disputes'''<p>{shortcut\|MOS:PASSIVE\|MOS:WHICH\|MOS:SPLITINFINITIVE\|MOS:PREPOSITIONS}<p>Style guides sometimes advise against common grammatical constructions such as ], ]s, ], and ]. However, such advice goes against centuries of literary practice, and even proponents seldom follow it. For Misplaced Pages, decisions on such points should be based on tone, style, and clarity, rather than on an absolute rule.
	</blockquote>

	Myself, I agree with the basic idea. But that's not the point. There is no rush, and we definitely do not want to encourage ill-documented changes to this core MOS page. Let any such substantive changes be prefigured here on the talkpage – preferably with a draft, and long enough for editors in all time zones to comment. (Meanwhile I have of the article Kwami mentioned above.)

	<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

	:An excellent suggestion, Kwami(kagami). Editors shouldn't force compliance with "rules" fantasized by Strunk, White, and similar language ignoramuses. -- ] (]) 15:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Or in Latin, of course, ''lingua ignorami.'' :P ] (]) 16:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
	::This page routinely features strong passion over arcane minutia, so I couldn't decide if that was intended as an attack on Strunk and White, or sarcasm against Kwami. ] (]) 20:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::(That's ''minut<u>iae</u>'', Art. ☺!)
	:::Be assured: Hoary is a knowledgeable linguistic type, and no doubt approves of Kwami's addition.
	:::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

	I agree with the spirit of this proposal, but I think the best way to ensure that people don't spend time arguing over it is to not have a policy on it.<span style="color:#3A3A3A;background-color:#FFFFFF">'''Grandiose''' </span><span style="color:gray;background-color:#FFFFFF">(], ], ]) </span> 21:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

	:It does not take a position on whether we should or should not use the passive voice, etc. When we do get grammar warriors (not terribly common, but sometimes quite prolific when they do appear), it would be nice to be able to quickly point out that they do not have consensus. Not that consensus is against them in any particular case, only that the MOS does not support blanket "correction" of such things. The MOS does not support them anyway, of course, but currently there's no one place to direct them to prove it. I think this will prevent more arguments than it will cause: When the grammar warrior has their style guide, and the MOS is silent, it's easy to argue that a published source should trump what doesn't exist. — ] (]) 21:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

	::I should have checked better, Kwami. Your edit was hasty, but I did not examine how well you did prefigure it here.
	::No objection from me, if people really want such an inclusion. I tend to agree with Grandiose, though: silence on this issue is eloquent. If we do want it, I'd like ''consistency'' mentioned as a desideratum. And I would like to see less polemic content. There is no justification here for railing against more nuanced advice that does not make the clumsy mistakes of Strunk, White, and their ilk. Sufficient that MOS does not give style advice of that sort, and that it is not a matter of ''grammar'', as many have thought. For example, linguist supremo Geoff Pullum is a polemicist on a crusade against distinguishing relatives ''that'' and ''which''; but he is plain wrong in claiming that all who favour the distinction do so on grammatical grounds. We don't need to buy into those wars. So I suggest this:
	::<blockquote>'''Perennial style disputes'''<p>{shortcut\|MOS:PASSIVE\|MOS:WHICH\|MOS:SPLITINFINITIVE\|MOS:PREPOSITIONS}<p>Some style guides have advised against common grammatical constructions such as ], ]s, ], and ]. But advice on those points has no place in Misplaced Pages style guidelines. Style decisions should be based on tone, clarity, and consistency, not on ill-founded prejudice.</blockquote>
	::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

	:::I'd have two objections to that. First, as far as I know, no one advises against the passive voice in the same blanket way some people advise against split infinitives, restrictive "which"es, and stranded prepositions; everyone agrees the passive voice has its place. Second, some people consider that restrictive "which", in particular, is less clear than restrictive "that" and always inappropriate to an encyclopedic tone just as "ain't" is, though not as jarringly. The proposal offers no reason that restrictive "which" is allowed here but "ain't" isn't. I assume it's because restrictive "which" is common in edited formal English, but if the MOS is going to be explicit about allowing this construction and calling opposition to it "ill-founded prejudice", the MOS should be explicit about the reason. —] ] 22:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::I have never seen anyone go on a crusade to convert "isn't" to "ain't". I have seen people removing passives just because they're passive. — ] (]) 22:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::I think you mean converting "ain't" to "isn't". :-) —] ] 23:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::The style guides are probably unanimous in stating "ain't" shouldn't be used except colloquially. Not so with that/which. — ] (]) 01:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::So the criterion is unanimity? I didn't use that in my example a minute ago, but it could probably work. I'm just saying the MOS should say what the criterion is. —] ] 14:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::I think the criterion should be things people have been crusading for when there's no consensus for the change. Eliminating passives even when appropriate is one of the major ones; there aren't too many others, I don't think. "Ain't" isn't an issue because hardly anyone uses it on WP, and if someone did, I doubt anyone would object to it being replaced. — ] (]) 02:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::I think the semi-obsolete "whom" is a better example. ] (]) 05:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::{{ec}} How about "grammatical style"? Also, I don't think the MOS should be overtly spelling out what should be in the MOS; that's more at home on the talk page.
	::::I completely agree with the second sentence there (whoever wrote it – you didn't sign). It'd be really weird for MOS to say what should be in MOS. The "ill-founded prejudice" wording wouldn't be guideline material either. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 02:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::<blockquote>'''Perennial grammatical style disputes'''<p>{shortcut\|MOS:PASSIVE\|MOS:WHICH\|MOS:SPLITINFINITIVE\|MOS:PREPOSITIONS}<p>Some style guides advise against common grammatical constructions such as ], ]s, ], and ]. However, this advice goes against centuries of literary practice. Such decisions should be based on tone, clarity, and consistency.</blockquote>
	:::— ] (]) 22:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

	::::It depends on what you mean by "centuries". Split infinitives were very rare 200 years ago, especially in literary prose.
	::::Maybe the point to address is the "perenniality".
	::::<blockquote>Some editors automatically change certain grammatical constructions such as ], ]s, ], and ]. However, those constructions are all common in edited formal English. Changes to them, and to other constructions that meet that criterion, should be considered case by case according to tone, clarity, and consistency.</blockquote>
	::::—] ] 14:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

	=== Active/passive and similar disputes (continued) ===
	{{outdent}}
	There's an ENGVAR factor here: restrictive ''which'' is not a issue in British English, whereas the others (passives, split infinitives, preposition stranding) are argued over in many variants of English. ] (]) 16:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

	:I would support Jerry's suggestion (though please include starting sentences with "But"). Is there an ENGVAR factor, Peter? For example, I was taught never to use restrictive "which," though it seems others were taught that it's okay. The point is that these are all preference issues, so people shouldn't go around changing them automatically. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

	:::Sure, 'but' is fine IMO – do we have an article that discusses this point so we can link to it? I didn't include it because I wasn't expecting it to be an issue. — ] (])

	::Has someone been accused of changing them "automatically"? How would that work, exactly? --] (]) 19:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

	:::I've seen people going around replacing 'which' with 'that' on multiple articles, with a stock edit summary suggesting they are engaged in a general hunt for restrictive 'which'. (IMO, this is often an improvement, but not always, and some of these weren't.) And in the edit-war alert at the top of this section, the editor justified it as 'active over passive' in the edit summary, and at talk with 'We prefer the active over the passive voice', 'So you guys know better than me, know better than respected style guides, and know better than Misplaced Pages's own quality control processes' in response to comments that the passive is appropriate in that case, and 'it consists of keeping the article in a shit state through ignorance of basic English,' all suggesting that he's guided by advice to avoid the passive even if that means distorting the text.

	:::For Jerry's wording, do we really want to address the editors making the changes, rather than the style guides that they learned from? How about:

	::<blockquote>'''Perennial grammatical style disputes'''<p>{shortcut\|MOS:PASSIVE\|MOS:WHICH\|MOS:SPLITINFINITIVE\|MOS:PREPOSITIONS}<p>Some style guides advise against common grammatical constructions such as ], ]s, ], beginning a sentence with 'but', and ]. However, these are all common in formal English publication. Changes to such constructions should be based on tone, clarity, and consistency.</blockquote>

	:::— ] (]) 20:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::MOS doesn't always care what "some style guides" do; it is its own style guide. If it uses wording like this elsewhere, that should be removed. Re: "Changes to such constructions should be based on tone, clarity, and consistency." – that's just generally true of all edits that aren't simply correcting/adding facts, though. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 02:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	:Suggestions for that latest draft:
	:* Drop ''style'' from the header. No longer needed.
	:* Drop the first use of ''common''; the second is better placed to do all the work.
	:* A link to ] for the point about ''but'' (it's in the lead there).
	:* Replace ''in formal English publication'' with ''in high-quality publications''.
	:* Fix the last sentence (as below).
	:The result:
	::<blockquote>'''Perennial grammatical disputes'''<p>{shortcut\|MOS:PASSIVE\|MOS:WHICH\|MOS:SPLITINFINITIVE\|MOS:PREPOSITIONS}<p>Some style guides advise against grammatical constructions such as ], ]s, ], beginning a sentence with '']'', and ]. However, these are all common in high-quality publications. Attempts to improve the language of an article should be based on tone, clarity, and consistency.</blockquote>
	:It's a delicate matter. Preferences differ even among those who have joined this discussion. I am a strong advocate of distinguishing the relatives. It has been proposed as a stylistic principle since at least mid-19C (by such theorists as ]). I would ''not'' want anyone to be able to cite MOS either for or against making the distinction, to improve an article; I am happy that the wording here is neutral and effective.
	:I am definitely against setting this up as an ENGVAR matter. Inaccurate at best, and unhelpfully divisive at worst.
	:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
	::I have no desire to be divisive, in this or other matters of style. Let me give an example. I greatly expanded ], which by consensus is written in American English. I can happily use American spelling, but grammatically it's almost impossible for me not to write in my usual rather academic British English style. A number of people have since copy-edited my text; a significant proportion of these edits related to my use of ''that'' and ''which''. I was grateful for these copy-edits, since they resulted in a style which is certainly less "British", whether or not it is authentically "American". However, if someone copy-edited in the same way an article which was agreed to be in British English, I would object. Am I wrong in making this distinction?
	::Using the same article as an example, several editors changed passives to actives, sometimes improving the text, but more often pointlessly in my view. So I strongly support the proposal to discourage purely opinionated copy-editing. ] (]) 00:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::Hi Peter, that/which isn't an ENGVAR issue that I'm aware of. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::Yeah, I can't see it that way either (and I learned to read and write in England, lived mostly in the US but also lived in Canada). Perhaps the extent to which the distinction is maintained in {{em\|informal}} spoken and written communications varies geographically, but if so, I've never noticed. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 02:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::Well, ] says it {{em\|is}} a dialectal matter, with reliable sources. They say that American English has no truck with restrictive ''which'', but that British English accepts it, even in formal writing. Well, whaddayaknow? — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 02:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::This corresponds to my experience: I use ''that'' or ''which'' indifferently in restrictive relative clauses (tending perhaps to ''which'' in formal writing). So I'm happy for my uses of ''which'' in this context to be changed to ''that'' if the article should be in American English. What is slightly more problematic sometimes is the zero relative pronoun, which can make sentences hard to parse. ] (]) 22:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	:Include the crap caused by FrankenStrunk (Passive voice, conjunctions, preposition endings). The others are not so settled upon. To boldly split infinitives can be done as naturally as writing in the passive. Or starting a sentence with a conjunction, for that matter. The "no split infinitives" rule can be elegantly broken by those who carefully consider the relationships between words. But 99% of the time it makes for clunky prose, and I worry that future copy-editing will be hurt by this addition. Same goes for that/which. <span style="text-shadow:#977 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 00:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	OPPOSE adding anything about active/passive to MOS, more or less per ]. There are plenty of editors who instinctively write clear prose without being at all aware of the existence of passive voice or other matters of grammar, and this would just be a confusing and useless tangent for them. Where would it stop? Instructions about there and their? Admonishments about i and ur? Many of us never heard of Strunk and White at all before coming into contact with the linguists who find it so irritating. MOS should be clear and positive, and a true help to editors, not merely a negative reaction in response to some linguists' peeve. ] (]) 01:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	*<s>I also '''oppose''' such an addition, for essentially the same reasons. And these are not issues which arise often enough or divisively enough to warrant MOS's attention anyway, as well as the fact that ENGVAR is bound up in some of them. In general, cleanup of this sort is not harmful. Where it is (e.g. tortured constructions like the classic "Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.", or use of active voice that implies causal agency without a reliable source for it), just revert and discuss on the article's talk page if necessary. ] exists for a reason. Ultimately virtually all copyediting is "purely opinionated", because God did not come down from heaven to hand us style commandments. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 01:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)</s> I've changed my mind on this (not on the issue I raise elsewhere that a whole section of stuff like active/passive, which/that, etc. will be a magnet for MOS disruption), and formally proposed adding passive voice back in, in a new section below. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 04:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

	:*It would be helpful to have a section here to point to. We used to have one advising that the passive was fine, but it was removed. Without it, we have to argue the issue every time it comes up. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::The problem with a section like this <ins></ins> is that everyone who disagrees with anything in MOS is going to try to shoehorn their pet bugbear into this section and remove MOS's long-consistent advice about it. Don't like logical quotation? Put it in this section as something we no longer have a rule about. Don't like dashes? Put them in that section. Don't like spacing between initials or between measure and unit? Put them in that section. ''Ad nauseam.'' MOS itself could be whittled down to nothing but a skeleton. There's nothing particularly different about, say, split infinitives and our captalization-of-titles rules – they're all just arbitrary rules we've selected out of various possibilities available, and asked people to follow them for consistency's sake. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 02:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	::::The difference is that we have established conventions for those other things, so any such additions would be reverted as against consensus. The point here is to clarify that we intentionally don't have conventions for everything. We should probably limit the list to things that people have actively pushed. My motivation was the same as SlimVirgin's: I don't want to have to relitigate every time someone wants to delete all passives. So much easier to respond with "See ]". — ] (]) 02:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	:::::Yes, what happened on the thread above was unfortunate. Harsh words were exchanged, and a user has backed off from the thread. But from what I can see, this user is far from unintelligent, having studied some languages, and is actively involved in copyediting. This is exactly the kind of editor these pages should be reaching out to. Active/passive is an advanced topic and many courses that cover grammar give only a cursory introduction to it. So even the average person who has taken university level composition courses has probably only done a few exercises in changing passive to active, without really going into the reasons. (A serious university-level composition handbook--Little Brown?--should have it, though.) Can you believe, I once heard someone declare that passive voice was to be preferred over active, as a higher and more educated sounding register of English -- not a native speaker, to be sure, but someone who had supervisory responsibility over nearly 80 English instructors. This is the sort of mentality that the exercises in changing passive to active is meant to counter. But it fails as instruction, as it starts from the standpoint of assuming something is broken, and ends up creating its own set of problems. ] (]) 03:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	::::: Kwami, have you not noticed that everyone with a problem with something MOS says claims there is no real consensus for it, and many of them campaign incessantly to get what they want? A section like this will make it trivially easy for someone to post some rant at ] about "OWNership of MOS" and rile up a bunch of yahoos who agree with whatever ungrammatical or questionably grammatical thing the activist wants to do, and overwhelm MOS with an "invasion" of people who want to change it (cf. earlier this year with capitalizing bird species common names, as just one of many examples). Such a section will create a "loop black hole" into which any style point can be sucked as long as someone can make enough noise about it to get some non-trivial percentage of editors to wonder about consensus on the issue. It would be safer for MOS's integrity to individually address each of these issues (passive voice, trailing prepositions, etc.) in their own sections, widely separated. We basically can't "limit the list to things that people have actively pushed" because there is virtually no point in MOS that someone hasn't done this with. The solution is to not have any such list. If you really, really, really need a MOS:PASSIVE, then make it, but separately from MOS:PREPOSITION, etc. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 03:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	::::::I'd have no problem separating them. My main concern is with passives, as 'fixing' them can really screw up a text. (So can 'fixing' prepositions, but I haven't noticed that being a problem.) — ] (]) 08:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	:::::::We used to have a sentence about the passive being okay, but it was removed. See . ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::I've proposed re-adding it (and possibly clarifying it) in a new section below. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 04:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

	There's also . Does anyone ever look at these? Maybe a "things not to fix" is also in order. ] (]) 04:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	:Yes, maybe that's a better place for it.
	:But the word ''don't'' "must" be "fixed"? Really? — ] (]) 08:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	:<s>That contradicts ]. ] (]) 17:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)</s> Resolved since then. ] (]) 22:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::Added a "things not to be fixed" section to that guide. — ] (]) 02:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
	::Also contradicts ] (which is not exactly sourced). I don't agree. I also see it's been taken out before (by SlimVirgin)(a Canadian?) and keeps getting put back in. Is this some EngVar thing? The last I heard, contractions are standard; the main reason for not using a contraction where one is available is for emphasis or to display anger. ] (]) 13:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::Yes, that's my impression as well. However, I have seen style guides which say that contractions are unprofessional, much as they advise against these other things. Certainly we shouldn't use "gonna" or "it'll" in an encyclopedia, but there's nothing wrong with "isn't". — ] (]) 20:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::If we have any pretence of maintaining a professional encyclopaedic ], we need a degree of formality, and such contractions are incompatible with that goal. Outside of direct quotations, I find it difficult to imagine what the ] means by ''"occasionally contractions provide the best solution anyway"'' if formal tone remains the way to write better articles. ] (]) 20:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Completely agreed, and "isn't" isn't some mystical exception; it's precisely as informal as "it'll". I expand these contractions, every single time I encounter them in non-quoted article prose, without fail, and (as far as I've noticed) in over 7 years I've never been reverted on that even once. I think about 95% of our editors understand that contractions are not in the encyclopedic register or tone, and avoid them. Those who do not, seem to understand why their contractions get expanded by other editors (whether or not it "educates" them to actually stop using contractions when they write articles here). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 04:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::WP is meant to be written in ], in order to avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording. I have heard people intentionally speak without contractions to non-native speakers, dumbing down the language in order to be understood. For example, what is the difference in pronunciation between "you are done" and "you aren't done"? In my idiolect at least, it is mostly a matter of emphasis, and very hard for a non-native speaker to pick up on. Better to say "you are not done" to a non-native speaker, and be understood, even if it sounds like pidgin English. But in written English there is less opportunity for contractions to cause confusion. ] (]) 04:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::] that contractions are confusing; that's not why we avoid them. They're simply not part of the formal register. Even newspaper and serious magazine journalism avoid them, as does (usually) academic writing, to which encyclopedic writing is close kin. Even non-dialogue prose in fiction avoids contractions mostly. You have to get into personal editorials, which are intentionally only semi-formal, and what I call "dumbass journalism" like ''Maxim'' and ''People'' magazines, and hipster articles in city weeklies, which are all attempting to appeal to the lowest-common denominator and sound "cool" and "friendly", before you start seeing non-dialogue/non-quotation contractions in print. WP is nothing like that. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 05:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::I have never seen this documented, only the bit about emphasis, but I am more likely to see grammar stuff published in the U.S. or for the American market. ] (]) 05:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::I'm not sure what you mean by "documented". Publications are self-documenting – just pick up a mainstream daily newspaper and see how many contractions you can find that are not in quotations or in one-author editorials/reviews written in a less formal register. No one is likely to get a grant to do a linguistics journal research piece on the topic, since it's simply not interesting to much of anyone. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 01:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::The usual is to post some link to n-grams or some particular style manual, especially when there seems to be some difference in experience between several editors who speak different varieties of English. Anyone can make assertions here, and many do. ] (]) 02:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::As someone else pointed out here recently, n-grams are an overused tool that provide quantity data without any quality analysis. They're a hammer, and this is not a nail. (For one thing, there would be no way to distinguish in n-grams between different types or "qualities" of source material, but doing so would be required to test the hypothesis!) This is a bolt, and I've already handed you a ratchet wrench: Pick up a newspaper and read. Try some magazines of different sorts too, and some books. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 11:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

	== Consecutive punctuation marks ==

	My question is prompted by of ] at 07:41, 26 December 2012. What guidelines or policies does Misplaced Pages make in regard to a ] (period) followed by a comma in a sentence?
	*The company operated in Washington, D.C., New York City, and Los Angeles.
	*The company operated in Washington, D.C, New York City, and Los Angeles.
	—] (]) 20:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

	::We would never write *"Washington, D.C, New York", but we might write "Washington, DC, New York". (Either drop all full stops or none.) The edit in question looks like it might be analogous to the latter. — ] (]) 21:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::It's perfectly fine to drop the periods (stops) from "D.C." The US postal system has not used periods in state/territory abbreviations in two generations. Some (mostly older) people still use them out of habit, but MOS has no reason to care. It's "Washington, DC", and many even write it "Washington DC", especially in constructions that are otherwise using commas to separate placenames. If you don't drop the comma, the wording above would have to read "Washington, DC; New York City; and Los Angeles", with semicolons. Otherwise it implies Washington state as whole, the District of Columbia as a whole, New York City and Los Angeles (4, not 3, geographic entities)! — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 02:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	::::I think he's asking about replacing one stop with a comma, but keeping the other, which would be weird. — ] (]) 02:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::I understand that, and it would obviously be weird and nonstandard. I'm making points far beyond that. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 03:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	After consulting ] (version of ), I have composed a better example to illustrate the two consecutive punctuation marks (<b>.,</b>).
	*The project was developed by a consortium of representatives from ], ], and ].
	*The project was developed by a consortium of representatives from ], ], and ].
	—] (]) 03:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::The first is still correct, including even in the section you link to (which is not authoritative). I'm not sure where the idea came from that we can't have two consecutive punctuation marks; it's actually entirely routine. I would remove the serial comma, though (the one after Microsoft), since it isn't necessary. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 06:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::Despite the section heading "Consecutive punctuation marks", my question was and is about this particular sequence of these two punctuation marks—a ] (period) followed by a comma—and not about two consecutive punctuation marks in general. (Serial commas are discussed at ].)
	:::—] (]) 17:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::* First of all, I support the serial comma by default, and for me the argument "it isn't necessary" is not at all compelling. Let's leave that aside.
	::::* Second, a full point functioning as a mark of abbreviation may be immediately followed by any sentence punctuation, with one exception: a period (full stop), which is also realised by a full point. In such a case one full point serves both functions, by well-settled convention. Now, the edit that prompted Wavelength's post was by ], who removed the full point from "DaB." (a German Misplaced Pages username). Some remarks:
	:::::* The case is cross-linguistic, so there is potential for the interaction of differing punctuation protocols. But however things might work in the source language (German), I say that practice in the destination language (English) should dominate.
	:::::* By normal English practice, this sort of thing would be fine: "other ] supporters, ], and ..."; "Though DaB. later shared his ongoing doubts ..." (excerpts of text before Tony's edit).
	:::::* I take abbreviation in usernames as subject to the same styling revision as in other contexts; so I support Tony's edit. I do the same with the username "]", which I render as "A di M". Just as the title "Mr." can be adjusted to the far more rational and typist-friendly "Mr", whatever the preferences of the gentleman in question, so can abbreviations of names – without regard for the style choices of their bearers. Yes, usernames are borderline; but they are often chosen and detailed without regard for the convenience of other users (Greek letters, mathematical symbols, and so on). Myself, I am not interested in meeting the expectations of users by strict compliance with such foibles.
	:::::* Often enough, keeping a full point that marks abbreviation causes more serious disruption for the reader than we see in the text that Tony edited. Consider: "We met DaB. A. di M., if he had been there, would have wanted to meet him also." It takes some analysis to sort that out, and intractable cases could be constructed. It is all much easier if full points are kept to serve as periods only: "We met DaB. A di M, if he had been there, would have wanted to meet him also." But that is not the American way. Unfortunately.
	::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Thank you, Noetica, for your reply. For a while, I had some difficulty in reconciling your subpoint 2 ("… this sort of thing would be fine …") with your subpoint 3 (… "so I support Tony's edit."), until I decided that you evidently meant that you "take abbreviation in usernames" as being exceptions to "normal English practice".
	::::::—] (]) 03:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Comment: there would be no ambiguity in your final example if we used two spaces after full stops. But I doubt this narrow situation warrants making such a change. ] ] 07:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::A large number of editors – anyone used to typing manuscripts of any kind – {{em\|do}} use two spaces after the end of a sentence. It greatly aids readability of the wikicode (i.e. the manuscript) of an article here. Aside: I really do wish British editors commenting on issues like this would learn the difference between a "stop" (the character Americans call "period" traditionally, and that geeks around the world call "dot"), and a "full stop" which is a period/stop/dot {{em\|at the end of a sentence}}. It's a usage that derives from telegraphy, if you're wondering. It's absurd to say something like "Initials should be spelled with full stops and spaced, as in 'J. K. Rowling'." Those are {{em\|not}} full stops. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 22:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::Meh. Usage is variable. I have used "full point" (following NHR), and distinguished that mark from two of its functions: mark of abbreviation, and period (full stop). But many do not bother to make such distinctions, and those that do differ among themselves. As an aside, there is nothing more rational about either "period" or "full stop" for the mark itself. Each term is flawed in its own way. "Period" borrows its name from the stretch of text of which it marked the end (roughly, a sentence: anciently called a "period"). Compare "comma" and "colon", which originally meant certain kinds of smaller stretches of text. (SOED, at "comma ''n.''": "1 In Class. Pros. & Rhet., a phrase or group of words shorter than a colon (COLON n.2 1); loosely (now rare or obs.) a short clause or phrase within a sentence. L16.") And "full stop", of course, conflates a function and a mark that serves that function.<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Yes. I'm asking that MOS regulars stop engaging in that particular conflation here because it confuses matters for too many (especially non-regulars). {{em\|MOS itself needs to be checked}} for this conflation, and where "full stop" or "period" is used incorrectly (e.g. in reference to abbreviations) it should be replaced with, say, "full point (dot)" or "dot (full point)". — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 04:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::::The period in an abbreviation is really called a dot? Not usually, in my experience. ] says "5. (now chiefly North America) The punctuation mark “.” (indicating the ending of a sentence or marking an abbreviation)." Other dictionaries say something similar. So what am I missing? ] (]) 07:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

	:::::::Wavelength:
	::::::::Your take on what I wrote is understandable. But in fact I meant that both practices are normal: using the full point to mark abbreviation, and not doing so. As WP:MOS explains, the difference is correlated with the US–British divide, though it does not follow it accurately. I strongly favour omitting that mark of abbreviation, finding it almost always redundant. Confusion is unlikely. There can hardly ever be a problem with Mr, Mrs, Dr, Prof, A J Cronin (or AJ Cronin for that matter), PhD, US (in most contexts), UK, UN, or USSR. But US English must have its way, even though it brings confusion of roles for the full point. Hence the rather balanced treatment we find in the current WP:MOS. I wish ] were as balanced and as subject to careful scrutiny. Things are not looking good there.
	:::::::AgnosticAphid:
	::::::::Well, an extra space would have to be implemented using a hard space (&nbsp;) for one or other of the two spaces (or some equally grotesque expedient). Even this would be no use if the period were to fall at the end of a line, right? Unless ''both'' spaces were hard spaces, avoiding perfectly natural linebreaks. So the idea is a complete non-starter. Far better for US English to fall into line with international usage here (and with LQ, and with the metric system, and with avoidance of MDY date formatting, and so on). But life is not like that – a grim fact that MOS and Misplaced Pages simply have to live with. Some British preferences are silly too. Some comfort.
	:::::::♥
	:::::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::North Americans do not find anything "confusing" about the roles played by the period/dot/stop. It's simply a matter of familiarity and expectations. Many things in our language (and others, of course) are ], serving multiple functions, and heads do not seem to explode about it. I certainly haven't proposed forcing British English articles to use "Dr.", etc., and I haven't seen anyone else do it in a long time. NB: I have attempted to revise MOS:ABBR to better represent Commonwealth as well as North American style. Not really done there yet, either. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 22:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::I'm Usonian, but I find the period in abbreviations to be annoying. IMO it shouldn't be used unless necessary – too easy to mistake it for the end of a sentence. I didn't realize it was an ENGVAR thing; I thought it was simply modern typography. — ] (]) 20:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::I've never in my semi-long life ever heard anyone claim that they could not tell the difference between an abbreviation and the end of a sentence. I think this would have to be classified as an extreme minority viewpoint. I don't know what "Usonian" means, but it probably doesn't matter. If it were simply "modern typography" you wouldn't see periods after abbreviations much any more, even in North American English (Canadian still uses them, too), just like (in reality) we don't see them in acronyms much any longer. I use a PIN at the ATM, not a P.I.N. at the A.T.M. But also if I want to abbreviate a shopping list, I'm looking for chk. soup, t. paper and apl. juice at the groc. store, not chk soup, t paper and apl juice at the groc store. It's especially important in WP articles that we are clear on the difference between conventional abbreviations (the few that are appropriate in articles; cf. ]), which take periods/stops/dots, and regular words (which aren't abbreviated), {{em\|and}} units of measure (which are abbreviated but do not take dots). ] a text message. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 22:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::SMcCandlish, even if most Vespuccians do not ever have trouble because of the default use of full points to mark abbreviation (an empirical question, and a matter of degree because reading and comprehension can be slowed or impaired rather than simply disabled, and this would need measurement), the story doesn't end there. Compare US pronunciations of "can't", which many non-USards have great difficulty distinguishing from "can", though it never seems to trouble Americans. This is an international encyclopedia, and the needs of all readers count. But again, no point discussing the points! No change will result.<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::::I can guarantee you that deleting the dots from abbreviations has a slowing and impairing effect on reading comprehension, and ability to focus on the content, for readers who are used to them. They mark something as an abbreviation, just as all-caps marks acronyms as such, and if you are used to them you parse them instantaneously and automatically; their absence means we have to examine the unfamiliar string to try to figure out if it is an abbreviation missing its dot, an English word we don't know, a foreign word that should have been italicized, some kind of code that should have been marked up as such, a unit of measurement, a typo, or what (we'll usually conclude the first and the last simultaneously). I would bet good money that the amount of reading impairment to people used to them when they are absent exceeds that to people not used to them when they are present, because even people who don't use such dots know what they mean in this context, and they do not have to wonder any of that long list of stuff I just gave, only "is this an abbreviation or the end of the sentence?", and context will tell them the former in the vast majority of cases. I've never heard anyone say that American "can't" is hard to distinguish from "can" (if it is, it would probably also be true of any dialect that did not pronounce them as differently as UK "received pronunciation" does, which is something like ] vs. "cawn't"). But it's not relevant on WP, since it's a written medium, and blind people who use them control their own screen readers. So I'm not sure what you're getting at with that. It doesn't affect the needs of any readers at all. On a more constructive note, I think the eventual solution to this and several other ENGVAR issues is going to be templates and a new Preferences widget that interacts with particular templates to show a particular variant of material marked up with such a template. Something like {{tnull\|engvar\|us{{=}}tire\|uk{{=}}tyre\|ca{{=}}tire}} with Commonwealth countries defaulting to UK if not overridden, as Canada is in the example here, and places with a strong US influence on their English (Puerto Rico, Liberia, US Virgin Is., etc.) defaulting to US. There could be shorthand syntax for abbreviations, like {{tnull\|engvar\|abbr{{=}}Dr}} that would be equivalent to {{tnull\|engvar\|uk{{=}}Dr\|us{{=}}Dr.}} And that's only one way to approach this technically; MediaWiki could be modified to add some kind of feature for this, but that might take 5 years. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 03:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

	:::::::::Thank you, Noetica, for your clarification.
	:::::::::—] (]) 20:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

	::::::::::It's better to look a little awkward than to punctuate incorrectly. The period is part of the abbreviation and should not be omitted solely because it looks funny. I always leave them in when a comma follows. However, it shouldn't matter what I or anyone happens to prefer. What do the sources say? ] (]) 03:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}
	I did a brief Google search. While I did not find many style guides that ''discuss'' the issue of periods followed immediately by commas, I did find several that ''use'' that construction: (L.L.C.) (Mo.) (p.m.) ] (]) 04:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	::MOS doesn't necessarily care "what the sources say", since paper style guides frequently conflict about almost everything. Our in-house style guide is not tied to ''New Harts's Rules'', ''Chicago Manual of Style'', etc., though we try to agree with them when this is both a) possible (i.e., they agree with each other), and b) it is actually helpful to the encyclopedia and its editors and readers to do so, without serious negative side effects. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 23:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::We have two choices, SMC, either hold the MoS to a standard at least as high as the requirements for ordinary articles and base its contents on reliable sources or base it on the whims and pet peeves of the few Wikipedians who contribute to this talk page. There's far too much of the second in the MoS already. Of course you prefer your own conclusions to those made by others; most people do, but that does not mean that other people should have to follow rules based on what you, I or anyone else does or doesn't happen to like. ] (]) 15:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::We absolutely do {{em\|not}} hold MOS to the sourcing standards of an article. You and several other people who come by now and again here make this assumption, but it's patently false, and by design. It's not based on "whims and pet peeves" of a "few Wikipedians". It's based on consensus of innumerable editors on what makes the best sense for this project and its readers (and editors). I repeat that we try to agee with ''CMoS'' and ''Hart's'' when this is practical on two different levels, but sometimes it is not and sometimes there are better options. An everchanging pool of editors who really care a lot become regular editors for a time on this page, and that is precisely how all other editing on WP works, whether it be at ] or ] or ]. Your ] conspiracy theory about WT:MOS is basically just a bunch of "I didn't get my way on one of {{em\|my}} pet peeves, so I'm going to lash out at those who are in my way" whining. It's childish and beneath your dignity. PS: Your "we have two choices" is a false dichotomy. MOS is actually a mixture of doing what other major style guides do, doing what various standards bodies recommend, doing what we have figured out by trial and error works best in our unique medium, compromising on something enough editors can live with that fighting dies down, and, yes, sometimes someone works in a pet peeve that few others agree with and which bugs people until it eventually gets removed. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 03:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Oh I agree that we ''don't.'' We ''should.'' You see an "ever-changing pool of editors." It's more accurately called a clique.
	:::::You may call my preference for American punctuation a peeve if you like. Technically, a fondness for correct spelling, consistent capitalization, and lowercase common names for animal species are all peeves. However, the sources all agree with me. Forcing other editors do use incorrect English just because British punctuation has gotten fashionable is, to put it kindly, extremely inconsiderate. ] (]) 15:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

	:Darkfrog, what do you mean by "punctuate incorrectly"? The punctuation we are talking about is a matter of style, and therefore it is variable. There is no "correct" alternative among those that are under consideration.
	:NHR (10.2.1 "Full points", pp. 169–170) treats this topic. For discussion right here, see ] in Archive 127. I have edited for publications that prefer no full points in any kind of shortening. I like it. The points against such a simplification are few; but tradition dies hard, especially in the US.
	:Much of NHR can be seen on Google books, including .
	:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	::In American English, "Dr." with a period is correct and "Dr" without a period is incorrect. That's what I mean by correct and incorrect. Leaving something out because you don't like it is one thing when writing for yourself, but we're talking about making rules that other people must follow.
	::In New Hart's Rules, page 169, last lines: '''"If an abbreviation ends with a full point but does not end the sentence, then other punctuation follows naturally: ''Gill & Co., Oxford.''"'''
	::So, according to British English source NHR, yes we should keep the period even though the comma comes right after it. Thank you for providing a source that spells this issue out for us so clearly. ] (]) 18:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::(Fine Darkfrog. Thanks. I wasn't sure what you meant. <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC))
	:::I can't believe we're still talking about this. There is no grammar/style guide anywhere, ever, that would recommend something like "Washington, D.C, Boston...". Anyone who can competently read English at all already intuitively knows that such a construction is non-standard. Let's just drop this and move on. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 22:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

	In response to Noetica, further above with the bullet points, I generally have to concur with much of that, especially that "the destination language (English) should dominate" here. However, there is nothing "irrational" about "Dr." vs. "Dr". Also, when there's a profusion of dots, the solution, as with most editing problems on WP, is to rewrite slightly: {{!xt\|"We met DaB. A. di M., if he had been there, would have wanted to meet him also."}} ⇒ {{xt\|"We met DaB; A. di M., if he had been there, would have wanted to meet him also."}} Aside: Note that I wrote that "I would" not use the serial comma there; I didn't tell anyone else not to, and MOS largely dodges this issue because there's so much disagreement about it. There are even competing userboxes about this. :-) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 22:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	:Well, we do disagree then. You and I agree that LQ is more rational than the alternative, which dominates in American usage. I argue from generally similar premises that a profusion of semantically redundant full points (to use a British term) is irrational. Similarly, I judge that the US preference for fewer hyphens and more closed-up forms is more rational than the British preference. But let's leave it, since nothing in WP:MOS will change as result of any deliberations on such matters.
	:As for rewriting, I do not agree that we should promote that as a first recourse, or even as an early one. Many competing pressures join to produce elegant solutions in writing; but it not healthy when ''sentence punctuation'' is hostage to oddities in the styling of abbreviations (a kind of ''word punctuation'', as some call it).
	:As for the serial comma, sure: we disagree about that. I would argue at length for its default use, but not here. Again, nothing on the topic is relevant to improvement of WP:MOS. Unlike Darkfrog (in earlier discussions), I do think that treatment of the serial comma in MOS ought to be shortened.
	:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::Unless someone has published a solid study showing that the presence or absence of a dot in an abbreviation aids or impedes reading comprehension, then it's just taste and personal preferences in various wrappers. The same goes for British vs. American punctuation. ] (]) 01:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::Darkfrog24: True enough. Noetica: Cases like the "Dab. A. di M." example are so infrequent that it's a non-issue in my view, and certainly doesn't rise to the hyperbolic heights of "hostage"-taking. It's comparable to "don't begin a sentence with 'iPhone' or '4chan{{'"}}, really; just an occasional inconvenience to work around. Not everone, including me, agrees that dots at the end of abbreviations are "semantically redundant" at all, and that's not an irrational position (unlike the position that LQ is "stupid" or "wrong", which is irrational). No real opinion on US vs. UK hyphenation, or at least not one easily expressed here; I've touched on it, in a non-ENGVAR-tinged way, at ]. I don't follow you on your opposition to rewriting. We do this for just about everything that is problematic when we write. A large percentage of MOS is specific instruction on what to rewrite and how. Agreed that serial comma treatment can probably be shortened here. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 05:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

	== "See also" section and navigation boxes ==

	Editors may wish to comment at ] (version of ). See also ] (September 2012). <br>
	—] (]) 03:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
	:Thanks. I actually like the '''Alternative''' proposal there for several reasons. There's a related, but less well-thought-out, RfC happening at ] (to add a new heading like <code>==Related information==</code> above navboxes). The two ideas are mutually exclusive, yet the "Alternative" proposal at the first link (move "See also" to bottom of page) would effectively give proponents of the second what they want by merging navboxes and "See also", which serve the same basic function, {{em\|and}} fix the problem that "See also" items, like navboxes, are the least relevant things on the page, even counting external links usually. (The non-"Alternative" proposal at the first page is just more "doesn't really understand style issues" noise from Apteva, in this case a call to put redundant links in both "See also" and navboxes.) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 01:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

	::I have recently been re-ordering sections according to ]—see —and these changes to the guidelines could complicate my work. (When will there be stable versions of WP:MOS and its subsidiary pages?)
	::—] (]) 17:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::Yes, it would change the order of the sections. It's something a bot can fix, trivially, for sections that have standard names. "It will take a long time for the change to propagate through articles" has never been a reason to not make a change in MOS or any other guideline that is for the better; WP adapts rapidly. There will probably never be entirely stable versions of MOS and subpages, judging by MOS's ongoing history. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 01:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

	== Large-scale bug? ==

	{{Resolved\|1=Fixed.}}
	{{Moved discussion to\|Misplaced Pages talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs}}
	In recent times, two bots and one AWB user have, in the article ], changed "1862–1902" to "1862 – 1902" (). ] seems clear enough to me, so what is going on? ] (]) 10:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

	:Take it up with AWB on their bug page. It didn't used to do that. The spaced dash is used when there are full dates. Perhaps someone screwed up when revising the replacement rules. — ] (]) 20:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
	::I filed it as a bug report over there (to the extent possible – Toccata, you need to go there and add more info to the bug report, such as AWB version number, etc.) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 23:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::{{done}} Bug reported and fixed. Check ] -- ] (]) 23:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

	== Italic titles with parentheses? ==

	{{Resolved\|1=Fixed.}}
	Hello. I recently created the article '']''. When I added the template to italicize the title, it did not italicize the part of the original title in parentheses. I assume this is built in to assist with disambiguation, but is there an override for when the work's title has parentheses in the title itself? Feel free to fix the linked article if you know the workaround, or leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. ] (]) 11:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
	:Done by using displaytitle: manually. <span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] (]) — </span> 13:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
	::Another solution is to use the HTML character entity codes for the parentheses (round brackets, whatever): <code>Così è &#40;se vi pare&#41;</code>, which renders as: Così è (se vi pare). I bet you could get way with just escaping the <code>(</code> as <code>&#40;</code> and leave the <code>)</code> alone. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 02:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

	== What's wrong with linking from within quotations? ==

	I've always been puzzled by the following provision:
	:As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.
	How do the links in the (hypothetical) quotation given here clutter it, change it, or mislead or confuse?
	:According to the prosecutor, "The defendant, armed with a ], robbed a liquor store in ]. Though no shots were fired the ] makes the defendant responsible for the security guard's death from ] brought on by stress-induced ]. We disagree with the ] filed in this case by the ]."
	Why should (as MOS currently seems to demand) these handy links be replaced with a lot of awkward footnotes and surrounding verbiage? I propose that all that need be said is that links must not inappropriately color the meaning of the quoted material. Thoughts? ] (]) 14:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
	:That may not be bad, but suppose the prosecutor has misused ] (not in the sense of being incorrect, but of meaning something else, entirely). Then it ''shouldn't'' be linked. And how are we to know?
	:For that matter, he could have misused ], although I'm almost sure he didn't. — ] ] 14:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

	:::::<small>Edit conflict with Arthur Rubin's additional comment below, but I don't want the end-with-preposition joke waste go to.</small> How are the points you raise dependent upon the fact that the article directly quotes the prosecutor instead of paraphrasing him (or her)? The MOS provision I've brought up for discussion implies it matters somehow, and that's the question I'm concerned with <small>(not to reignite the terminal debate , I hope)</small>. ] (]) 16:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

	::It is a crazy rule. If Alex Ferguson says that he is "considering using ''Valencia'' as left back in this weeks match", we can be absolutely confident that he means ], not the city, community, historic kingdom, football club, motor racing circuit, song, ship, book, lingerie model, citrus fruit, toothcarp, film, fictional island, university or video game character of the same name. Suggest rephrasing as ''Links should only be used within quotes where the intended meaning of the linked term is beyond reasonable dispute.'' ] (]) 15:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

	:::I hadn't realized the rule was so strict; the last time I looked at it in detail, I thought I saw an exception if the intended meaning was clear in context, ''and'' would not be clear standing alone, without the context of the article. — ] ] 15:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

	::::::Surely it is up to the editor who is doing the linking to en sure that the links are appropriate, is is the case for any other Wikilinking - as regards Alex Ferguson - he woudl almost certainly be talking about ], not ] - it makes no difference whether the link is inside a quote or not. ] (]) 16:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

	::::Nope(@Arthur Rubin after ec): full text of the linking section within MoS#Quotations is:
	:::::''As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.
	:::::''Two alternatives are available:
	:::::* ''You may add a sentence in a ref element, that is not in a quotation and mentioning the subject to be linked to, and link there. For example, you may add <nowiki><ref>Misplaced Pages has an article on ].</ref></nowiki> or <nowiki><ref>''History'', p. 79. (Misplaced Pages has an article on ].)</ref></nowiki>
	:::::* ''You may bracket within the quotation and put the link text within the brackets. The bracketing may not include internal quotation marks. The link text may not be identical to the adjacent wording. For example, you may write "The City of New York <nowiki><nowiki>]<nowiki><nowiki>]</nowiki></nowiki> has boundaries set by law."
	::::The second of these alternatives makes an absolute nonsense of the proposed goal of leaving the quotation unchanged and uncluttered: the first still changes and clutters the quote, although not as much, but makes the relevant information less easily accessible to the reader.
	::::I can foresee no instance where it is impossible to avoid linking, so this amounts to an absolute ban on giving the reader simple and unobtrusive clarification. For an encyclopaedia to prohibit itself from this is a ridiculous position to take. ] (]) 16:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

	:::::Agreed. Misinterpreting a direct quotation is not much different from misparaphrasing it. In fact, it may be better to have a bad link in a direct quote, because it will be obvious to knowledgeable readers that a mistake has been made. A bad job in paraphrasing, on the other hand, may go unnoticed for much longer. As for Arthur's objection that jargon may be misused, if that is the case we certainly need to point it out! A mistake is a mistake whether we link to the article or the reader has to type it into the search box.
	:::::I do think, however, that we should ''discourage'' links within quotations. It is quite annoying to read a quotation with links for every word beyond a sixth-grade reading level. That's a general problem we have with over-linking, but somehow it seems more obnoxious in quotations. Perhaps we could have milder restrictions, such as only linking ambiguous items like Valencia above? — ] (]) 20:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Overlinking is a separate issue that has its own guideline. There is no need to duplicate it in MoS#Quotations#Linking. Are you seconding my proposed alternative text above? ] (]) 20:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::Yes, that seems reasonable. — ] (]) 22:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::In that case, let's formalise it. I add a warning based on most apposite part of previous ban, but remove the two suggested workarounds as redundant, unused (in my experience), and contray to their stated purpose. ] (]) 23:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

	===Linking within quotations: Proposal 1===

	Replace existing text at ] with this text:
	<blockquote>Links should only be used within quotes where the intended meaning or referent of the linked item is beyond reasonable dispute. Particular care should be taken that the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, in meaning or content, is not violated.</blockquote>
	] (]) 23:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

	* '''Support''', pending further discussion. I think your warnings should be enough to cover the problems mentioned above. I'd still like to see a word on avoiding frivolous links, but not enough to quibble over it. (I'm adding 'referent' above, and changing 'term' to 'item', since in general we wouldn't be linking to dictionary definitions, but to people, places, historical eras, etc.) — ] (]) 23:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
	* '''Procedural comment.''' <small>Having seen some discussion at Kwami's talkpage between him and Kevin, I endorse Kwami's addition of "referent"; but I have removed the square brackets that made it seem like a gloss on "meaning" rather than a genuine addition. I have also boldly reformatted, and removed some striking-out.<br>'''Editors: please do not now make alterations to the proposal. I did so only because no one uninvolved had yet expressed an opinion, or voted.''' If there is disagreement here, an advertised RFC would be needed. This is no trivial change. <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)</small>
	* '''Oppose''' as an incompetently drafted proposal. I tried to disambiguate the intent for the proposer (and sought clarification at his talkpage), before anyone else commented while the meaning was uncertain. I got no answer from the proposer, who instead substituted ''new'' wording, restoring the ambiguity. Sorry! Not good enough, for a discussion of major change to the core of Misplaced Pages's manual of style. ♥ <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::You changed my input on a talk page in a blatant breach of ]: I restored the original meaning (yes: I used "new" wording in as much as I used ''existing'' rather than the original ''current'': that, unlike your change, is not substantive, and I have the right to change my contributions anyway, you do not.) You did so after reading my message on Kwami's talk page which had the main purpose of asking him not to change my signed comment. At least he had the dignity to specify what change he had made to the proposal, which you did not. Whether my word was ''current'' or ''existing'' (the change came about through editing from memory of my intention, without bothering to look at past diffs), it is unequivocal and unqualified, and can only be read as meaning the whole subsection, which is linked. I had already made my opinion on, and intention to excise, the workarounds clear. Your change introduced uncertainty, and speculation as to what the extent of the ''"relevant"'' text. Your edit note states, ''"otherwise it could seem that the entire text of the linked location is to be replaced, but it is not clear that this is intended"''; if I say replace current/existing text, without qualification, it is evident that I mean the whole of current/existing text. How can an unspecified value judgement as to what is to be deemed ''relevant'' be a clarification upon that? And yet it is on that basis that you dismiss the proposal as "incompetently drafted." This strikes me as a very bad faith comment. ] (]) 11:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::Inaccurate throughout, Kevin. But please do not continue the side discussion here. This page is for improving WP:MOS, by means of orderly and clear dialogue. See your talkpage for continued treatment of the lesser issue. <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::If you are going to publicly denounce my statements as inaccurate, you need to be willing to publicly justify that. Either retract, or present your justification (at my talk page if you prefer). ] (]) 12:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Don't worry about it, Kevin. Everyone sees what's going on here. ] (]) 21:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::What do you mean, EEng? (If your answer to this question is not relevant to improvement of WP:MOS, please answer me at my talkpage.) ♥ <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::I meant that, to the extent Kevin was concerned about other editors' views of your recent interactions with him, it was my belief that further interaction between you two was unlikely to enhance the fidelity of such views to the ultimate truth of the situation (if you will forgive my Platonism). ] (]) 02:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::Orright Bruce, save it for round the sheep-dip. Just let's have unambiguous proposals (unlike the present one), and discuss them in a way that ''everyone'' can follow. <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::What do you think of SMcC's multipoint analysis (under Proposal 2 below)? ] (]) 14:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I think it's acute and useful, as expected from SMcCandlish. I agree with his oppose vote. (No more here, please. Stay on topic.) <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' per Noetica. This is perennial rehash, and a not very well informed approach to it. You need to do a lot more homework on this issue if you want to re-raise it. For the record, I'm generally in support of the idea that we can link from inside quotations, when doing so helps prevent gross redundancy, but that it should otherwise be avoided because it is very easy to stumble over ] and ] problems by making ]y or just accidentally inappropriate links. I have to concur with others that this is a content editing matter, not a style matter, so it's off-topic here anyway. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 21:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)<p>PS: My second "Oppose", to Proposal 2 below, and in particular the commentary following that !vote, has considerably more detail about what I think {{em\|is}} wrong with the current wording. Though I don't support either of these particular proposals, the current section is quite problematic. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 06:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)</p>
	* '''Oppose''' deleting the entire exiting text. I don't see why the existing suggestions deserve to be deleted and the proposal doesn't address that issue at all. Perhaps it would have been a better proposal if it said "relevant" rather than "existing." ><
	:Substantively, I am sympathetic with the clutter argument; I don't really like wikilinks and if a topic is ''that'' important to an article, what are the chances that it was first mentioned within a quote? But I ''don't'' see how adding the link is confusing. Obviously the person being quoted did not include a wikilink in his or her actual statement. I kind of doubt that readers would assume otherwise. Similarly, is it really OR or NPOV to wikilink ''the actual term used in the quote''? Suppose, for example, that the person above really did misuse "hypertensive crisis" and he actually meant some other heart-related problem. Wikilinking does not make the statement any more or less accurate; it would simply make it easier for readers to figure out what hypertensive crisis ''is.'' Readers can draw their own conclusions on whether it's accurate, or maybe we could find a secondary source that says he used it incorrectly and probably meant something else. It ''would'', of course, be OR for ''us'' to just wikilink some topic ''other'' than "hypertensive crisis" that we assume he or she intended, and I wholly support a prohibition on such linking.
	:Finally, I can't say that I think this should be addressed somewhere other than the MOS. The MOS seems like the first place you would look for a rule like this if it existed. While it's true that the line between style advice and substantive advice is a little blurry here, that is the case for many aspects of the MOS and I feel that except for cases where advice is clearly related to substance ''only'' that the MOS and its talk page are not an inappropriate place for discussion. ] ] 23:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

	===Linking within quotations: Proposal 2===

	As the editor who initiated this discussion by supplying the subtly beautiful and breathtakingly comprehensive example seen at the start of this thread -- an example which (I have no choice but to reveal) has brought me laudatory letters and telegrams of congratulation from heads of state on four continents, noted philosphers and, yes, even His Holiness Pope Benedict, for its almost magical power of stimulating intelligent and civil debate on this critical topic -- I'd like to jump in for a second. ''(deep breath)''

	I too strongly dislike overlinking, hate "easter egg" links, and despise misleading or inappropriate links -- ''whether inside or outside'' direct quotations. But why do we need a new, hard-to-interpret level of scrutiny ("beyond reasonable dispute") especially for links within quotations? As someone pointed out, you can overlink or mis-link in a paraphase just as easily, so what does this achieve? So here's my proposal (if it's inappropriate for me to offer an alternative this way someone please tell me what to do instead):

	Replace current text at ] with...
	:nothing. Eliminate it.
	I realize there's no instance on record of a MOS issue being resolved by reducing complexity and eliminating text, rather than larding more text and rules and exceptions on top of what's already there, and it's only fair to remind everyone that some physicists believe that doing so could, under some theories, act like the collision of Universe with Anti-Universe, bringing to an end all Time and Existence as we know it, but I for one am willing to take the risk. ] (]) 03:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

	:Yes, actually. An inappropriate link would be bad anywhere in the article. We do need to be especially careful with quotes, but ] is probably the place to cover this, since it's not a stylistic issue. Currently we just say, ''The quotation should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful to avoid misrepresentation of the argument in the source.'' Perhaps we might want to clarify that an improper link can cause that misrepresentation. — ] (]) 04:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

	::Kwami, I think you've hit on an important point. Once we decide links are OK from within quotes, it ceases to be a MOS issue. I think it's fine to mention at WP:QUOTE that linking can mislead readers just like improper context and other things can, without necessarily trying to create magic litmus paper that bursts into flames when you've done it wrong -- anyway, that can be taken up at QUOTE. I'm not sure what you mean by "Yes, actually" -- what are you supporting? ] (]) 04:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

	:::Support. I'd support either proposal as an improvement. I'm not sure complete silence is the way to go, but I don't think the MOS is really the place for whatever needs to be said. — ] (]) 05:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

	*Support. Personally I would not use links inside a quote - ever, but if there are those who disagree, there is obviously no consensus that this should be in the MOS. ] (]) 04:03, December 29, 2012‎ (UTC)

	* '''Oppose''' a messily presented proposal, followed so far by ill-structured commentary. The issue is important, and the matter has been discussed here at length before – with far better structure and consideration for editors who want meaningful dialogue. Do better, please. Note that the page is subject to unusually close scrutiny, for a reason. ☺ <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

	*'''Perfectly happy with this''' (can't quite bring myself to fully support a counter-proposal to my own, but that is as much due to hubris as to commitment) and fully aware that my own proposal is essentially true of any link anywhere, and not specific to links within quotes, as would be any note warning about overlinking. I note that WP:QUOTE (an essay, not an adopted guideline) is already totally silent on the matter. Maybe I thought that total elimination was a step further than I was brave enough to propose: maybe it is worth retaining a non-restrictive warning. ] (]) 11:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

	*'''Oppose''': Deleting material from MOS and other major guidelines generally does not work well, because it was added for specific anti-editwarring, dispute-resolving reasons. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 21:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	::Can you give an example of the kind of problem the existing text (proposed for deletion) might prevent -- and why that problem is more likely to arise with links inside quotes any more than with links outside quotes? ] (]) 23:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::That's already been adequately covered by previous discussion in this thread, and isn't even particularly responsive to what I wrote anyway. I have a lot on my wikiplate today, and don't feel like reiteration is a good use of my time, honestly. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 23:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::Now that I'm caught up on pressing things, I can address this. I'm not sure what to say other than to ask what objections you have to what parts of "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." It seems mostly clear cut to me. I don't like the "As much as possible" wording, because it's silly hyperbole – it is of course {{em\|possible}} to never, ever link inside a quotation. So it does not get its point across properly. The rest of it makes perfect sense to me. It just needs to be flexible enough that people can link in quotations when this is the best option for the article. To that end, I might favor removal of the "violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged" part (an argument can be made that adding a link does not qualify – the link is metadata, not data). To me, "mislead or confuse the reader" is the most important factor to watch out for, since inappropriate or "leading" links can be a serious ] issue (attempting to link the quoted statement to something positive or negative that the editor wishes readers to associate with the quoted party, where there is actually no such association) and ] (novel synthesis, by the same mechanism) problem. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 05:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::To directly address your original question, "How do the links in the (hypothetical) quotation given here clutter it, change it, or mislead or confuse?" They {{em\|cluttered}} it, in the view of some, by festooning it with bluelinks. I don't feel that this is true {{em\|if and when}} our general principles about what to link and not link are applied (i.e., avoid overlinking); your legal case example was fine, to me. They {{em\|changed}} it, in the view of some, by adding links that were not present in the original. I see this argument as childish and silly, honestly; it will almost never, ever be the case that we'll quote something in an article and preserve links in the quote (due to ] concerns for starters), and everyone who's been on WP more than 2 minutes immediately figures out that links are metadata, not data. They can {{em\|mislead or confuse}} in ways I've already discussed, immediately above (your example, again, did not exhibit this problem). Hope that helps. To me, only the last issue (NPOV and NOR "mislead or confuse" problems) are a legit concern. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 06:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::I appreciate your thoughtful comments and agree on every point, including that the single valid issue with linking from within quotations is the danger that an inappropriate link will mislead or distort. So what I need to understand is: since this precise problem arises, in precisely the same way, ''outside'' of quotations (in, say, a paraphrase of a quote), why aren't these issues dealt in a discussion of link selection in general (not a MOS issue) instead of the current guideline's implication that particular formatting of links (shifting them into footnotes or bracketed asides) magically makes them all OK? ] (]) 13:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Probably because some editors object to links in quotations for other reasons and, not realizing as you have that the misleading-links problem is not limited to quotations, they have shoehorned it into the section on links in quotations. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 22:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

	*'''support''' the concept of linking withing quotes, '''oppose''' the idea of just blanking ]. I think linking withing quotes is fine, as long as overlinking is avoided. ]] 22:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

	*'''Oppose''' all proposed changes (although the wording could be cleaned up a bit). If the original quotation doesn't have a link or some footnote, why should WP add one? If the material is that ambiguous, the link should be placed in the supporting text, not the quotation itself. ] (]) 05:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	*:It's often about redundancy, not ambiguity. In a complex quote with a lot of jargon or terms-of-art, one will essentially have to reiterate most of the quotation in order to link to the articles on the concepts in the quote, and this is often almost {{em\|painfully}} redundant and repetitive. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 05:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)<br />PS: To be clear, when a case like this arises, I will definitely link in the quotation, citing ] if it comes to that. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 22:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

	*'''Support''' I had little trouble getting to grips with the proposal (although I was shocked by some of the phrasing of those involved here in these discussions e.g. in the first proposal, a response including "an incompetently drafted proposal", probably why the majority of editors swerve discussions here, to avoid being cut down, belittled and trampled over by so-called "experts". Such self-declared "experts" need to think again, this Misplaced Pages relies on volunteers, not "experts"). I think removing any quote-specific format regulation and relying on the rest of MOS (and of course, common sense) is an obvious step forwards. Many quotes will contain the odd word or phrase which needs to be explained. Making those phrases the odd ones out, in our normal prose rules, by enforcing a regime where footnotes (or other methods) should be used to help the reader understand the meaning and context of certain phrases is absurd. On the odd occasion that these links are deemed incorrect, or potentially ambiguous, let's '''talk about it'''. ] (]) 18:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::I can understand that, because I was shocked also. Shocked that a fundamental ambiguity has been allowed to remain in that first proposal. I took the issue to the proposer's talkpage, which is appropriate. I suggest you do similarly. The present subsection (which I have refactored, so yes: you can follow it with "little trouble") is for the second proposal. Please stay on topic. ☺ <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::Please try not to be so condescending. It's little wonder so few real content editors bother here. ] (]) 11:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::Please try to stay on topic. It's little wonder these proposals get nowhere if people don't care about clarity and removal of ambiguity. A reminder: this talkpage is for discussion toward improving Misplaced Pages's manual of style. ☺ <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::So it's not for being condescending to other editors then as you seem appear magically able to do with alarming regularity? Okay, thanks for your clarification. ] (]) 11:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' if I correctly understand that the proposal is to delete the section ]. I could understand wanting to shorten or simplify that section, but not why we would want to remove it. I also agree with Noetica that a clear proposal would have a better chance, and after looking at the talk page where he discussed the ambiguity, I am flummoxed about why it was allowed to stand that way, and then made worse in proposal 2. ] (]) 22:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' I oppose deletion of the entire section for the reasons I discuss above. It does not seem to me that the justifications that originally prompted this advice have been either debunked or shown to be wholly unpersuasive. I think that deleting the text is the same as allowing wikilinks in quotes, but there is inadequate justification and consensus for such a major change. So, I think the text should stay, even though I have some problems with it. ] ] 23:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

	== Plural titles with 'the' ==

	Our naming guidelines advise against plurals and 'the' in article titles, but sometimes they're appropriate, IMO. Because of the guideline, however, people have repeatedly tried to move ], ], ], etc., and they have moved ]. If you have any wisdom to impart, see ]. — ] (]) 20:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
	:Yeah, these are all conventional exceptions, like ] and ]. Some things need a "the" (or "The", very rarely except in the common case of titles of published works), and some need to be plural for logical reasons. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 21:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

	== Clarification to "Scrolling lists and collapsible content" ==

	This section currently reads:
	<blockquote>], and boxes that toggle text display between ''hide'' and ''show'', should not conceal article content, including ], image galleries, and image captions. They especially should not be used to conceal "spoiler" information (see ]). Collapsible ''sections'' or ''cells'' may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, ], or ]s. When scrolling lists or collapsible content are used, take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS.</blockquote>
	This is genuinely problematic, as people have been using one particular omission as an excuse to add collapsed lists of content to articles, as at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Detroit_Zoo&oldid=522128534#Animals and a number of similar articles. I fixed the ] piece by converting it to a normal list (and de-capitalizing the animal common namees), while at ] I converted the list to a paragraph, as a different demo of how to fix this (and de-capitalized again). Whether or not such a list is useful in such an article at all – note that ], etc., do not have such a section – is irrelevant to the wider issue; lists of content {{em\|are}} appropriate in some articles, and this is about people forcing them to be collapsed by default. {{strong\|I propose the following re-wording:}}
	<blockquote>], and boxes that toggle text display between ''hide'' and ''show'', should not conceal any article content by default, including ], ], ], ], etc. They especially ]<s> (with the exception of ]s)</s>. Collapsible {{em\|sections}} or {{em\|cells}} may be used in ] that consolidate information already covered in the main text, both in the article body (uncollapsed by default), and in ] and ] (may be collapsed by default). When scrolling lists or collapsible content are used, take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS.</blockquote>
	I separately and severably {{strong\|propose removal of the chess puzzle exception}}, because a) in looking over all the chess puzzle and chess problem articles, I can't find a single case(!) that still uses a collapse box to hide the solution, and b) it's simply a variant of spoiler-hiding to begin with – if a magical exception is made for WikiProject Chess, everyone's going to want one (cf. rampant animal common name capitalization all over Misplaced Pages, stemming directly from the ] project insisting on doing it in ornithology articles; some "slippery slope" arguments are demonstrably valid). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 21:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	:Any objections? — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 22:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::Pending discussion of the main proposal, I'm at least going to remove the chess exception because it is no longer relevant; zero articles use it any longer (i.e. it's a clear case of ] and arguably now ], in an invert way, because we already have a general prohibition against spoiler-hiding). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 01:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

	== Minor BLP issue in MOS ==

	As a ] matter, we really should not use the names of living people, public figures or not, in examples like "The author thanked her father, President Obama, and her mother, Sinéad O'Connor." — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 23:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	:Change them to Robin Hood and Little Bo Peep then. ''] ]'', <small>03:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC).</small><br />

	== Bolding of major roles ==

	{{hatnote\|Moved from ]. Per the move, the wording of my first comment has been slightly revised}}
	{{rfc\|style\|rfcid=EF5541A}}
	Well, here it goes. In the Anime and Manga WikiProject, it is established practice to bold major roles (for examples, see ], ], ] and ]). However, this is not one of the uses of bold listed at ] (for examples of articles not using bold, see ] , ] , ] and ] ). I'm requesting comment because this could potentially affect hundreds, even thousands, of articles about voice actors. So this RfC is about if there is consensus to continue bolding major roles in articles, and thus proposing that the practice be added to ], or if we shouldn't bold major roles. In a nutshell: should bolding major roles be included in ] or not? ] <sup>]]]]</sup> 23:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
	*<s>'''Wrong venue''':</s> <ins>That comment applied to the original posting at the Wikiproject talk page.</ins> <ins>'''Comment''':</ins>This obviously should be taken up at ], since it really has nothing at all to do with anime in particular, but all voice acting, possibly even all acting across the board! Stuffing it into a page no one but project members pays any attention to is only going to result in a ] that won't override ], as a matter of policy. This should be either voluntarily moved by the proposer, or procedurally closed by an admin and re-opened. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 23:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC), updated 00:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::Ok, I'm moving this to ] (I was going to bring it there anyway.) ] <sup>]]]]</sup> 23:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC), updated 00:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

	===Comments after the move===
	Per the comments made by SMcCandlish, I've moved the discussion to here. Further comments can be made below this line. ] <sup>]]]]</sup> 23:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

	*'''Question:''' What is the supposed point/justification in all this boldfacing, which at some of the examples you provide is both excessive (to me) and inconsistent even within the same article. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 00:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


	::Before I answer your question, I'll give a little background on this. I decided to start this discussion because of ] on my talk-page. You see, I had been de-bolding roles from a number of articles because it was not listed in ]. However, as pointed out by {{user\|Leofighter}} on my talk-page, bolding roles is useful because it allows users to see which roles are major ones. However, {{user\|Lucia Black}} states that, bolding of roles without giving a reliable source counts as ].

	:Personally, I have no problems with bolding roles in articles, but I want to see if there is consensus to include this in ] or not. While I'm not proposing that it should be done, I can sort of see Leofighter's point. It would be convenient for those interested in learning the person's major roles. The problem with this is, without a reliable source confirming that the role is "major," then this counts as original research. And the reason why it's rather inconsistent is that only major roles are bolded. ] <sup>]]]]</sup> 00:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the explanations. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 00:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

	*'''Oppose''': It's too inconsistent and convoluted for anyone (like, um, our readers) to intuitively understand without being members of some such WikiProject and following their discussions in detail. Most readers, like I did, are going to simply think "] Why on earth is this so sloppy, with some stuff boldfaced for no apparent reason?" And Leofighter is correct that Wikipedians deciding, willy-nilly, what is and isn't a "major" role is blatant original research. This might (arguably not) be appropriate on some fandom wiki, like Battlestar Wiki or whatever, but it's not an encyclopedic practice in WP terms. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 00:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

	*'''Oppose''' per SMcC, and on the general principle that the use of typographic effects to convey information should be kept to a minimum—and should follow only well-established conventions. If a role is ''really'' important it should probably have its own subsection heading.—] (]) 02:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per SMcCandlish. I've said the same thing while maintaining ]. It isn't immediately obvious why a role is bolded (though many like to add "Lead roles in bold," which I think is silly.) And I see potential for arguments over whether a role is major or not, and oftentimes it's OR. ~Cheers, ]]] 02:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per SMcC. Bolding in running text is too disruptive and vies with the titles for our attention, too. ] ] 02:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' I can totally see this as ], having major roles being handpicked by people based on what they think and feel is not a good thing. - ] (]) 03:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per SMcCandlish. ] (]) 19:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''', as (1.) bolding major roles does not make them recognizable as major roles easier (you need to know the code), (2.) I remember a guideline on german WP that says to only put the lemma of an article in bold and not to use bold font for emphasis. ] (]) 11:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' project specific standards for non-project specific items are bad for the coherence of both encyclopaedia and community. ''] ]'', <small>02:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC).</small><br />
	* '''Oppose''' There is no need to modify ] which is sufficiently clear, and aligned with consensus and best practice. The unorthodox manner of emphasizing with boldface, in contravention of mos:bold, is problematic and should be corrected to accord with policy. If it is desired to emphasis these "major roles" with boldface, place them under an appropriate sub-header where boldface is standard. --] (]) 19:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

	=== A new suggestion (bolding of major roles) ===
	Per the comments above, I have a new suggestion. Should the bolding of major roles be listed in ] as an example of what should '''not''' be bolded? As in, should it be stated at ] that "major roles of actors in media should not be bolded, since..." or not? ] <sup>]]]]</sup> 01:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

	== Possible issues in "Possessives" section ==

	The ] section includes the following, which looks to me like ]: "Some possessives have two possible pronunciations: James's house or James' house..." I'm skeptical that anyone who is a native English speaker, in any dialect/variety, would sound that out as if it read "Jaim's house". I suspect this is a disingenuous ploy by haters of the "James's" construction to make it seem like there are more people in support of "James{{'"}} than there really are. I've lived in England, Ireland, both US coasts and the US Southwest, and Canada, and I've never heard anyone do that, with the sole exception of TV preachers who tend to say "Jeeeeezuz", possessive or not, but they theatrically mispronounce all kinds of things, e.g. "God" as "GO-wə-də" in three syllables). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 00:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

	PS: I think it's also a curious that the logic in ''Chicago Manual of Style'' is nowhere to be found here: Use the contruction "James's", except for names from antiquity – "Jesus'", "Zeus'". ''CMS'' arrived at that clearly because of the widespread influence on both sides of the Atlantic of the King James version of the Bible, which uses that now-archaic construction. I'm not sure I support this distinction, but it's a widely known and followed one (at least in North America, but I would be surprised if no UK style guides mention it). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 00:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

	: Here's a ''James''' with the ''Jaim's'' pronunciation, at least locally: ]. That maybe also gives an indication where it occurs: when the possessive usage becomes not just common but the only one. When talking about the football stadium or the nearby Metro station, ], no-one is thinking of the saint who is the implied possessor of both properties. In such cases the possessive is grammatically correct but largely redundant, so the apostrophe and the pronounced 's' can be dropped without ambiguity.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 00:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::I suspected someone might bring up an example like this. It's a poor one, because place names, {{em\|especially}} those named after saints and other biblical figures, are handled with a ridiculous level of inconsistency and outright ungrammaticality by modern standards (witness "St James Gate, Dublin", which doesn't even bother with an apostrophe anywhere). They've also been named the way they've been named for centuries in many cases, going back to before there were any standardized grammar and punctuation rules in English. Furthermore, St cases like this in the UK and US derive directly from the KJV biblical writing style (already addressed separately) which always does this, but which dates to 1611 and does not reflect the patterns of Modern English (remember, this is the same Bible that says in Late Middle English that Jesus was ''an hungred'' (in Early Modern English that would be "a-hungered", like "Froggy Went a-Courtin{{'"}}, and today it's "hungry"). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 03:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

	:SMcCandlish:
	:* Pronunciation of those possessives without the added /s/ or /z/ are very well attested, especially in more formal registers – the ones that might be considered in determining encyclopedic usage. I say ''James's'', as you do. But do you say ''Bill Gates's''? ''Steve Jobs's''? ''John Cassevetes's''? See, by the way, our article ], and note the wavering over possessive forms. Note also the absence of discussion to resolve this issue at the talkpage. '''Question for everyone: How would the issue there be resolved using the current WP:MOS guideline?''' (My answer? With huge difficulty, or not at all.)
	:* The "ecclesiastical" pronunciation suggested by ''Jesus<nowiki>'</nowiki>'' is established far beyond and before TV evangelists' usage. It's like ''heav'n'' and a few other exceptional cases, which are well settled in liturgical use, religious vocal settings, and many more contexts.
	:* CMOS16's treatment of possessive forms is even worse than their earlier treatments. (Quite an achievement.) They have changed particular decisions without any apparent justification, and they advocate a principle only to rule contrary to that principle a little further on.
	:* The fundamental question: do we want spelling to follow dominant pronunciations, or not? Those who disregard pronunciation and who like the ''shorter'' singular possessive forms for nouns ending in "s" (or "z", or "ce", etc.) must favour ''boss<nowiki>'</nowiki>'' over ''boss's''. Butt ugly? I think so. And this must be a rational possessive form for them: ''anyone else<nowiki>'</nowiki>''. (Rules for pronouns and the like that take an apostrophe in their possessive forms are the same as the rules for nouns.) Those who disregard pronunciation and who like the ''longer'' forms must favour ''Davies's'' over ''Davies<nowiki>'</nowiki>'', along with the singular possessive forms ''congeries's'', ''Piscies's'', ''molasses's'', ''species's'', and ''series's''. If we aim for natural use of language, acceptable and understandable to all readers, disregarding pronunciation doesn't cut it.
	:* I think the possessives section is seriously flawed, in the ways I hint at above. I did my best for it a few years back. The stupid three-practice approach is almost useless, and can resolve almost nothing.
	:* Good luck!
	:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::The -'s possessive tends to be used with animate nouns, which may be why ''molasses's'', ''species's'', and ''series's'' sound so odd. — ] (]) 02:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::Agreed, but they don't {{em\|look}} odd, except perhaps to someone who cannot read but by sounding things out, syllable by syllable, in their heads. I honestly don't think that MOS needs to care about that condition. Anyone who is like that is already entirely used to possessives not looking the way they'd prefer them to look. It's not something we rationally can, or should attempt to, compensate for. It's not a legit accessibility issue at all. This is a written medium, and "molasses's" is the normal, globally-recognized way to form the plural of "molasses" in written English, even if some people would quirkily write it as "molasses{{'"}}. There is not a single competent reader of the English language who will not instantly understand the proper, unambiguous, standard spelling "molasses's". This is emphatically {{em\|not}} an ENGVAR issue, it's just convenient for fans of the truncated, sub-standard style to pretend that it is. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 03:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::Noetica: Yes, I do say "Bill Gates's", etc., with a pronunciation like "bil GAYTsəz" (3 syllables total); enunciating the possessive clearly is often important to conveying meaning correctly. I remain highly skeptical that this "drop pronunciation of the possessive" thing, to the extent it exists in the real world, is anything but a fey affectation. I've lived in too many places and I watch/listen to too much media from too many places around the world to believe that a non-trivial percentage of people would consider it especially "encyclopedic" rather than a dialectal quirk, like pronouncing "Texas" as "Texez" or "Manchester" as "Manjezdah". WP does not need to account for vagaries of spoken accents like this, especially not with grossly ambiguous written punctuation changes. People who would actually say "Bill Gates{{'"}} are not morons and know full well what "Bill Gates's" means and when they read it aloud they'll pronounce it as "Bill Gates{{'"}} the way they always do. They don't somehow rate their own version of English with different punctuation rules! I agree that people who would write "Jones{{'"}} for "Jones's" would logically have to write "boss{{'"}} for "boss's" and "else{{'"}} for "else's", but they don't, generally (and most editors would correct them if they did), which points out that it's not really a rational position to take. That said, I do not agree that this is "the fundamental question". It really has nothing to do with sounding out, except maybe on the Simple English Misplaced Pages. This is a written medium and needs to reflect that in our prose. "Jones{{'"}} is {{em\|not}} semantically equivalent to "Jones's"; the former is a plural possessive referring to two or more parties called "Jone". {{Em\|That}} is the real issue. And it's not trivial. It can seem silly with most names that native English speakers recognize, but both "William" and "Williams" are valid British surnames, and the issue gets thick fast with foreign names (e.g. Macia and Macias are both valid surnames in Spanish, among many similar examples). The truncated usage is substandard and confusing. There are only limited conventional exceptions, like "men's", "oxen's", "bacteria's" and "children's", and they're all based on irregular plurals from Anglo-Saxon, Latin, etc. I agree that the current 3-prong approach is pointless. We need to standardize on "Jones's", for basic logic and unambiguous parseability reasons, and {{em\|maybe}} allow for the "names from antiquity" exception, to keep KJV fans from blowing a gasket about their favored "Jesus{{'"}} construction. I'd actually rather see it limited to biblical names, and in the context of Anglican/CoE and related Protestantism specifically, not antiquity or even Christianity generally (this would permit "Moses{{'"}}, in Protestantism but not Catholicism or Judaism articles, and not "Zeus{{'"}} anywhere). PS: I agree that ''CMoS'' 16th ed. badly needs to be replaced immediately with a corrected 17th ed., and I rely on the 15th because it doesn't contradict itself as much. I'm kind of pissed off that I can't get a refund for ed. 16 or a coupon to get ed. 17 for free or a steep discount. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 03:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

	:::I made some related comments in previous discussions.
	:::*] (section 28; August 2011)
	:::*] (section 112; August 2009)
	:::**especially ] (section 112, subsection 1; August 2009)
	:::—] (]) 17:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

	*Go with ''Chicago'' pending something better coming up. --] (]) 08:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

	*{{anchor\|pcpron}}I hear a one-syllable "James'", and I don't think it's an affectation. I would hesitate to say what the dominant pronunciation is. So many rules are in use, and so many people are sure their favorite rule is the only correct one, that I'd say we should allow either form for all singular words ending in the letter S, with standardization in individual articles depending on the first use or the majority use at the time the question is addressed. The only rule I'd favor for singular nouns is that those that don't end in "s" get an apostrophe-s. ("He borrowed Max's tie for appearance's sake.") —] ] 17:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::I think this is the most practical suggestion and the one least likely to lead to edit wars. ] (]) 17:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::Again, {{em\|it does not matter}} what someone's favored pronunciation is. Written English is not tied strongly to spoken English or thousands of words would have different spellings. It's important in encyclopedic prose to be very clear about possessives and plurality, and the only way to do that is to recognize that "Macias{{'"}} and "Williams{{'"}} are {{em\|not}} equivalent to or substitutable for "Macias's" and "Williams's", respectively. It would be better for a few edit wars to break out and the issue turn into another RfC or whatever until people got the point, like the do about everything MOSish, from date linking to logical quotation, than for us to continue using a substandard and ambiguous written style that randomly apes people's conversational speech for no encyclopedic reason. Writing it in a way that prevents confusion is not tantamount to telling people how to pronounce it, any more than spelling a word as "heroic" is telling people from a silent-initial-h dialect that they have to pronounce the "h". In other words, I'm strongly arguing that where MOS says that basing the spelling on your favored pronunciation is okay, it needs to stop saying that and favor the clearest standard. This is the same logic we bring to most issues here. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 21:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::I tend to agree. I've always done it according to CMOS (use the 's except for special cases like Jesus'); some guides allow more flexibility, especially for the multisyllabic names like Williams', but that always seemed painfully wrong to me. We had a big argument at the ] article, where the monosyllabic Jobs's should have been a no-brainer, but several editors who misremembered what they had been taught in school couldn't believe one could ever use 's after an s. To leave the article styling up to such illiterates seems like a bad idea. The point is, though variations are allowed by some styles and guides, it makes sense in encyclopedic writing to use the more rigorously clear and precise style. ] (]) 21:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Exactly. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 01:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::Calling people who use a different style "illiterates" is not helpful, although respectful debates seem all too rare here. ] (]) 21:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::My ''illiterates'' was not in reference to people who use a different style, but rather to people who misremember the basics of English grammar that they were taught in school. Comments like and exhibit the degree of illiteracy based on faulty memory of teachings that I'm talking about. They claim they were taught something about possessives that there is no evidence of anyone ever teaching. I've encountered a lot of this particular illiteracy; or maybe something like agrammaracy would be a better term for it. ] (]) 23:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::::A quick Google search found several pages which advise against "s's", so it's quite conceivable that some people are taught this "rule". But even if people have misremembered and are mistaken, calling them "illiterates" is unnecessary. ] (]) 23:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::So? MOS regularly picks one of several options that various style guides recommend and doesn't offer all of them. This case is not special, and there's a real reason I've iterated several times already that it's important to do so here. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 01:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::@SMcCandlish: I never mentioned pronunciation, which is a red herring. We had this discussion at ]. In that case the shows that "Linnaeus' " and "Linnaeus's" are about equally common, with a tendency since 1900 to favour the former. Misplaced Pages can decide to use one form rather than another, but since both are common in written English, I predict it will just cause unnecessary edit wars. Both styles are clear; specifying anything other than consistency within an article is just another form of ]. ] (]) 21:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::If you think it's just instruction creep, you have not been following my actual reasoning. You definitely did mention pronounciation, at ]. But I did not say you personally had brought up pronunciation, anyway; it has simply been a consistent theme throughout the debate every time the possessives issue comes up, and I'm specifically addressing the wishy-washy "do whatever you feel like" #3 option presently in MOS's text for no real reason. MOS quite regularly takes one of multiple options, often not even the majority one, and insists on it when there's a consistency, clarity, logic, parseability, disambiguation or factuality reason to do so, as there is in this case. This is actually important: "the Williams{{'"}} and "the Williams's" have a {{em\|different meaning}}, and this will always be the case for any name (or whatever) with a viable form without the plural (or sometimes just plural-looking) ''-s''. Since the average reader is not a human Misplaced Pages, they cannot be expected to know for certain whether any form "{{var\|X}}s" is a also valid without the ''s'', WP obviously should not ever use "{{Var\|X}}s{{'"}} to mean "{{Var\|X}}s's", even if some editors would prefer to because of they way they would pronounce it when read aloud. This seems like crystal clear reasoning to me. What fault are you finding with it? — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 01:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

	The last time we discussed this, in Oct. 2011 at ], the discussion devolved to disagreement on what pronunciations sound better. Apparently this carries more weight than the best grammar and usage guides do. ] (]) 00:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
	:As I've labored to illustrate here, this pronunciation thing is the real ], and is ultimately completely irrelevant to what MOS should recommend we do with possessives in writing. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 01:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
	*Both forms are acceptable, except with names such as Jesus and Moses, where the apostrophe alone should be used. The question of whether we should select one style, and if so which is not one I would swish to express a preference on. ''] ]'', <small>03:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC).</small><br />

	== Proposal to restore and improve "Passive voice" section ==

	I propose that the "Passive voice" section be restored, immediately below the ] heading, where it was originally. The deleted wording read:
	<blockquote>{{fake heading\|Passive voice\|sub=3}}
	Whether to use the passive voice ({{xt\|this was done}}) or the active ({{xt\|he did this}}) depends entirely on the context, and is left to the discretion of editors.</blockquote>It's been demonstrated above, and in previous discussions, that people changing passive to active willy-nilly is a genuine problem.

	I further and severably propose that this be expanded and clarified as follows:
	<blockquote>{{fake heading\|Passive voice\|sub=3}}
	Whether to use the passive voice ({{xt\|this was done}}) or the active ({{xt\|he did this}}) depends entirely on the context, and is left to the discretion of editors. Incautiously changing passive to active voice can introduce ], ] and ] problems, by implying causality or action where we do not have ] for it. While encyclopedic writing <del>often</del> <ins>sometimes</ins> requires the use of passive voice, it should not be used to mask causation where it is reliably sourced, another neutrality issue. Passive voice may also safely be replaced when the facts are sourced and the construction is simply awkward<del>: {{!xt\|''The Lord of the Rings'' was written by J. R. R. Tolkien}} is usually better as {{xt\|J. R. R. Tolkien wrote ''The Lord of the Rings''}}</del>.</blockquote>— <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 00:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::Note: I concede the criticism below that adding specific examples like the Tolkien one (which could be replaced with anything; ''The Hobbit'' film was just fresh in my mind) may not be helpful, so it could be removed. I've struck it.— <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 03:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::I also moderated "often" to "sometimes" to mollify a concern (about "encouraging" passive voice) raised in the original thread above. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 05:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Rather as I conceded higher up this page that my suggested rephrasing of the rules on linking within quotes, which amounted to "If you link within quotes, follow good practice for linking anywhere else" could easily be substituted by removal of the text altogether, so here the proposal seems to be replacing nothing with "You can choose A or B, but choose well." Bad writing is bad writing, and should be edited because it is bad writing, not because it is in the passive or active voice. This is a manual of style, not a grammar text book: this seems to be legislation for common sense in the absence of a house style, not identification of a house style<p>Apart from anything else, if the main subject of a passage is Tolkien, or authorship, then it could very easily be more appropriate to write your example in the active voice. Given that the choice between active and passive is generally dependent on the wider context, selecting any example will be fraught with complexities. ] (]) 00:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)</p>
	*:It's not the same kind of case, though. Here, there are {{em\|specific reasons}} to use passive voice sometimes (e.g. lack of a reliable source for the alleged agency/action/cause). MOS, like all style guides, is also in part a grammar guide. That's why there's a section called ]. Characterizing this as "legislation" is non-responsive to anything relevant; every single point in MOS could be pejoratively labeled as such. Of course it would be more appropriate to write my Tolkien example in the active voice; that's precisely what I said. :-) You may be right, though, that giving specific examples isn't helpful. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 03:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	*Support the short version (if we need anything at all) but oppose the long version, as an incorrect understanding of what the passive does. — ] (]) 02:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	*:"Incorrect" in what sense? I ] about the function of the passive, only about the hazards of imposing the active without a source that supports the implications it brings with it. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 03:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::You said quite a bit, actually: that the passive is used to mask causality and that it is awkward, both myths. The active can just as easily be used to mask causality, and can be just as awkward. Such things have little to do with voice. By mentioning them, we'd give credence to them. It'd be like saying that, although ending a clause with a preposition is ungrammatical, sometimes it's necessary. — ] (]) 07:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::Masking causality: Consider the sentence "Taxes were raised." In the U.S. at least, people will want to know WHO raised taxes. But whether this is a bug or a feature of the passive is a matter of value judgment. ] (]) 08:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::It's simply a fact about passive vs. active voice, not a "value judgment". Sometimes the causality-establishing active voice is appropriate (when we have reliable facts to support it) and sometimes it isn't (when we don't). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 21:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::: Kwami, I did not say either of those things. I said that editors {{em\|can}} use active voice to imply causality without a source for it, with is true, and which is nothing like saying that masking causality is the function of passive voice. I also said that passive constructions {{em\|can be}} awkward (I've already given the canonical "up with which I will not put" example), which is a true statement. Please stop throwing blatant ] arguments at me. I know you know better. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 21:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' as a matter outwith the remit of the MoS. Good writers tend to use the active voice more than the passive but this cannot be mandated and is best left to high school teachers, literacy coaches and peer reviewers. --] (]) 07:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. The correct use of passive depends neither on context nor on editorial whim. There are specific situations where the passive is the most correct usage, notably where the doer of the action is either not known or not important. Your high school coach and your third grade teacher are unlikely to have given you any useful information about passive: such things are not being taught to those responsible for teaching grammar, and anyway, teachers the world over just follow whatever textbook is chosen by the school district or administration. Linguists have done enough bellyaching about ignorance of the passive, but until someone addresses the issue of education on a meaningful level, WP will be left trying to educate people willy-nilly, with spotty results. ] (]) 08:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::::There are school districts and administrations the world over that dictate which textbook must be used??? You have evidence for this??? ] (]) 15:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::Wise words, Neotarf (such as many have come to expect from you). Still, I say that context can be relevant. Agency may be less important in scientific articles, and more important in historical or biographical articles. Contrast two sentences: "The synthesis is accelerated under pressure in the presence of certain metallic catalysts." "Napoleon struggled to quash the rebellion, and eventually succeeded." Passive is better in the first, but active is better in the second. And I think no one has suggested that "editorial whim" should be in play. Let's distinguish whim and discretion. <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::Let's not distinguish at all, this is a matter of grammar, not style. Anyone who wants to go further with the grammar can look it up in their university composition handbook....you know, the big thick expensive one that no one buys once they find out it's not covered in the syllabus.... ] (]) 08:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::Not quite sure I follow. No one disputes, as far as I know, that both active voice and passive voice are correct ''grammar''. As I understand it, SMcC would like to say more about which one might be better style, in what circumstances. I agree with you, if I've understood the positions expressed (which is not certain as I haven't spent much time trying to make sure), that it's probably not useful to do so. But I don't understand what you mean by it being a matter of grammar. --] (]) 09:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Trovatore, see the above section on "Edit warring over passive voice". ] (]) 09:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Can't find anything relevant. Let me put my point this way: Someone could say, "some producer produced ''West Side Story'', for the first time anyone produced it, in New York". That would be entirely in active voice, and it would be terrible style, but it would be correct grammar, in the sense that no linguist would be tempted to put an asterisk in front of it. --] (]) 09:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::I would. There are levels of grammar beyond the clause. (I'd like to say, 'see ]' at this point, but that article is undeveloped.) There are seldom absolute 'rules' at this level, but there are strong grammatical tendencies, and ignoring these results in awkward or incoherent text. (Such things are called "style" by those who do not recognize that grammar operates here.) One of them, as Jerry notes below, is that the topic, which ties the text together, threads its way through the text as the subject of subsequent clauses. When the topic is the semantic agent, we use active voice; when the patient (object role), we use passive voice. This actually is the definition of "subject" among linguists who work on grammar at the discourse level. Thus the grammatical subject should reflect the topic of the text. Using active clauses where the passive would be natural is an ungrammatical use of the subject. (Such linguists are unlikely to put a star before your sentence mainly because once you start working with actual language, such artificial exercises seem silly.) It is true that in "active" texts like dime-store Westerns, which tend to be about people and other animate things, most clauses are active, because active things tend to be agents rather than patients. (This may well be the historical origin of subjects in languages which have them: People tend to talk about people doing things.) However, the opposite is true in many scientific publications, where one is studying inactive things, or reporting on what has been done to otherwise active things. In such cases the passive is often more appropriate. (There's also an entrenched stylistic preference for researchers to never refer to themselves in the first person, as if they were objective observers rather than active participants, and this ups the number of passive clauses considerably, but IMO that's just as silly as the highschool-English idea that passive clauses are 'weak' or 'unaccountable'. And indeed I've started seeing more academic text acknowledging the obvious by using the first person where a normal person would.) — ] (]) 17:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::The phraseology these days tends to be "One of us (Pierson) had earlier established...." which I find unexceptional. But I agree a lot of the tension is between people who learned from Micorsoft's grammar checker, and the fact that we are writing entirely the type of work which benefits from widespread passivation. ''] ]'', <small>04:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC).</small><br />
	*'''Comment''': In addition to suppressing the agent (because it's unknown or unimportant or obvious or one wants to hide it), the other main use of the passive voice is to make the ] the subject of the sentence because it's the ], and in English the topic is typically the subject and typically goes early in the clause. —] ] 16:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

	::Exactly. There are solid reasons for using passive over active. The proposed language makes it sound like you can toss a coin. There is plenty of consensus that WP needs to educate editors about this subject, rather than dealing with the issue on an individual basis over and over. The only question remaining is whether it belongs in MOS. Has anyone written a useful essay about it? ] (]) 02:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

	*'''Return to proposal''' The original proposal was in two parts: (1) return to having some comment on the use of the passive (2) expand the comment, e.g. based on ]'s text. There does not seem to be a consensus for (2). However, there does seem to be a consensus for (1). There is, in my experience, a genuine problem with some copy-editors changing passives unnecessarily. I strongly support putting back something like:

	<blockquote>{{fake heading\|Passive voice\|sub=3}}
	Whether to use the passive voice ({{xt\|''The Adventures of Tom Sawyer'' was written by Mark Twain}}) or the active ({{xt\|Mark Twain wrote ''The Adventures of Tom Sawyer''}}) depends <s>entirely</s> on the context, and is left to the discretion of editors. Changes should not be made merely because of a <u>general</u> preference for one over the other.</blockquote>

	:Could we agree on this? ] (]) 17:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

	::Support. That addresses both the knee-jerk opposition to passives and the academic over-preference for passives. Though I'd remove the word 'entirely' as unhelpful. — ] (]) 17:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::Agreed re "entirely". ] (]) 18:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::'''Support''', per Kwami and Peter. However, I would add something like "categoric" or "general" before "preference"; in any given instance, whether to use passive or active is going to be an ''in situ'' "preferences for one over the other", so the wording here isn't clear. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 21:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::Yes, "general" clarifies. ] (]) 22:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

			== Any objections to extending MOS:TIES to all nations and regions? ==
	No, the main issue of educating editors has not been addressed. There are reasons other than "preference" for making active/passive choices. Given the perennial confusion on the subject, this language is not nearly explicit enough. Why gloss over it or dumb it down. ] (]) 02:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
	:It's not a question of dumbing down, it's a question of succinctness. The MoS is over long already. ''] ]'', <small>04:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC).</small><br />

			Currently ] qualifies itself to English-speaking nations. However, in an increasingly multicultural world with English emerging as the ], at minimum in the ], why qualify this part of the MoS like that, ESPECIALLY when it also impacts on ]? For example, the ] has 24 official languages, including English, and multilingualism is one of its founding principles.
	*I am sorry, I still think it is a terrible (if well-intentioned) idea. --] (]) 19:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

			Would it not make sense to extend ] to nations (and regions) irrespective of whether they traditionally speak English or not? Because I can see how saying to someone that embraces multilingualism and values Europe's rich linguistic diversity wishing to contribute to an article on a topic with strong ties to their nation or region in the EU, where English is an official language, that in this case that tie doesn’t count (and someone else gets to decide) might be perceived as ... well ... rude and arrogant, which isn't just unnecessary but also unproductive. Would the article not benefit from including anyone with a strong tie to it?
	== The trunk (boot) of a car ==

			I must note I would prefer if there was an established international variant, but I also find it practical not to have to waste time and effort trying to work out whether in a given article its meter or metre, organise or organize, or SI first and then imperial, or imperial first and then SI. Because getting it wrong just causes unnecessary consternation, especially if the article is inhabited by one or more "]s". ] (]) 06:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
	At present the MOS gives the following example: "{{green\|the trunk (UK: boot) of the car was ...}}".
			:I'm not in favor of this idea. TIES is an exceptional case that should be used only when it's very clear; the main rule is RETAIN.
			:In practice I think this proposal comes down to "don't use American English in articles about Europe". I don't agree with that. --] (]) 06:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{reply to \|Trovatore}} The proposal doesn’t suggest it no longer needs to be clear, nor that that main rule is no longer retain. It simply proposes that MORE voices are heard.
			::As for the “don’t use American English in Europe” bit ... that would then only happen if most voices then want that. The solution surely isn’t “but I don’t like that, so let’s exclude them from the set of voices allowed to speak”. Fear not, they may choose American, who knows. ] (]) 06:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Also not in favor for the reasons cited by Trovatore. ] (]) 07:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I do object to this.
			:Moreover, from what I understand it's a perennial suggestion, so I recommend perusing ], wherein I happen to embark on a journey from the exact wrong position all the way to the right one, filling your heart with hope for a better future as you follow my progress. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 07:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::If it keeps coming up, perhaps there is something there.
			::However, you do highlight its more complex than I originally thought, so back to the drawing board 🤔. ] (]) 06:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Not a chance.''' The purpose of MOS:TIES is entirely, only, solely about English-language dialects that exist at a more or less national level and in a formal ] suitable for encyclopedia writing. Under no circumstances would we accept an English pidgin/creole or some vaguely identifiable informal habits of English-as-a-second-language users in some country or region as a "variety of English" to accept for encyclopedia writing. If you encounter "Franglais", "Spanglish", "Deutchlish", etc., in any of our articles it should be normalized on the spot to whichever form of standardized English suits the subject best if there are strong ], or to the form that the article already most closely matches (British, American, Canadian, or some other dialect of a country with majority or official and large minority English usage in a formal register). Another way of looking at this: There is no strong tie between Finland and any form of English. Even the "Well, it at least shouldn't be American, but British, because the UK is part of Europe and the US is not" sort of argument fails, because there's more than one national dialect of English in Europe (Irish, for now, and probably Scottish if they have another independence referendum). If there's not a particular encyclopedia-appropriate variety/dialect of English in widespread use in a country, then that country by definition has no strong tie to any such particular variety. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 06:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{reply to \|SMcCandlish}} Thank you for stating very clearly and firmly that {{tq\|the purpose of ] is entirely, only, solely about English-language dialects}}, because THAT means my primary concern of how it relates to ] is a non-issue!
			::For the record, I did not, and still don’t, propose that “Franglais” and so on become accepted English variants. Because that would be insane, pointless and not useful. ] (]) 06:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::If this is something to do with promotion of ''crore'' and ''lakh'' in articles that pertain to India, there's already a big thread about that at ] (again), and last I looked the consensus wasn't really changing: they're permissible as secondary units, but always need to be converted because they don't mean anything to anyone outside India and parts of its immediate neighbors (and of course among first-gen Indic diaspora). Maybe the tide has shifted in that discussion; I last looked at it about a week ago. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 06:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::No. I wasn’t aware of that thread. ] (]) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::The thread to which you refer is “RfC Indian numbering conventions”? ] (]) 06:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I don’t think there is any real overlap with the “RfC Indian numbering conventions” thread.
			::::I also think ] is a dog’s breakfast, but happy to leave it alone at this time.
			::::Are there any objections then to apply the direction from {{u\|SMcCandlish}} that {{tq\|the purpose of ] is entirely, only, solely about English-language dialects}} to ] and decouple "respect the principle of 'strong national ties'" from MOS:TIES? For example, change it to "respect the underlying principle of strong national ties as also used in MOS:TIES but in a different context”, and then also qualify the following with ''only''?
			::::*In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States only, the …
			::::*In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom only, the …
			::::*In all other articles, the …
			::::] (]) 08:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Well, you're been so vague about why you are asking these things, what rationale you could have for making up a new rule or changing any existing one, without any reference to an ongoing and important on-site problem, that all one has been left with is guesswork based on encounters with extant or recent discussions that seem like they could be pertinent. "{{tq\|Are there any objections}}"?: '''Yes.''', I can think of a number:
			:::::#There is no clear rationale for what you're proposing, much less a consensus to do it. Substantive changes to policies and guidelines (]) need consensus or they will not be accepted (unless they, rarely, hit upon something that needed to adjusted and no one else noticed until now, which isn't the case here).
			:::::#There are strong rationales against it, most obviously:
			:::::#:A. Your implicit notion that units of measure have no connection to dialect (or "variety" as WP likes to say) is not correct.
			:::::#:B. Even if it were, it'd be immaterial. The next implicit idea in your proposal (quite central to it really) is that if P&G page X reiterates a general principle from another, Y, and cites the latter for the explanation, such that X applies that principle to X's circumstances because they are reasonably analogous to Y's, that this somehow creates a ] rules-chain dependency in which every aspect of the context of the cited origin of the principle in Y must also be applicable to the citing circumstances of X. Nothing on Misplaced Pages works that way at all. Cf. ]: it's a mistake to try to interpret our P&G as essentially a legal system (or as something like a procedural programming language, or a chain of dependencies in building software from source code; more than one analogy works).
			:::::#:C. Because of point B, and because of the guideline's current "where applicable" wording (which is there for a reason and meaningful), your first rewrite idea, of tacking on a bunch of "respect the underlying principle of strong national ties as also used in MOS:TIES but in a different context" verbiage it entirely superfluous. The two versions convey the same meaning, because it is already understood that the principle (not the detail-by-detail contextual specifics) of TIES is being applied at UNITS. This is the way our entire P&G system operates. It wouldn't really be possible for it to be any other way. If UNITS was literally just restating TIES, down to the specifics of exactly what TIES covers, then UNITS would be redundant (in this regard) with TIES, and its wording about this issue would've been deleted long ago and replaced with a simple cross-reference to TIES without further comment. The kind of exemplary and contextual more-than-crossreferencing done at UNITS is entirely normal. And important: an editor looking for "what to do about units" is unlikely to instead stumble upon "what to do about national-level usage disputes", and so would be unlikely to find the TIES principles and then be certain how to contextually apply them (if at all) to units, without being basically an expert in our style guide the way some Tolkien fans learn Elvish.
			:::::#:D. The next bit of suggested rewriting is to inject "only" into two line items, but this change would have a nonsensical and undesirable result in two ways: It would make those items applicable under no circumstances to anywhere but the US and the UK, respectively (even to former UK colonies with English- and units-usage norms virtually indistinguishable from British in an encyclopedic ]); and it would necessitate (to fix that new problem) expanding that into a long list of every country with anything that WP would consider a "national variety of English" with pertinent unit-usage norms. The purpose of those two examples is {{em\|as examples}} (not as an exhaustive list) of how to approach these matters. The examples were chosen because they settled previously recurrent disputes. So, what long-term, recurrent, serious problem can you point to that you think your changes would resolve? The examples are not there to serve as the beginning of an ever-growing rulebook to address every imaginable case with a new micro-topical line item to thump. The purpose of giving a general principle and providing some prominent examples is to obviate the need to have a pile of micro-rules. (MOS:NUM is already too detailed as it is.)
			:::::# The long-term stability of these guidelines is very important, because even small but meaningful/operative changes to them can affect many thousands up to potentially millions of articles, for reasons that almost always resolve to trivial and subjective peccadilloes. That cascading-wave-of-unneeded-changes problem (and all the fighting the endless trivial tweaks would generate) is never more of a danger than when a national-level and frequent usage matter is at issue (and literally millions of our articles do have measures with units in them). See also ]: If MoS, after 20-odd years, doesn't already have a rule about something, then it needs to {{em\|not}} have a rule about it, because it is not necessary for the project to do what it does successfully, and MoS is already way too long.
			:::::# Your "I also think ] is a dog's breakfast, but happy to leave it alone at this time" approach does not bode well. Our policies and guidelines don't exist as hills to die on. The purpose of these style guidelines is (aside from the main one of producing intelligible and consistent content for our readers) {{em\|dissuading}} style-warring behavior. Arriving with the idea that the rules are broken and that at some forthcoming time you're going to fix them is antithetical to their purpose and to the needs of the community. It largely doesn't matter {{em\|what}} any particular line-item in MoS sets out (except when there is objectively a reader-clarity improvement offered by one option over another), only that it sets out, and long-term retains, {{em\|something}} that addresses a recurrent dispute pattern and brings it mostly (hopefully entirely) to an end, and/or that it produces better content for our readers – even if that "something" is arbitrary or is a compromise that can't please everyone. Just as a word to the wise, ] (including TIES) is pretty much the hardest-fought consensus compromise reached in MoS's history, and is also one of the oldest and most stable, so if you think you're going to make serious changes to it, you are very mistaken. It's like going to Canada and declaring your mission is to undo the country's approach to French and English as official languages.
			:::::This might all come off as harsh, but ], and the vast majority of proposals to change any P&G are off the mark. There are many devils in many details (thus the length of this), with a lot of nuanced interrelations between different rules (or advice or best practices or whatever you want to call them). Most of the real kinks were worked out long ago. Those that remain are subject to long-term dispute that hasn't produced a workable compromise. There is no such dispute about the material you want to change. And there are sometimes severe costs for making changes that are not vital to make.<!--
			-->PS: I've tried hard to find a "yes" to put into this pile of "no", and there is one! Namely, your version is correct that the "scare quotes" around ''strong national ties'' shouldn't be there. I just went and removed them, so thanks for that. Otherwise, no element of your draft appears to be clearly an improvement. Here's the original wording: {{xt\|The choice of primary units depends on the circumstances, and should respect the principle of ], where applicable}}. Here's yours (presumably also keeping the original's first 10 words and the link): {{!xt\|respect the underlying principle of strong national ties as also used in ] but in a different context}}. Mentioning the other guideline by name is redundant with linking to it, and all our P&G pages are fairly (not entirely) consistent in, when practical, using plain English with links around pertinent terms rather than injecting page names. Mentioning it by shortcut in particular is "newbie-unfriendly" and wrongly presumes memorization of our shortcut strings. "Underlying" is a puff word and doesn't serve a concrete purpose in the sentence. (And underlying what? It has no clear downstream referent.) "As also used in" is more redundancy; if we're linking to TIES as the locus of the principle, it's already automatically understood that the principle is applied at the place we're linking to. "But in a different context" is a combination of redundancy with the implication of the link again, and quite odd wording: Why is there a "but" in this? (What it is contrasting against?) "Different" from what? Different in what way? And "context" is conceptually misused in this construction, in that the general principle at TIES is a meta-context, of all usage/style disputes pertaining to national-level English dialects, while use of units is a subset of that, a sub-context, not a conflicting/alternative context. Finally, unit usage is only {{em\|sometimes}} a subset of the usage in a national variety of English, thus the original's "where applicable" – a key point that your version drops, despite it seeming to be central to the bee in your bonnet. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 11:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Introducing Scottish as an additional form of English would cause mayhem - or at least a shedload of future editing - here. We’ve already had a nationalist-driven push towards replacing ‘British’ with ‘English’ or ‘Scottish’ in bio articles, usually uncited and based purely on supposition or the subject’s birthplace. Fortunately, Scottish Independence appears to be receding as a prospect, at least in the short to medium term. ] (]) 07:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I don't disagree (and we had a real template at {{tlx\|Use Scottish English}} in 2013, with an attempt to re-create it in 2016). Several years ago, I tried to get rid of all the "Use {{var\|Foo}} English", and related, templates declaring "national varieties" that, in reality, are completely indistinguishable from general British English {{em\|in an encyclopedic register}}, and could all collectively be covered by a "Use Commonwealth English" template. ENGVAR only applies to national (not subnational) varieties, and only those dialects that exist in distinct forms and with a formal register (by definition: if you can't write encyclopedia-appropriate material in a dialect, then it doesn't belong in our articles for any reason, so ENGVAR cannot be used to "protect" it from edits). But nationalistic sentiments won out in the end, and we still have all that claptrap, with ridiculous results like articles being tagged with {{tlx\|Use Jamaican English}}, {{tlx\|Use Singaporean English}}, etc. (Likewise we have no use of American-splitoff variants, either, like "Use Guam English", etc.) Too many editors who should know better and should think just a tiny bit harder have utterly mistaken the purpose of these as something like "national pride" flags to put on articles, in a verging-on-] manner. These tags absolutely do not resolve to "write an article about Nigeria using colloquialisms and grammatical oddities found only in the informal speech and writing of English in Nigeria, which will be confusing to everyone else in the world". If someone tries that crap in response to such a template, rewrite the material per ] and ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 11:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

			== MOS:NOTGALLERY ==
	The term "boot" for the luggage compartment of a motor car is also used in Australia, so it's not an exclusively British term. In addition, I would think that the confusion about usage would be more likely to go the other way. I therefore propose to change the example this way:

			At another talk page, I was writing an explanation of why articles should not be swamped in a plethora of images, planning to cite ]. Fortunately for once I checked first and found that it is just an alias for ], not a statement that article spaces should not be mirrors of Commons.
	*{{green\|the boot (trunk) of the car was ...}}

			Given that the majority of visitors do so on mobile phones, is there a case for an explicit policy that says that curation is essential, ]?
	How do other editors feel about this proposal? ] (]) 03:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

			Or would it be enough to change the target of NOTGALLERY to ] (which might need a little expansion because right now it just says {{tq\|Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important ] to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting.}} At least a reference to ]? (which is expressed in terms of word count, not megabytes, so would also need work). ] (]) 17:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I would just drop the "UK: " part. There's no compelling reason to invert the order. (I would say that if the original order had been what you propose and someone wanted to flip it; it really doesn't matter what order these ENGVAR things go in). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 03:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::Based on ENGVAR, surely the version in main prose should be the version as determined by ] or ], and the alternative is bracketed. In the interests of retaining natural uninterrupted prose, I would rather see the referent linked so that users of another version can check the meaning if they are uncertain. While I acknowledge the principle behind ], it is far less intrusive to the readers' experience to come across blue text than bracketed insertions, and if the linked term is familiar (ie, the reader is conversant with the ENGVAR in which the article is written) it is an easy choice not to follow the link. ] (]) 12:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	:::It's a toss-up between ] and ]. I remember this being a problem at ]; seemingly some American editors could not stand seeing {{green\|tyre}} unless it was linked as ]. --] (]) 12:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

			:I think IMAGEREL would be a better redirect target. I want this to point to guidance that images should be included selectively rather than overwhelming articles with images. NOTDB instead seems to be guidance that images should be relevant and accompanied by text, which is not enough to prevent big indiscriminate galleries. —] (]) 20:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Yeah, "UK" is distracting. Better just ''trunk (boot)'' or ''boot (trunk)''. As for linking ''tyre'', it's overlinking per ]. — ] (]) 03:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

			::I've had second thoughts about this one. It is probably not wise to make NOTGALLERY an exception to the general rule that WP:NOTaaaaaaaa shortcuts all redirect to ]. So the better plan is to add a short sentence to the current target to say that {{tq\|Misplaced Pages is not a database of images or a {{lang\|fr\|]}}; those are among the functions of ]. Image use in Misplaced Pages articles must comply with ].}} I will do that now.
	OK. I'll drop the 'UK' ] (]) 13:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
			::IMAGEREL needs some work too, to make it even more explicit that to bury an article in a mass of images is sure way to ensure that nobody reads it. --] (]) 10:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:While some types of "galleries" should be avoided, articles on certain visual topics do benefit from many visual examples. I also do not think we should explicitly outlaw the ] model while allowing many other bibliographic lists. One size does not fit all, and such a change would need to be debated with the folks curating ] and those who work on visual topics. —] (]) 10:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Pending further discussion, I have removed the reference to ''catalogue raisonné'' from my amendment (so that it now reads simply {{tq\|Misplaced Pages articles are not a repository of images: image use in Misplaced Pages articles must comply with ].}} to item 4, "Photographs or media files".
			::I agree certainly that, in an article about an artist or an artistic movement, it is essential to illustrate the phases of their artistic development. That to me is clearly in keeping with IMAGEREL and wp:localconsensus can determine relevancy. But to include an image of <em>every</em> work in an artist's '']''? How is that a valid exception to NOTDB? (and likely a COPYVIO too). And why not show every putter manufactured by ACME Golf Inc? every locomotive made by ACME Rail Inc? every postage stamp (including all misprints) produced by the Austro-Hungarian empire? We have articles so swamped in pointless images that they have become essentially unusable to visitors on mobile. How does that make any sense? --] (]) 11:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I would definitely oppose including every work in an artist's oeuvre in an article on the ''artist'', but I want to make sure we do not outlaw ], where the images are perfectly encyclopaedic and just as relevant for identification as the images in ]. Tables in such long lists are often not great for small screens, but that is a separate issue from the number of images. Generally, lists are not the same as other articles in their use of images, so the rules should reflect that. —] (]) 12:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I don't see a problem with that. Clearly the application of IMAGEREL should (and would) be different between a list article v a fairly broad concept article. To take your example, it would be entirely reasonable to include every image we have in the list article, provided that we use small thumbnails (upright=0.2); conversely (IMO) the bio article about Munch should be curated so that it has just one carefully chosen image to illustrate each phase of the development of his style , with maybe one or two especially notable examples that he did . Surely we don't want to replicate Commons? --] (]) 18:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Please, let's not compromise the full extent of the encyclopedia by limiting what has always been one of its main features. Images and galleries define and describe just as much as text. That many choose to "read" Misplaced Pages on tinier gadgets should not dictate the coverage and image-styling of encyclopedic content articles. ] (]) 11:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The problem we have at the moment with some articles is what {{u\|David Eppstein}} describes above as "big indiscriminate galleries" and rote copying of everything in Commons for no evident informative purpose, a form of ]. As IMAGEREL begins, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important ] to understanding". Without curation, the information gets buried in the woodpile.
			::I am not proposing a principle that we must minimise the number of images, period. My proposal is that we provide a policy basis that editors can use to say "that point is already adequately illustrated, another image adds nothing new" or "this article had become so bogged down in images that it no longer navigable". I am talking about edge cases here, in most articles it is not an issue. But some have become swamped in an uncritical replica of Commons. This is not to enable wikilawyering, it just makes it easier to explain the rationale. --] (]) 18:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::As an example of the sort of burying articles in galleries that I would object to, see ], where (at least in its ) four of its six sections are entirely image galleries (in some cases hidden in collapsed templates, with much of their content peripheral to the main article topic).
			:::We do need wording that distinguishes this case from ], where the galleries are entirely appropriate, though. —] (]) 18:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::But as far as I can see, the List of paintings by Edvard Munch (and similar lists by artists) already complies with IMAGEREL, because the use of images in that article is ''proportionate and entirely relevant to that context''. Conversely, to put all those paintings in the Munch bio article as a giant gallery would not be proportionate (IMO).
			::::So to focus this discussion, can anyone suggest another sentence we can use to amplify the point made in the opening sentence of IMAGEREL? ("Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding".) How about
			::::{{blockquote\|Consequently, each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose: for guidance, see ].}}
			::::AFAICS, that responds to and respects both the Munch examples above. (FWIW, very few if any of the visual arts articles suffer from this swamping problem. The issue affects high profile articles like ].) ] (]) 11:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:It is entirely enough that we have the ] shortcut. A proposal to retarget ] to that would almost certainly fail, because it's part of a very long-standing set of policy (not guideline) WP:NOT{{var\|FOO}} shortcuts to sections of ], and such a change would both confuse editors today and render archived discussions of policy misleading. "Ain't broke; don't fix it." <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 06:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Audio video guidance ==
	== Foreign-language quotations ==

			Hi there, I'm noting a lack of guidance for Audio video content, I've mentioned this at ]. It seems people just edit MOS rather than run through large discussions, but I'm reluctant to start plunging in before getting some help. Here is what i think is needed:
	] currently says that foreign-language quotations should appear in translation. It's not clear to me how this should work in practice. Who should do the translation? What I suggest is:
	*If a reliable source has published an English translation of the foreign quotation, then we can use it.
	*If the quotation is only published in its original (or other foreign) language, then we must not directly quote it, but we can explain what was said outside of quotes. So ''Pierre a dit "J'aime le fromage"'' could be written as ''Pierre said that he liked cheese'' but not as ''Pierre said "I like cheese"''.
	*We must not use Google Translate (or similar) to create a quotable English-language translation. These automatic translators are not usually accurate enough.
	*I'm not sure whether we can allow Wikipedians who fluently speak both English and the quoted language to produce their own quotable translations.
	Does this seem sensible? What do you think about the fourth point? Thanks, ] (]) 10:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	*In practice the fourth point is often used, as we shouldn't expect ''every'' foreign-language quote to have been translated in a secondary source. — ] (]) 10:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:As for how it can stay reliable and not OR: provide the original as well, as a footnote. See, for example, the FAs ] and ]. — ] (]) 10:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::That's fine, but sometimes the third point is used instead, which is often dreadful. I think the guidelines about this need to be clarified. ] (]) 11:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::I am in favour of permiting "Pierre said ''"J'aime le fromage"'' where apppropriate. ] (]) 11:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::I think in that case the quoted foreign text would need to be very short, and also in the language that was actually used. ] (]) 11:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I agree. How about this ] phrase ''"Ek het met my neef samm geloop"'' - the Afrikaans word "neef" can mean either "male cousin" or "nephew". ] (]) 11:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::*Wouldn't it have to be clear from context in that case? — ] (]) 13:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:There's a possible conflict between our desire to use sourced translations and our desire to respect the translator's copyright. Also, when the original is under copyright, I believe translation is a separate issue from quotation, and I have no idea whether the same fair-use guidelines apply to both. I don't remember any WP guidelines on these subjects—which isn't to say that I've looked everywhere. Despite the fourth point above, I've felt free to translate myself and to improve others' translations where I'm confident (and to let improvements to my translations stand). I've put the original in a footnote, as Crisco 1492 mentions. —] ] 16:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::I don't see how copyright is a problem. As long as we reference the translation, then it's no different from quoting any other English-language text. Or if a Wikipedian has done the translation, then Creative Commons applies. ] (]) 17:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::No, it wouldn't, because the translation is a ]. You can't impose CC or GPL on a work derived from another work not subject to such a license. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 22:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::But an English-language quotation can often be included per ], as long as it is properly referenced. So surely a translation can also be included as long as we reference a) the source we have taken the translated text from, or b) the source of the original untranslated text that we have ourselves translated. ] (]) 22:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::After looking into this a bit further... it would seem that ] ] to derivative works. So if we can include a quote (under fair use), then we can include a translation of the quote. ] (]) 22:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, of course. I was just addressing the legal issue; you can't translate something, like a non-English song, subject to someone else's all-rights-reserved copyright, then publish that derivative work under CC or GFDL. Material quoted (translated or not) per ] is not problematic in a WP article covered by CC/GFDL, since it's just a small portion and isn't independent of the article; i.e., it's not a stand-alone derived work, just fair use of a portion of a work for "criticism and commentary", etc. Overquotation of large swaths of a work is forbidden on WP because it would not qualify as fair use. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 22:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::Hmm, I'm not a lawyer, but my guess would be that you ''can'' apply CC or GFDL to such a derivative work, and the license would then bind whatever copyright interest ''you'' have in the derivative work, but would not of course encumber that of the original copyright holder. So if someone makes a second derivative work from yours, and distributes it subject to the terms of your free license, he is protected against any action on ''your'' part, but will still have to gain permission from the original copyright holder, or argue fair use, or hope not to be sued, or.... But as I say I'm not a lawyer. --] (]) 22:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::You can't legally publish a derivative work without the original copyright holder's permission at all, generally, so you would not be able to release your derivative under a CCL (GFDL, whatever) unless the original copyright holder agreed (which is tantamount to them changing their own license to you to a CCL). There are always fair use exceptions for reproducing portions of works, or even entireties of very short works, and the music industry has carved out its own extralegal "sample clearances" system, and so forth – real life is usually more complicated than any generality. But if I publish a poem, all rights reserved, and you adapt it into a song and then publish that, even with credit, I could sue you for copyright infringement, regardless what license you slapped on your derivative adaptation. Hope that's clearer. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 02:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::You can "legally" publish it and see if you get sued. If you don't get sued, it's not illegal. (Not clear that it's "illegal" in any event — the copyright holder may have a cause of action against you, but that's not quite the same thing.) Caveat: There is theoretically such a thing as ], but it doesn't seem to come up much and I doubt it's relevant here. --] (]) 02:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::This is getting rather off-topic for MOS, I guess, so I won't go into more detail after this. Getting away with it doesn't make it legal or lawful, it just means you didn't get caught or sued. Note also that the copyright holder has plenty of time to bring suit. If your garage band puts out a self-produced CD and folds a year later, you probably would not get sued for adapting someone's poem into a song, because the cost of the suit would probably outweigh any damages that could actually be collected in real life. If your single was a huge hit, you'd almost certainly be sued, for all the profits from it and for punitive damages. You're correct that it's not a matter of being ''illegal'' in the case of a civil suit; the term is ''unlawful''. Criminal copyright is not "theoretical" at all, comes up quite a lot with regards to digital media, and is relevant. It's simply unlikely that a prosecutor would actually take action on a trivial case like this, vs. going after something like ThePirateBay.org in response to entertainment industry pressure. (PS: I am also not a lawyer, but I have a professional level of experience with intellectual property law and policy. I was a digital IP and civil liberties policy analyst, among other roles, for nine years at the ], a nonprofit law firm and public-interest advocacy organization, specializing in Internet and digital media law. While that doesn't magically make me correct about everything that wanders into that topic-space, I'm not guessing or making assumptions of any kind here. I'm writing from direct knowledge of this field from having worked sided-by-side with, and interpreted for public consumption the output of, some of the best legal minds in this area – ones whose specific focus, to boot, was maximizing the "you can do this" not "you can't do this" interpretation of the relevant laws.) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 02:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
	Moving on from the copyright question, which I think is really just a side-issue, I propose the following replacement for the current foreign-language quotations text:
	<blockquote>{{fake heading\|Foreign-language quotations\|sub=3}}

			* Something explaining that the guidance at ] applies to Audio-video content in most cases, eg regarding relevance, image quality, textual information, offensive images, placement, size, location, availability. Nearly all of the page is relevant, in fact.
	Quotations of words originally written or spoken in a foreign language should normally appear translated into English. Where a reliable source is available that contains such a translation (and it was not first published within Misplaced Pages), it should be cited, with an indication of the original language (if that is not clear from the context).
			* The download advice might need to be different. Do videos or audio need a warning that they are large files? This is not assumed, it seems.

			There is a case for some separate AV guidance, regarding:
	Where no translation is already available, a Wikipedian who is fluent in both English and the foreign language may translate the text, and include this translation with a reference to the original wording (which may also be included in a footnote), indicating the original language.

			* Length: should inline videos be shorter where possible? Does this apply to audio clips?
	Short foreign-language passages or statements can be included, followed by the English translation in square brackets.
			* Language: if audio or video is original language, should subtitled content be preferred rather than recording originals? Should songs be subtitled where possible? What are the requirements for validating translations (what are the relevant WP policies on translation of original source material that apply?)
			* Rendition: historical accents and historical musical performances might be very rare. Should we say that modern standards are fine, in the absence of authentic reconstructions?
			* Public domain renditions: if audio or video is a rendition of a public domain source, for example a work by Mozart, or a speech by Caesar, what are the requirements for source validation (these should reference WP's general guidelines, but these are mostly focused on secondary sources).

			] ] 20:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	It is not appropriate to directly quote translations created by automatic translation software (such as Google Translate) because these are often inaccurate or not of adequate quality. Similarly, quoting a translation of a translation should be avoided. In these cases, if it is not possible to give a professional translation, indirect quotations could be used, paraphrasing the wording without using quotation marks. For example, ''Pierre a dit, "J'aime le fromage"'' can be given as ''Pierre said that he liked cheese''.</blockquote>
			*Elsewhere, someone asked whether an RfC would be needed to add guidance on this topic. I think not -- while discussion will be needed on details, I can't see anyone objecting to clarifying that multimedia beyond everyday images should follow similar guidelines to those for image. The question is where to say that. We don't want to duplicate guidance on contextual significance etc., because that creates two things that need to be kept in sync. Probably the best thing is to expand MOS/Images to explicitly cover other multimedia. See BTW ], which has a ''contextual significance'' section. ]] 20:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	What do you think? ] (]) 20:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
			*:Thanks very much (and yes that was me!) I agree that MOS:Images would be best, especially to get this started.
			*:The ''contextual significance'' contains much about in-copyright works. That is in general very helpful. In-copyright video samples feels like something rather complex that might need an RFC, and might be best parked until there is a little more in place. ] ] 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::@] Would it be helpful if I draft up something on ] and ask for feedback? ] ] 21:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I suggest you wait a while so that the experienced editors gathered here can lend their thoughts. After that, you might take the conversation back to Talk:MOS/Images, but since that page has 1/5 watchers of this one, and you've already put a pointer there to this thread here, it might be better to continue here as you begin to draft. There's no hurry to this, so the slower you take it, and the greater the extent to which others can get their thoughts in, the smoother it will go. (I'm afraid I'm really tied up IRL so the time I myslf can contribute is limited.) ]] 21:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Happy to wait. I made a stab at below, but I can wait for further thoughts / feedback here. What I've provided relates to historical source content, as most of the AV I've been dealing with falls into this category; I have guessed at some other considerations but it is currently narrower than it should be. ] ] 21:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

			<blockquote>Audiovisual content can also be used for illustrative purposes. Most of the guidance on images above applies to audio visual content. Additionally, consider:
	:I'm a little wary on this. The appropriate degree of caution is dependent on context. "Nyet! Nyet! Nyet!" for example can be readily translated by people fluent in neither English nor Russian, and also by google. Some years ago I had to work with a paper written in French - my French is terrible, but I translated it well, because I knew the subject matter. ''] ]'', <small>04:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC).</small><br />
	::I've had similar experiences, and given enough time can handle almost any Germanic or Romanance language. E.g., I translated the article ] from its Italian equivalent, and even went directly to the Italian and Spanish sources for more material to improve the article beyond the translation; I've never studied Italian at all. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 04:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
	:I share Rich Farmbrough's concern, and would add one: We need not mandate order and formatting. Sometimes it makes more sense to give the English first, the foreign later. Many, including linguists, prefer to use 'single quotes' for glosses, and even aside from that there is no reason to mandate square brackets in particular. Maybe give them as an example of one way to format a gloss, but give single quotes, too, which is the standard in linguistics as I've mentioned here before. MOS needs to at least explicitly permit it if not recommend it outright. For large blocks, I wouldn't use either, I'd simply use blockquote and introduced each paragraph, e.g. "In Dante's original period Italian:...", and "A liberal English translation renders this:<sup></sup>..." — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 04:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

			* '''Length''': inline videos or audio that is shorter will be easier for users to watch. Consider clipping long form content, and linking to the original on Commons, or elsewhere. Longer videos (eg, over 10 minutes) may be more suitable for links than inline video, unless they are highly relevant to the page's subject.
	::What would a sample good format look like? Here is a real life example: This edit is not correct, and I will have to do something with it, because a "whiskería" is literally an establishment that serves whiskey; they don't call it a brothel because brothels are illegal in Argentina, hence the euphemism.
			* '''Rendition''': historical accents and historical musical performances of content may be very rare. Modern renditions are fine, where authentic reconstructions are not available, and may be preferred, where there is uncertainty about the original performances.
	::<blockquote>The search was given another lead when the alleged madame of a whiskería (a term used to describe undercover brothels), called Lidia Medina, was heard to say, "Those fools are looking for her, and she's in Spain."</blockquote>
			* '''Musical, poetic and literary content''': aesthetic considerations are higher for these kinds of content. Where possible, the performances should be considered good by other editors. Where editors find performances are poor, content should generally not be included.
	::I don't want to do a simple revert, because it's evident from the edit that the current wording can be misunderstood. Neither do I want to make it so wordy that it disrupts the flow of the text. (This is my own translation, based on information from an Argentinian native speaker.) Brackets, yes, and they will need some kind of special markup, yes? Are there a couple of sample formats, to see how others have handled this?
			* '''Language''': where audio or video is in the original language, subtitles should generally be preferred rather than translated versions, as this reflects the original more closely and text files are easier to correct than mistakes in audio-visual content. Where possible, songs should be subtitled. Original language versions should be made available where where possible for artistic content.
	::] (]) 06:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
			* '''Translations of subtitles''' should be verifiable, but as with other Misplaced Pages content, competent editors can create them. While academic translations are preferred, where subtitle translations are longer than 10-20 words, use of academic translations is likely to constitute copyright infringement. Here, a Wikipedian's translation should ideally be verifiable against an academic translation. (See ] for further guidance.)
			* '''Public domain renditions''': if audio or video is a rendition of a public domain source, for example a work by Mozart, or a speech by Caesar, the original sources must be valid. The performance should be comparable and follow the original. Where possible, include links on media file pages so that editors can make checks.
			* '''Sourcing''': as with images, sourcing of audio-visual content needs to be copyright compliant. Sources of CC video and audio can include Youtube, Flickr and CC search tools. Care should be taken to ensure the licensing claims appear to be valid.
			* See also: ]</blockquote> ] ] 21:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

			:The "Language" point is a bit unclear to me. Is it asking for subtitles to be in English or the original language? If the phrase "rather than translated versions" is referring to the spoken or written material, that seems to contradict the phrase "where audio or video is in the original language". Which is also a weird way to say it because the "original language" could be English. Given that this is English Misplaced Pages, an English version should be provided whether or not there is a non-English version.
	::Here are some formats I have used. For text within the article:
			:Subtitles should be provided for all videos with an audio track, to make them accessible for readers who cannot hear or find it difficult. There are additional guidelines at ].
	::<blockquote>The Telefé series Vidas Robadas ("Stolen Lives") was inspired by this case. </blockquote>
			:Not sure the "Sourcing" point needs to be made, as this is explained in detail for images generally.
	::For a translation of one of the foreign language references:
			:The "Length" point should probably link to the ] and point out the copyright issue when displaying here under fair use. It should say "video" not "videos" to be grammatical.
	::<blockquote>"Marita Verón, a 10 años de su secuestro y desaparición", TN, Martes 3 de Abril del 2012 </blockquote>
			:I would drop the "Translations of subtitles" point and just link to ] for guidance on translations.
	::] (]) 06:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
			:The "Public domain renditions" point does not make any sense to me, and I would just drop it.
			:I'm not sure whether the "Rendition" point needs to be made, but if it does, it's confusing. I think it's supposed to be recommending that historically accurate renditions of older works are preferred, if available. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't, depending on what the purpose of inclusion in the article is. Might be better just to leave this point off; I don't see any similar guidance for audio samples of music. Page editors can decide which samples are best out of those available.
			:Another point probably worth making is that a video should be considered an optional part of an article. In other words, any content vital to reader understanding should be included in the text and not be omitted on the assumption that reader will watch the video. Many readers will not be able to view video due to technical limitations, such as using a web browser that is not configured with a video player, or reading an article in another medium such as an app, paper printout, or text-to-speech system (including those who cannot see or find it difficult to read text). There is more specific guidance against putting text in images at ].
			:It's fine for a video to re-explain something that's already explained in the text if having a moving image clarifies substantially, but it seems wasteful for embedded videos to effectively repeat or rephrase the text.
			:-- ] (]) 22:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks very much!
			::* Regarding '''language''', this was meant to be about non-English content, think Bach or Mozart in German or Latin; or Goethe's poetry.
			::* On '''Sourcing''', the section on images does not include YT, which is significant for CC video.
			::* On '''translation''', the situation for subtitles is a bit different, as usually you cannot use academic in-copyright translations, so this mention is retained.
			::* On '''public domain renditions''', this was the subject of a ]. Does that help? Take a file such as ]. There is some need for verification, even tho it is not being used as a citation? I've edited it for clarity.
			::* On '''style of renditions''', this has come up a few times in discussion, including at the link above, where a user claimed only a Catholic priest could do a Latin audio recording; also at ] on LA Misplaced Pages about accents and delivery, preferring a modern standard over historical guesses. I figured the same principle might apply to say reading Shakespeare, or using 16th century instruments; it simply shouldn't be a consideration, but sometimes editors think it should be.
			::* I've added the points on (1) text as images, (2) subtitles for EN content, (3) optionality of AV content
			::'''VERSION 0.2'''
			::Audiovisual content can also be used for illustrative purposes. Most of the guidance on images above applies to audio visual content. Importantly, audio-visual content should not be an essential part of a page, which is necessary to understand the whole. This is because not all readers will be able to download or access the content, for example because of technical limitations or relying on text to speech tools. With audio and video just as with any content, relevance is paramount; consult ] for further context. There must be a clear reason for including the content on the page.
			::Additionally, consider:
			::* '''Length''': inline videos or audio that is shorter will be easier for users to watch. Consider clipping long form content, and linking to the original on Commons, or elsewhere. Longer videos (eg, over 10 minutes) may be more suitable for links than inline video, unless they are highly relevant to the page's subject.
			::* '''Rendition''': historical accents and historical musical performances are not required. Modern renditions of audio are acceptable. For example, there is no need to read Shakespeare with an Elizabethan pronunciation.
			::* '''Musical, poetic and literary content''': aesthetic considerations are higher for these kinds of content. Where possible, the performances should be considered good by other editors. Where editors find performances are poor, content should generally not be included.
			::* '''Subtitles for comprehension''': In English language videos, an English language subtitle track should always be provided for accessibility. See ] for more details.
			::* '''Subtitles for translation''': where audio or video is originally in a non-English language, for example a Goethe poem, subtitles should generally be preferred over than translated audio, as this reflects the original more closely and text files are easier to correct than mistakes in audio-visual content. Where possible, songs should be subtitled. Original language versions should be made available where where possible for artistic content.
			::* '''Translations of subtitles''' See ] for guidance. Note that longer subtitle sequences may need to be translated by Wikipedians rather than obtained from academic sources to avoid copyright infringement.
			::* '''Embedding text''': As with images, rendered text should be avoided in video content. See ] for more information.
			::* '''Public domain renditions''': if audio or video is a rendition of a public domain source, for example a work by Mozart, or a speech by Caesar, it must be possible to check the original scores or texts. An editor should be able to compare the performance with the original. Where possible, include links on media file pages so that editors can make checks.
			::* '''Sourcing''': as with images, sourcing of audio-visual content needs to be copyright compliant. Sources of CC video and audio can include Youtube, Flickr and CC search tools. Care should be taken to ensure the licensing claims appear to be valid.
			::* See also: ]

			::] ] 23:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::As far as the wording about "indicating the original language", if the entire article is a translation, the original language would appear on the talk page.
			:::This appears to be related to situations such as ], where a consisting of a person reading a letter aloud was included in an article, one example of a series of such edits. It is not clear to me that we need a bunch of guidelines about the best form for this sort of application because it is not clear that it is desirable to include such videos in the first place - the cart is being put before the horse. ] (]) 23:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::] (]) 06:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
			::::Yes, I certainly would like to clear up some of the misapprehensions that regretfully appeared in that discussion. It's a discussion I will deeply regret getting involved in for some time.
			::::I'll be clear about the other discussions and examples of this content for context:
			::::* ]; ] no debate and no questions occurred
			::::* ]; no questions raised (I am the main editor for this page but plenty of people make edits)
			::::* ]; ] as a link after discussion with editors
			::::* ]; ] after discussion with editors
			::::* ]; readings included; no discussion or objection
			::::* ]; reading of his disputes with no objections raised
			::::* ]; reading of his defence of Catholicism; posted and no objections raised
			::::* ]; ]; no response yet
			::::* ] and ]; early work added; an editor has asked me to check whether these are sufficiently relevant; I've agreed to do so and remove the videos if ] is not met.
			::::@] I hope you can at least see that normally I try to be as collaborative as I can be. there's not much point going further into why that discussion became hard for me. However, policy is the place where we make guidelines to avoid disputes and lack of clarity.
			::::What meets ] overrides any other consideration, to my mind so I have added that to the draft text. (''With audio and video just as with any content, relevance is paramount; consult ] for further context. There must be a clear reason for including the content on the page.'') ] ] 00:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::As regards the other articles where there was no discussion, just because there was no dissent at the moment doesn't mean there wont be in the future. What happened at the Machiavelli article could just as easily happen in the other ones
			:::::I am also asking you kindly to please stop making the issues with that RfC bigger than what they are. ] (]) 00:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::We can take this discussion in two ways:
			::::::* We can either construtively discuss the principles behind what video content should be allowable; or
			::::::* We can decide that emotions are too high for it and pause it
			::::::I do need this guidance, because there are divergences of opinion on some of the points, and it's important to me to be able to resolve them. But my guess is that if the three of us are just going to rehash the RFC discussion, then that would a terrible use of other people's time and energy. A break off would make sense, in my view. ] ] 00:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::No one's emotions are high but yours, judging by your rather relentless snipes against my character and the fact that you have so much as admitted it in the RfC. You have also stated that the RfC "needed to die" (quite strong words) when I gave you a chance to change your mind, and now you want to pause now that the discussion is nearing a close?
			:::::::I do not get what you are trying to accomplish here, to be fair. ] (]) 00:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::It is not needed to rehash the RFC here, but I did feel that fresh eyes on this talk page should have enough context to understand what the proposal is about. ] (]) 00:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Thanks, I appreciate that as a valid concern. Does the change regarding ] help, or do you feel more is needed? For context, other points raised in the RFC such as regarding the need to be able to validate translation is also included. ] ] 00:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I dropped the video from ]; it seemed like excessive detail. It's already on '']'' where it's a bit more appropriate. But even there, it seems like it violates the video equivalent of ]. Same for ] and ].
			:::::I also posted that the video for ] should probably just be kept on Commons; there's already a general link to the topic there.
			:::::I agree it's not clear that videos of performances of works should generally be included, so I would also be hesitant about specifying anything in particular about those. Uploaded videos cover a broad variety of subjects, including scientific phenomena, buildings, and specific events. -- ] (]) 03:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I would like to understand ] a bit more, especially regarding accessibility in particular, as this is certainly an overriding concern. What makes the text subtitle files inaccessible and not regarded as text? ] ] 09:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Subtitles are, of course, text. They are less accessible than the text in an article because some readers will have technical or logistical difficulty watching video and thus reading subtitles or listening to audio narration. For readers that ''do'' watch a video (which presumably has an animation or something which illustrates the subject of the article in a way a still image cannot), it ''increases'' accessibility by allowing people who cannot hear or find it difficult to know what is being said or what sounds are happening in the video. -- ] (]) 15:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::] already says that for user-created diagrams, etc., a source for the underlying data must be included. To me, this applies straightforwardly to videos that are presenting public-domain content. A citation to the original work is kind of implied, but a reference to a specific version or even better an online copy, should suffice. YouTube videos that we're importing into Misplaced Pages as on-article videos are no different than diagrams or maps or explanatory videos uploaded by random Misplaced Pages or Commons users, assuming an appropriate copyright license. The reliability of YouTube is not really in question, any more than the reliability of any given Misplaced Pages editor is, when they are just repackaging information from a different underlying source in a more digestible way. That's different than citing a YouTube video as a reliable source for the information itself.
			:::I'm not sure I have enough examples to make a guideline about video length. Ten minutes seems way too long for download on a mobile phone, and most videos I would expect to be under a minute. Perhaps there are exceptions, but I'd want to survey how videos are being used now. In the meantime, I would trim the 0.2 version down to reduce scope and reduce overlap with other pages and rephrase and retitle:
			:::----
			:::'''Video content (v. 0.3)'''
			:::* The guidelines on this page also generally apply to videos.
			:::* Many readers will not be able to play videos, because of technical limitations of their web browser, because they are seeing article content on a different web site or app, or because they are using a different medium, such as paper or text-to-speech system. Some readers cannot see or find it difficult. Videos should be used as a ''supplement'' to article material, to concisely illustrate the subject in a way that a still image or text cannot do. Videos should not replace article text, and articles should remain coherent and comprehensive when video playback is not available.
			:::* Similar to ], for accessibility and file size reasons:
			:::** Videos that simply show text should be replaced with text.
			:::** Videos that simply show a sequence of still pictures should be replaced with an image gallery.
			:::** Videos of text being read aloud should be replaced with text, or if the sound of words is being demonstrated, audio files (with the text being read in the file caption or in closed captioning).
			:::** Videos of text and narration with should be converted to article text.
			:::* The copyright and other guidelines on ] also apply to video samples.
			:::* The policies on ] also generally apply to videos.
			:::* Accessibility guidelines at ] apply.
			:::----
			:::-- ] (]) 03:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::] has additional suggestions; not sure if it's appropriate to link there from here. -- ] (]) 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::With your commentary, this makes a lot of sense. I would point out that there was a lot of heat generated over YT reliability in the aforementioned RFC, so it would be good to point that it can be used. YT is not mentioned as a source for images in the images section above; an alternative would be to add it there in the list of common sources, but that also seems odd. I know one can point to the archive discussion, but that is not generally available knowledge for anyone looking at the guidance in future. ] ] 09:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I added a clarifying note at ] for YouTube; hopefully this will not be controversial. -- ] (]) 02:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Unfortunately that has been . It might make more sense here, because this is about video as illustration, and there is ]. Perhaps it should be parallel advice to this, eg mentioning that YT has a search facility for CC content (and there isn't anything else AFAIK). ] ] 09:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I started a discussion at ]. -- ] (]) 20:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Thanks - quick observation that we have lost that the guidance for illustrative audio content would also generally derive from the images guidance. The music samples page linked is wholly focused on samples from copyrighted material; there is a lot of PD / CC music material on WP, especially for classical music. Sometimes this could do with subtitling, etc, care in positioning, checks for relevance, etc. ] ] 09:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::OK, what are you suggesting? -- ] (]) 18:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::I think, where appropriate, add audio, eg "The guidelines on this page also generally apply to videos and audio files"; maybe "where appropriate, for instance non-English language audio files should include subtitles". I'm not sure there is much else. ] ] 22:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::And where would you find that addition to be appropriate? -- ] (]) 02:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::I would amend the title to "Video and Audio content"; I would amend bullet one to "The guidelines on this page also generally apply to videos and audio files". Under "Similar to MOS:TEXTASIMAGES, for accessibility and file size reasons:" I would add "where appropriate, for instance non-English language audio files should include subtitles". The accessibility guidelines could move to be bullet two, in order that audio and video advice is at the top. ] ] 08:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::It looks to me like hardly anything on ] applies to audio files, and it seems like the wrong place to go looking for style advice about them. -- ] (]) 22:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::For example:
			::::::::::::::* ]
			::::::::::::::* ]
			::::::::::::::* ]
			::::::::::::::* ]
			::::::::::::::* ]
			::::::::::::::* ]
			::::::::::::::* ] Uploading to commons, recording information about files, changes in editing and download size etc
			::::::::::::::These seem pretty substantially helpful guidance to me, and pretty similar level of relevance as to video files. ] ] 09:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::Yeah, most of the material in those sections is not relevant to audio. I'd say if you feel strongly that guidance is needed for audio generally and not just music samples, we should create a new page. Editors shouldn't have to read through a whole page about images just to pick out the occasional tidbit on audio files, if they're only interested in the latter. -- ] (]) 20:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::I've posted the 0.3 draft for now, since that wouldn't be changed by adding an audio page somewhere else. -- ] (]) 20:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::Thanks for posting the v 0.3. On audio, I would think about this from a few user perspectives:
			::::::::::::::::* There is currently no MOS advice at all on audio files and approaching general layout, pertinence, etc. What would the user do? Currently, MOS offers them nothing, so they must either guess or work off examples on other pages.
			::::::::::::::::* If a user asks for advice, where would they be pointed? (my guess: ] as closest match.
			::::::::::::::::IMO, it would be better to offer them something, even apologetically ("There is currently no detailed advice on MOS regarding use of audio files, but the basic principles of ] and some considerations at ] may be helpful.") This could be placed at a page relevant to other audio usage files, for example. ] ] 10:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::Feel free to propose a draft if you like. It's also possible no particular guidance is needed, if people are able to figure this stuff out using common sense and regular editorial judgement, and if disputes arise, turn to the various policy and guideline pages on topics like due weight. -- ] (]) 21:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Given the small amount of material to include about this, and the redundancy that would be required with MOS:IMAGES if "MOS:VIDEOS" were its own page, and given the short nature of the audio samples MoS page, I think the most sensible approach is to merge all of this into a WP:Manual_of_Style/Images_and_multimedia page with a top MOS:MEDIA shortcut (which I'm surprised doesn't already exist as an internal disambiguation page), then MOS:IMAGES, etc., going to sections. We have too many separate MoS pages as it is, and this is an ideal merge of two of them and a proposed third. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Sure, that's a reasonable alternate approach. I think it would work if we put the things that apply across all three at the top, and then make it clear with section headers which those interested in a specific media type should look at without having to read inapplicable guidelines. -- ] (]) 08:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::+1 to both of these observations. ] ] 09:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Yeps. If we hammer out a videos-related section, I'll be happy to do the work (most MoS merges and the like are done by me because I kind of have a database in my head of all the rules and how they interrelate, and 19 years of observing how misinterpretations, lawyering, and other problems can be avoided by careful wording. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 14:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I think what we could agree on for videos has been added. -- ] (]) 00:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			== misleading text in ] ==
	:::I'd leave out "Translation" in the reference above.
	:::I don't agree with Bazonka that the copyright is a side issue. Long copyrighted translations are clearly a violation of our copyright policy, so the MOS can't reflect them. Short copyrighted translations seem to be accepted as fair use under the current policy—there could be an interesting argument about that somewhere else.
	:::I'd say there are two questions here: how foreign-language quotations should be presented, and if translations are used, whether they should be sourced or made here (or both). The first is appropriate for the MOS; I'm not sure the second is, but others here will know the answer to that.
	:::Here's a possible revision of Bazonka's proposal:
	:::::{{fake heading\|Foreign-language quotations\|sub=3}}
	::::Quotations of words originally written or spoken in a foreign language should normally appear translated into English. They may be followed by the original in the text or in a footnote or in square brackets inside the quotation marks. For instance,
	:::::According to Suetonius, when Augustus heard the news he cried, "Quintilius Varus, give back the legions! "

			The text on keyboard entry of dashes in {{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style\|Dashes}} is misleading. The text {{tqq\|or on a Windows keyboard }} implies a technique specific to windows when in fact it is valid for any OS. -- ] (]) 15:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::When the original is in a script other than the Roman alphabet, a romanized version should usually be given in addition or instead. The original of Biblical quotations is seldom given unless the quotation is the subject of discussion.
			:True. What it should say: "on a Windows keyboard enter them manually as {{key press\|Alt\|0}} {{key press\|1\|5\|0\|chain=}} (on the numeric keypad) for en dash, and {{key press\|Alt\|0}} {{key press\|1\|5\|1\|chain=}} for em dash." -- ] (]) 16:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Wrong on two counts:
			::# No. It should not say anything at all, per ].
			::# And even if it does, those ]s are only valid for ] and related. They don't work if the user has a different default code page installed.
			::Delete it completely. --] (]) 17:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I doubt that NOTHOWTO is meant to apply to the MOS. It's surely helpful for editors and hence should stay, reworded if needed. ] (]) 08:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Gaewon is correct: NOTHOWTO applies to articles only. MOS is littered with how-to stuff, as is should where the ratio {{nobreak\|<code>(editor confusion and time saved)/(])</code>}} seems sufficiently high. However, if this starts getting into weeds of code pages and such, it may be best to relegate the whole thing to ], with a pointer to that from MOS. ]] 20:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::So why not simply recommend {{tl\|mdash}}, {{tl\|ndash}} and {{tl\|snd}} rather than advise keyboard callisthenics? --] (]) 20:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Yes, I have always advocated symbolic representations (templates such as you list, or html escapes such as &mdash;) of the various dashes (and in some cases, even hyphens), rather than having them appear literally in the wikisource, so that editors can see at a glance that the right character is present. But even though ], I can't seem to get people on board with this. ]] 20:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::I am happy typing the dashes on my Apple keyboards but also happy with recommending the templates rather than giving keyboard-specific advice. What I would like to avoid is warring bands of gnomes going around changing unicode dashes to templated dashes and vice versa. —] (]) 21:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Edit conflict: yes, different route to the same answer. --] (]) 20:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::JMF's policy understanding {{em\|is}} mistaken above. ] only applies to article content (and other reader-facing content, like portals and the front page features). If it applied to internal documentation, then we would have to delete the entire "Help:" namespace and about 95% what is in "Misplaced Pages:" namespace. However, the technical point JMF raised is entirely correct, and we should not be telling editors to use keyboard codes that will do the wrong thing (or nothing) if they don't happen to be using the "right" code page. To {{tq\|1=simply recommend {{tl\|mdash}}, {{tl\|ndash}} and {{tl\|snd}}}} is the sensible approach. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Let's just direct people to ]. --] 🌹 (]) 23:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Is there a MOS guidance that applies to changing between common terms based on the name of the Wiki article? ==
	::::Short foreign-language passages or statements can be included, followed by the English translation, possibly in square brackets or parentheses (round brackets). One might want to use this method if the original is known to many English speakers, or if the article discusses some feature of it that doesn't appear in the translation (such as wordplay), among other reasons. In linguistics, the translation is usually given in single quotation marks.

			Do we have a guideline for dealing with different name, common names for the same thing (] vs ])? The target article, ], has used both names (changed in 2009 and 2022). Sources use both terms but I think the shorted "I4" is used more often in sources. I presume we would follow something like the MOS:ENGVAR where if there is no source preference we go with what the editors used first. Recently an editor, {{u\|Kumboloi}}, made a number of good faith changes in linking articles from "inline-four" to "straight-four" to align external article text with the target article name. Is there a guide on this? How should this be handled? ] (]) 14:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Foreign words and phrases in English-language quotations should usually be left as they are. Unless they're very well known to English speakers, they should be translated immediately afterwards in square brackets. Any explanation may be added in the brackets or a footnote.

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

			== Legibility of thumbnails at default size ==
	:::::In Spain every traveler who does not lug around samples of calico or silk passes for an Englishman, ''Inglesito''. It is the same in the East. At Chalcis I have had the honor of being introduced as a Μιλόρδος Φραντζέσος ." (Prosper Mérimée, "Carmen", translated by Louise Guiney.)
			{{Moved discussion from\|Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Images#Legibility of thumbnails at default size}}
			]
			]
			I am surprised there is no direct statement along the lines of {{xt\|If possible, the selection, placement, and sizing of images should allow readers to fully decipher what they are intended to illustrate; thumbnails should be legible with the default base size of 220px without requiring readers to expand them.}} It seems like much of the guidance has this as an unstated goal, but there are cases where it is slightly less intuitive that this is a principle that editors should heed. My one worry is hypothetical quibbling over what any given image is intended to illustrate—is the specific text written on a street sign important for illustrative purposes?—but I feel like that's totally explicable in each instance via editor discussion. It's clear that some appropriate images cannot be legible at thumbnail size in context, either because they are visually intricate or the placement context simply won't allow it, but it seems helpful to state that editors should make an attempt when it is possible. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 16:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{ping\|Remsense}} Can you give an example? ] (]) 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Clicked around until I found one: at ], it's not really possible for me to discern the field of figures as men sitting at desks rather than just noise. This image should be displayed at a slightly larger size, and maybe cropped a bit.
			::Another class of examples is insignia and coats of arms, where arguably key details that would be legible in the original contexts are illegible at thumbnail sizes in infoboxes, especially in cases where there are especially elaborate versions that editors sometimes opt for out of a misplaced sense of completeness (I guess). <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::]
			:::]
			:::They're everywhere. ] (]) 21:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::That is something that gives me pause: this seems like a common-sense guideline to me, but either it's so obvious that it shouldn't be a guideline (?) or it's not nearly as obvious to others. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 21:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I've always found it odd that we don't have a minimum size recommendation. Can't tell you how many times I see collages or galleries that have teeny mini images that lack accessibility for all. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 03:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do to print articles out (or otherwise have them in a format where the thumbnails are all you get), also. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 03:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I do worry my criterion above is too loosey-goosey to be a good guideline; I don't think there's a problem with speaking in terms of minimum size as such, maybe it's better getting the intended point across? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 03:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Definitely better getting the intended point across. If we try to impose a numeric min. size, people are going to argue about it until the end of fargin' time, based on the behavior of their preferred devices and browsers, and so on. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC); rev'd. 13:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::What do you think about the potential phrasing first presented—i.e. {{xt\|if at all possible, what images are being used to illustrate should be fully legible when scaled according to the default base size}} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 03:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Lots of unnecessary words. {{xt\|When possible, images with text should be legible when ...}} I'm not sure what "according to" the default base size means. Is it really the {{em\|default}} base size? Are more than handful of editors reading this going to understand what "base size" means? I thinking there must be a clearer way to get the point across, but the goal seems right. (Speaking of "getting the intended point across": ironically, my previous message had an extraneous word, "than", in it – in a position that reversed or at least badly confused my meaning, so I've removed it.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 13:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::I'm not sure how to phrase it. It's not just images with text either, it's all images that are added but cannot actually be deciphered without expansion. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 04:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Commas around incorporated businesses' names ==
	::::The original of this is probably too long to be given in the text but might appear in a footnote.

			from looking at ], there isn't any guidance on how to deal with names with '']''. multiple articles do any of the following, either with no comma, a comma only before and a comma around the word.
	::::As always, an editor thinking of including a quotation must decide whether to replace it with a paraphrase. If the fact that the quotation is in a foreign language introduces many complications and causes difficulties for readers, that is a reason to prefer a paraphrase.

			# {{xt\|Mumumu Inc. is a company ...}}
	:::I'm not sure what to say when the original contains an English word or phrase. —] ] 18:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
			# {{xt\|Mumumu, Inc. is a company ...}}
			# {{xt\|Mumumu, Inc., is a company ...}}

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

			== An editing policy question ==
	Per ] I changed the word "favor" (which is US spelling) to "prefer" throughout ]. ] then reverted this stating: ''no improvement: "favor" is more accurate, and at least one substitution (in an example) is decidedly unidiomatic''. I concede that perhaps a better word than "prefer" could perhaps have been used in some cases, but still think that the change was mostly an improvement. To me, "favor" seems at first glance to be a spelling mistake and therefore the text is not as easily readable as it should be. Surely MOS should practice what it preaches, and should adhere to the commonality guidelines. ] (]) 11:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

			When I read Wiki policy and guidance pages, I sometimes find ''shall'' used instead of ''will'' to indicate what must be done ''—'' for example, in the ] article, we find: "The more signs that are present, the more likely sockpuppetry is occurring, though no accusations '''shall''' be made unless, beyond a reasonable doubt, one is really certain."
	:Indeed it should conform to itself, Bazonka. But that does not mean it should use a less accurate word simply because the ''spelling'' of the better word looks odd to some people. "Favor" looks strange to me too, as an Australian; but WP:MOS happens to be written with US spelling, and with the US-preferred em dash. But your interest in MOS is appreciated, I'm sure. The more editors involved and contributing to its development, the better. ☺ <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::I know that MOS is written in US spelling. However, the intention of ] is not to stop articles from being written in one particular variety of English, but to reduce the impact of it. (You'll note that I did not attempt to change "color" to a common term, such as "hue", because this would obviously have been less clear.) But I fail to understand how "prefer" is less accurate than "favor"; Wiktionary defines ] as "To look upon fondly; to prefer", and ] as "To be in the habit of choosing something rather than something else; to favor; to like better", so the two words seem to be synonymous.
	::The word favor appears four times in MOS:
	::* "Misplaced Pages favors no national variety of English"
	::* "...a practice favored in science writing"
	::* "Some major American guides to style ... now deprecate U.S. and favor US"
	::* "We should note that some critics have argued in favor of our proposal"
	::I can see no problem whatsoever in changing the first three of these to "prefers", "preferred" and "prefer". To me, the meaning stays exactly the same. Changing the fourth to "...argued in preference of our proposal" does seem a bit clumsier, but I think it still works. In any case, this one is just an example sentence and could be easily reworded to "...argued against our proposal" which would still demonstrate the inappropriate use of "our" in the sentence. ] (]) 12:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::I think the meaning actually does shift a bit in the first two. "Favor" in the first case does not mean "prefer" it means "show favoritism toward", and that distinction is actually very important. In the second, the difference is one of agency; "favored in science writing" means that science writing leans in that direction; "preferred in science writing" implies that a written, formal preference has been established and published, which is not the case. The third example would work fine with "prefer", because style guides are in fact formal, established, published preferences. And of course the substitution would no work in the fourth case, even with a weird construction like "argued in preference to our proposal", or whatever. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 22:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::OK. The distinction must be a bit too suble for me, but I shall take your word for it. As alternatives, how about:
	::::* "Misplaced Pages does not follow any specific national variety of English"
	::::* "...a practice usually adopted by science writing", or "...usually followed in science writing"
	::::The third sentence can use "prefer", and meaning of the fourth can change entirely because it's just an example of misuse of "we" and "our", so change "in favor of" to "against". ] (]) 22:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

			Granted that ''shall'' is often used this way in government and judicial documents, I think it sounds somewhat at odds with the more user-friendly ambience Misplaced Pages has tried to create for editors. Besides, ''shall'' is not consistently applied throughout the policy and guidance pages ''—'' for example, in the same ] article, we find: ''"''The closing administrator '''will''' be required to follow the consensus, even if they personally disagree.''"''
	::::::#I'm not sure everyone will follow what is meant by "follow" here. :-) I would retain the existing language, for a good reason: I repeat that the word "favors" in "Misplaced Pages favors no national variety of English" does not mean "prefers", it means "shows favoritism toward", and that distinction is actually important. WP could easily not have an express preference for American English yet still favor it anyway. This was actually long the real-world case, due to the dominant percentage of editors being Americans, and is why that passage was added in the first place!
	::::::# We don't actually have any evidence that dotless abbreviations, aside from unit symbols and other special cases, are the {{em\|dominant}} practice in science writing, so only saying "a common practice in science writing" is a viable replacement (and is actually more accurate than the "favored" version, which implies dominance almost as strongly as "prefered" or "usually adopted" does).
	::::::#"Some major American guides to style ... now deprecate U.S. and prefer US" is actually a correct statement and more accurate, because the guides are published preferences, not vaguely defined favoritism.
	::::::#The example text does in fact work just fine as "{{xt\|We should note that some critics have argued against our proposal}}".<br />— <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 02:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

			— For the above reasons, wouldn't it be in Misplaced Pages's best interests to avoid using the conversationally archaic ''shall'' in these articles and replace it with ''will?''? I doubt that this would make editors with wrongdoing on their minds less likely to behave as desired.
	:::::I was interested to see this discussion as I was considering the wording of the very same passage. I, too, would prefer the word "prefer" to "favor" as it is more common and down to earth than the more literary "favor." I would also suggest a change from the formality of "Although Misplaced Pages favors no national variety of English..." to "While Misplaced Pages does not prefer any national variety of English..." which is the more usual way to put it. What do others think? ] (]) 01:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::::I think, honestly, that this is both a mountain-out-of-a-molehill nitpick, and an exercise near-pointless political correctness to mollify some British/Commonwealth readers who are unhappy that MOS was launched, and thus has stayed in, American English. Not to put too fine a point on it. >;-) That said, see above; I think that three of these cases can be changed in various ways with no harm done, and two will actually be clearer, but it's not just by willy-nilly swapping of "prefer" for "favor". — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 02:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::How very rude. I don't have any problem with what version of English the MOS is written in. ] is not a procedure for scoring points against another version of English; it is a way of making articles more readable. People find it easier to read articles written in their own variety of English because they are not distracted by the spelling differences, etc. So from my selfish personal point of view, as a native BrE speaker, yes I would prefer it if all of Misplaced Pages was in BrE. But of course it's not all about me - there are readers of all backgrounds here, and we must try to find a balance for everyone. This is where COMMONALITY comes in. It's not about changing the language variety, but simply ironing out those unnecessary creases of language difference, and improving readability for everyone. I could have tried to change "color" to a common word "hue", but no I did not, because "color" is such a powerful word without any equally powerful synonyms - its use is not unnecessary. However "favor" is not so strong, and there are viable alternatives (though not as simple as I first thought). If the MOS was written in BrE I would similarly argue about moving away from the use of "favour" (although to be fair, I may not have picked up on it as I wouldn't have been distracted by the word when reading). If MOS doesn't follow MOS then we might as well all give up now. I am quite insulted that you think my raising of this point was an "exercise near-pointless political correctness" because MOS is in AmE. That is just so wrong. ] (]) 19:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::] doesn't require twee niceness or pretense that one thinks a pointless proposal is just fine. I moderate ] with ], as do many of us. I'm glad you are not proposing things like this just to push Briticisms, but I don't feel bad for making you aware that it was coming off that way. ''Color'' and ''hue'' are not synonyms (at least not in any field that regularly deals with color, such as art, printing, digital video mastering, etc., etc.). I already agreed with you that three of these four cases of "favor" could be changed with no problem; are you so upset that it's not all four that a rant is necessary? :-) MOS is written to govern style {{em\|in articles}} (and by extension output of templates that appears in articles). It's {{em\|nice}} when WP's own internal projectpages can follow it, too, but it is not a requirement. WP guidelines regularly use contractions – lots of them – and articles do not, for example. I apologize for genuinely offending you; my goal was to suggest "you're being nit-picky and this comes off as simply anti-Americanism". — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 04:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::I'm afraid my suggestion about wording got lost in a spat about favor and prefer. Personally, I'm untroubled by the US spelling "favor" but I do think that the wording could be made more user-friendly by a slight change in wording. At the moment, Mos reads
	:::::::::*"Although Misplaced Pages favors no national variety of English..."
	:::::::::How about changing to this:
	:::::::::*"While Misplaced Pages does not favor any national variety of English..."
	:::::::::The proposal is simply to use plain, common English at this point. Nitpicking, maybe, but getting rid of the nits is the way to make the writing clearer, cleaner and more attractive. ] (]) 07:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::That seems better to me too. ] (]) 18:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::If there's no objection in the next 24 hours I'll go ahead and make this change. ] (]) 01:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

			— But if the decision is made to continue "shalling," then for the sake of consistency couldn't a search-and-replace be done throughout the policy and guidance articles to replace ''will'' with ''shall'' where the word needs to indicate what must be done? ] (]) 16:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	== RfC: Should lines be used between a template and text above it? ==
	<!-- ] 22:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC) -->
	{{rfc\|style\|policy\|rfcid=7F5DF0B}}

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

			:::Just be aware that you’ve entered the purview of a global encyclopedia, and that means you will encounter forms of English that aren’t necessarily common locally to wherever you live. ] (]) 17:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	The Manual of Style states: "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode." (])
			::::Is this one of those ] situations where we should stick to a limited number of ]s on a sliding scale (must > should > may)? --] 🦌 (]) 18:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::@], Although I’m aware of different styles of English in different parts of the world, the ''shall/will'' issue I’ve raised here is more about how Misplaced Pages wants to show officially expected actions in particular situations.
			::::Not like , “Today I shall go to the beach” … but like, “Administrators shall hold discussions on the matter for one week before reaching a decision.” ] (]) 12:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Nevertheless, ‘shall’ is still reasonably common usage in formal, official or legal written texts, in the UK, in a way that I don’t think you can say for the US (but willing to be corrected…), and is not considered particularly user-unfriendly. Your observation to the contrary above is therefore pitched from the perspective of a particular Engvar, which was my original point. ] (]) 15:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::@], you're probably right about "how official" ''shall'' sounds to UK and US readers of official documents. And frankly, that word is still used from time to time in official documents in the US, even though much more rarely these days''.'' Even so, here's a thought: if ''will'' would work equally well as ''shall'' in Misplaced Pages policy and guidance documents, why not use it consistently here so as to make "official stuff" sound a bit less bureaucratic but at the same time affirming of expected behavior?
			::::::Though I'm American, I doubt that any of our UK cousins across the pond would feel affronted if Misplaced Pages consciously adopted ''will'' in its policy and guidelines. Wouldn't it simply be one more example of Misplaced Pages's intentions of providing as welcoming and user-friendly environment as possible in which to work, while in no way demeaning other varieties of writing?
			::::::Alternatively, to avoid the whole ''shall/will'' issue, there are still other ways wording could be done. For example, instead of "Administrators shall hold discussions...,” we could say, "Administrators are to hold discussions ....” ] (]) 11:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::More rules about how rules should be written could be one step forward, two steps back. ]] 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Onbiously, you're free to edit how you want, but as a general rule, surely it isn't WP's object, nor that of the MoS, to try and enforce general language preferences on our editors? ] (]) 11:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::: You state the onbious. ]] 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Well, @], I think it’s time for me to gracefully bow out of the discussion now. My only Intent in making my suggestion was far from an attempt to ''enforce,'' though I see how it might be interpreted that way''.''
			::::::::Instead, I was trying to make a case for a slight change in wording that seemed to me could help Misplaced Pages accomplish its very positive goal of creating an open, light, friendly ambience — just as seniors helping in the Teahouse and elsewhere are asked to do with those who ask questions. I know that as some editors get involved with Misplaced Pages, they come to feel weighed down by many rules and regulations and even become fearful they might make a slip and face serious consequences.
			::::::::It was this I hoped my suggestion might help prevent in the long run, with the flip-side benefit of editor retention. ] (]) 12:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

			==Discussion at ] (redux) ==
	Does this mean that the above formatting should be used? That is, '''Should white space be introduced between the last line of text and the top of a ]?'''] (]) 07:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
			] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 21:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] -->

			:Specifically, input would be appreciated regarding the treatment of derivative proper names (e.g. ]) in running text versus the titles of dedicated articles. Thanks! <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 07:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Discussion===
	I don't think that Hidden Comments should be used to introduce white space because the simple enter-key will suffice. Secondly, using the enter-key to make lines to make white space is arbitrary and is not used.
	* ] says "Between sections (and paragraphs), there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article." which is saying that hidden comments are not to be used to create white space, and not to create white space.
	Specifically, the vast majority of pages do not have the formatting as I presented.] (]) 07:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
	*Curb Chain has been on about this for quite a while now, to the extent of following me around and reverting my edits. He really needs to chill out and realize that the Manual of Style is not policy, it is not something that has to be followed slavishly, and it is certainly not a straightjacket preventing any of us from improving the encyclopedia. Indeed, it '''''cannot''''' be that, because that would, in itself, emasculate the entire purpose of ].<p>I've explained to Curb Chain many, many times, the purpose of the edits he objects to, and I'll do so once again for the benefit of othere. Please bear in mind that Curb Chain has brought this to AN/I on several occasions, and has been told by numerous editors there that his complaint is among the ] thinsg anyone has ever come across. Also, please consider that his compaign of harrassment and annoyance is all about '''''a single blank line'''''.<p>OK, here's the explanatuon. If you take a look at any decent-sized article, you'll note that the system, when it renders the page, provides a bit of spacing before every section header. This is to help the header stand out and be separated from the section above it. Unfortunately, the system does not do this at the bottom of the page, where any navboxes follow the External links section. Because of this, it's visually unpleasant that the new section (the navboxes) is so close to the text of the external links section, so I've been inserting a blank line to seperate them, to make it easier on the eye tosee the end of the external links and the beginning of the navboxes.<p>That's it, that the sum total of what Curb Chain objects to, that he's started two RfCs to try to eliminate, that's he's brought to AN/I on at least two occasions, and that he's followed me around with no other purpose than to delete ,y edits. (Bear in mind, I don't travel around Misplaced Pages inserting this single blank line of space, it's part of my normal editing of articles, which is often quite extensive.) That he's fixated on this is, to say the least, rather bizarre. That his campaign is getting rather disruptive is a matter of opinion - but I think he's gone off the rails a bit. In any event, my purpose in making this edits is solely and entirely to make our articles just a little bit easier to use for our readers. Thanks. ] (]) 08:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
	*: While I can't say that I find this a compelling disagreement or one to get worked up over, I am kind of inclined to agree with the person in the other discussion who said it'd make more sense to figure out if the extra space is something the whole site needs rather than to go around making impromptu additions of blank space to single articles on a haphazard and case-by-case basis. ] ] 08:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
	*:: I would be more than happy if the system could be adjusted to provide the necessary spacing, but no one has '''''ever''''' indicated that this was possible to do. Since that's the case, this is the next best thing. ] (]) 08:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
	::::This is a technical issue and you can ask the developers to do this. You will probably need to get consensus for it.] (]) 01:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
	*I would recommend against making additional space before a template at the end of the article, but it is not something that should be added to the MOS. The correct way to fix that sort of thing is to edit the template. ] (]) 10:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
	* I'm puzzled. I think I know what the question is asking, but I'm wondering about an exact offending edit. What is the problem, precisely? Where is a diff that I could use to judge? ? If so, I would oppose the mass addition of spacing. The spacing (or lack of it) between template and text currently is, from what I can remember, deliberate, and if this is the kind of edit that that is offensive, I would oppose both the edit itself and the addition of text describing it to the MOS. --] (]) 15:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
	:Yes, it adds an extra space. We are talking about whitespace, so lines without a hidden comment would be included in the RfC question. And I see that the editor who added the line has just reverted you.] (]) 01:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
	*This isn't really something MOS needs to address. There may be particular reasons in a particular article to do this (with HTML comments, with {{tag\|br\|s}}, etc.), e.g. to work around misbehaving templates, or because of image spacing or whatever. We generally let editorial discretion reign when it comes to things like that. See also ]. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''   <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>  <small>]</small></font> 02:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
	* I'm pretty sure that the "blank line" for navboxes is supposed to be inserted by some clever CSS, which was added a good few years back. We tried to get the same thing done for stub tmeplates, but I don't think it ever happened. ''] ]'', <small>04:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC).</small><br />
	:Why was it removed?] (]) 20:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

			::<small>Just for the record, I detest {{xt\|and/or}}, which the MOS backs me on, but (besides {{xt\|...}} instead of the clearer {{xt\|}} in quotations) I also detest {{xt\|Archimedes's}}. Can't we just use the Latinate genitive {{xt\|Archimedis}}? --] (]) 04:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
	== At long last, ] ==
			:::As someone who does not particularly despise {{xt\|Archimedes's}}, I would cast my even less ramified ;vote for that. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 05:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			==Discussion on ] bio leads==
	{{FYI\|Pointer to relevant page elsewhere}}
			See ]. ] (]) 19:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	I've been working on this, off and on, for over four years. I think it is ready for prime time now. I've researched this so much I feel like I could teach a class about it. I'm not proposing it formally yet, just asking for MOS regulars' input for now. When I formally propose it, it'll be advertised via ] and ], and the relevant projects invited to comment, of course. Please discuss suggested changes or any concerns/issues at ]. I've covered things that have never been touched on in MOS before like how to handle hybrids, greges, landraces, natural breeds, etc., etc., etc. It's a one-stop shop for all scientific and vernacular naming questions, including animals, plants, bacteria and viruses. <small>(And yes, it includes the MOS position that capitalizing bird common names is controversial, and why, but I've tried not to be inflammatory about it.)</small> — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']'''  <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 10:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
	:My first thought: "Hoo boy. What are we going to do about the species capitalization issue?" ] (]) 15:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

			== Usage of historical place names in infoboxes ==
	== ENGVAR examples ==

			Some feedback ] would be nice. Thanks --] (]) 19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	Discussion following several reverts today. I think ] and I are essentially making the same point, which Kevin McE explained well: ''"If it is not clear cut and unambiguous, and adhered to, it is not worth citing as an example''". For the examples to be educationally useful, it should be possible for an editor to go to the article and find it tagged exactly as we say here in the example. Sure, it is true that "close national ties" indicates that ] could theoretically be written in British or Irish English, but also we have to be consistent within the article. Evidently, British English was chosen and the article has been tagged accordingly. It's confusing to just say "(British or Irish English)" in the example without giving further explanation. (It could be done: we could separate out that example and say theoretically this could be either British or Irish, but British was chosen and now we stick to that.) With respect to ], I can't disagree with ] comment that the "Use British English" tag was wrong. However, I don't think it's helpful to say "(Indian English or British English)" in the example quoted here. Further, if we want to use it as an example for "Indian English", it would be helpful if the article were tagged "Use Indian English". – ] (]) 15:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
	:There is very little difference between Irish and British English, so an ambiguous description is probably good enough. And regarding ], ] states that Indian English should be used. Whilst this is largely the same as British English, it's not identical. ] (]) 18:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
	::]: you are right, there is little difference between Irish and British English, but I think we need to remember this is an instruction manual. So, we could separate out that example and say theoretically this could be either British or Irish, there is little difference between Irish and British English, British was chosen and now we stick to that. But if we just say "(British or Irish English)" and leave it hanging, how does that help an editor who doesn't already know what we mean?{{•}} ]: I agree, Indian English should be used in the article. So why do we say "(Indian English or British English)" here in the MOS? – ] (]) 12:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
	:"Indian English" alone should be preferred: ] relates to India, not the UK. ] relates equally to Ireland and the UK. ] (]) 07:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
	:(The Taj Mahal discussion appears to have separated, so I suggest we continue it at ].) – ] (]) 17:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
	] ''could'' have been written in either British or Irish English, but once an article exists with some degree of stability, it is no longer appropriate to say that it "should use" one of two variants. MOS:RETAIN clearly dictates that British English is now the only appropriate version for that article, as re-inforced by the presence of the ], and it is wrong for MoS to contradict that. ] (]) 09:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
	:] could also have been written in ]. Just throwing that one out there... ] (]) 10:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
	::The EU is suprannational, so it has no strong national ties. Therefore it could even have been written in American English. Wasn't, but could have been. --] (]) 10:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::The previous 3 paragraphs all contain very good points. So, to come back to my original question, is it appropriate to use ] as an example in the MOS, stating "(British or Irish English)" without further explanation? Should we use it as an example of "no strong national ties", with added explanation? Or is it just a bad example, because of complexity, and we should remove it? (One editor already made a case for removal, but the removal was reverted, which is why we are discussing here.) – ] (]) 18:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I'd lean towards "bad example". --] (]) 18:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

	== ~~Should~~ ~~ENGVAR~~ ~~extend~~ to ~~spinout~~ ~~articles~~? ==		== When are words being used as-words? ==

			It seems to be required by ] that any statement that uses constructions like:
	ENGVAR currently calls for consistent usage within a given article. Over at ], the issue is essentially whether it should also apply to ] articles of a given article. Since a spinout article is a virtual extension of its parent, this makes sense to me, but it's not what ENGVAR currently states. Is that intentional?
			* {{xt\|This concept is called ''Example'', ...}} (also {{xt\|termed}}, {{xt\|known as}}, {{xt\|referred to as}}, etc.)

			italicize the term. However, this is almost never consistently done even in many of our FAs (see ], used as an example in the MoS), and many other publications are unbothered. Am I worrying about something that doesn't make a difference in the clarity of many passages?
	I think it's likely that nobody really considered this case when writing ENGVAR, because spinouts were simply overlooked, and they normally naturally follow the usage of their parents, since they are usually formed largely with copy/pasting from the parent. The practical impact of extending ENGVAR to apply to spinouts too would be very minimal, since the English variety is already consistent with the parent for almost all spinouts, and English variety is changed very rarely. But in the rare cases where consensus decides there is a good reason to change the English variety of an article, doesn't it make sense to make the same change in the spinouts of that article? <p>Does anyone know of any examples, outside of the yogurt "family" of articles, where the English variety of a spinout differs from its parent? <p>To clarify with an example, I'm not suggesting all articles that refer to "color" use color because ] is not at ] - this is limited strictly to true spinouts (like ], which is a spinout of ], but not ], which is not a spinout of ] - there is no section in ] that links to ]).<p>I'm not suggesting a change to ENGVAR right now, as that would be inappropriate while this issue is being debated at that RM discussion, but thought folks following this page, with an interest in ENGVAR, might want to weigh in, here, at the RM, or both! Thanks! --] (]) 17:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

			I just struggle with paragraphs like (adapted from {{slink\|Chinese characters\|Zhou scripts}}):
	:This is just another tool that Born2cycle can use to argue to try to get his way, ''improving title stability by moving articles''. If you look at the particular spinoff in question, it has been pretty stable at ] since it started in 2007. It spun out from ] during a multi-year stable period that commenced after a lot of title thrashing in 2006 (much of it driven by B2C). If article families are to have consistency of ENGVAR (which many don't), why was this not brought up to resist B2C's efforts to change the ENGVAR of ] back to a vestigial pre-2006 original, after years of relative stability? A little more respect for ] would be in order if stability is actually valued. I have no attachment to either spelling, but I really don't like these disingenuous tactics that characterize B2C's campaign of "stability". ] (]) 17:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
			{{cquote\|The mainstream script's slow, gradual evolution continued during the ] until assuming the form now known as '']'' within the ]. Other scripts in use during the late Zhou include the ], as well as the regional forms used in non-Qin states. Historically, these forms were collectively known as '']'', a term which has fallen out of favour due to its lack of precision.}}

			It just looks weird that maintaining a natural flow in more jargon-y passages requires two terms to be italicized and one not to be. It looks arbitrary, and might even confuse readers if they notice? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Indeed, stability ultimately comes from consistency with unambiguous rules, and getting there ironically often requires change (as well as improving the rules by making them less ambiguous).<p>Suggesting that the goal of consistency in article families is a valid argument to oppose changing usage in a parent article, because that would make the main article inconsistent with usage in its spinouts, is like saying a title should not be changed because the article content uses the name that is the current title. Spinouts naturally follow the lead set by the main article, not the other way around. <p>] deserves due respect, but not to the extent of using it to ]. The last year of unprecedented stability and quiet at ]/] confirms the strength of as we did, reasons that outweighed ] considerations. That done, it only makes sense to bring the title and usage in spinouts like ] in line with ]. --] (]) 19:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
	::: I'd be interested in cross-article consistency. -] (]) 03:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::I can't see that the differences in spelling are worth fighting over. ] has American spelling while ] has British spelling. I think we can live with that. However, I think we should give the alternative spelling where this is necessary. One interesting case came up in the article on English landscape gardens, where the first major contributor was American but the subject itself would appear to be essentially British. So which spelling convention should prevail? The discussion ] apparently left the question up in the air, with a mixture of American and British spellings (center ''but'' modelled). So there are occasions when the guidelines clash, but with a bit of give and take, this shouldn't be too much of a problem. ] (]) 03:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
	*My reading of the consensus application all along is that ENGVAR only applies to any given article. Consistency within a given article has ''always'' been the key driver. If an article is a genuine spin-off – ie that the content originated from within a 'parent' article – then it ought naturally to already possess the "correct" spelling variant. Clearly related articles, such as works created by a given author or musician, would adopt ENGVAR by virtue of ]. So I don't see any issue. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small><sup>]</sup> 04:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

			:I don't think that either of the phrases in the example qualify as words as words. WAW, I think, applies to things like, "Of all the nouns, ''birdcage'' is the best." Or, "...some egghead discovered a misprint of the book, with ''relative'' misspelled." I would use quotation marks in the example you provided.
	*Comment: I support the main article being titled yogurt and in fact I briefly participated in that discussion. But this proposal seems to raise all sorts of problems. Why is it, exactly, that strained yoghurt would become strained yogurt to achieve consistency rather than yogurt being changed (back?) to yoghurt to achieve consistency? Is it based on the relative age of the two articles or because of the perceived importance of the two subjects? What would happen in the future if the topic with the longer name was created before the topic with the shorter name?
	:It seems like to be consistent with ENGVAR that the rule would always have to be that whichever article was created first would prevail. But ferreting out, for example, all the different articles you deem sufficiently related to color – color blindness, but not ''True Colors'', and who knows about ] – to determine which was created first, or which was first expanded past stub form, seems like kind of an intense exercise for not much actual consistency benefit. ] ] 07:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
	:Having pondered this for all of an additional five minutes, I'd like to say one more thing. It does seem appealing in the abstract to achieve consistency; encyclopedia brittanica certainly wouldn't have an article about yogurt and an article about a specific type of yoghurt. But really, it seems to me that the whole idea behind ENGVAR is that we're going to subsume encyclopedia-wide spelling consistency beneath other goals like, I guess, harmony, less pointless argument about mutually intelligible spelling differences in an ostensibly worldwide encyclopedia, and other goals that I can't think of off the top of my head because I'm no expert. Nobody is going to decide that all of the articles in the encyclopedia ''must'' use "yogurt" in article text because of this discussion, so why should we enforce consistency with the article titles themselves?
	:That's why I think that changing an ENGVAR-compliant article title (strained yoghurt) just to achieve arguable ENGVAR-consistency with a separate article (yogurt) seems a bit hostile to the idea behind ENGVAR. ] ] 08:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
	::I think that each article should be considered individually. It should not have to match its parent or what people think its parent might be. For example, should "color blindness" be considered a spinout of "color" or of "blindness"? ] (]) 15:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::I agree with Darkfrog24. Every article should be considered individually. However, when one article links to another, then the spelling of the link (even if used in a Main template) doesn't need to match the spelling of the article, and a redirects can do the rest. ] (]) 18:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
	*In my opinion, treating each article individually is a far more consistent, simple, and uncontroversial approach. Trying to define "parents" and "spinouts" looks like a minefield. I'd favour keeping ] ("Although Misplaced Pages favors no national variety of English, ''within a given article'' the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently.") and, more generally, ] ("Style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole.") as they currently exist, without exceptions. ] (]) 07:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

			Unless, of course, I'm mistaken. ] (]) 01:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Ligatures (in English, outside quotations) ==

			== Order of explanation for placing ref as per ] ==
	The MOS mentions that "disused ligatures" are routinely replaced by other works (not WP), as part of its justification of WP's cautiously replacing ampersands in quotations. I continually see editors work in the other direction, however, ''adding'' ligatures, not just into quotations but into articles, as , and . Should a sentence be added to the MOS to clarify whether such edits are OK or not, and more generally whether articles should use such ligatures or not? If this has been discussed before, I apologise that I was unable to find the past discussion. (If there was a past consensus, I still think it would be useful to mention it in the MOS: "Ligatures like "mediæval" are discouraged..." or "Ligatures like "mediæval" are allowed..." or "There is no consensus on whether to use ligatures like "mediæval" in articles.") ] (]) 11:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

			Hi
	:A good question. The spirit of MOS has been against the use of those old ligatures, but the particular provision was edited out at some stage. At the section called "Typographic conformity", these changes within quotations are explicitly mentioned: "Normalizing archaic glyphs and ligatures, when doing so will not change or obscure the meaning or intent of the text. Examples include æ→ae, œ→oe, ſ→s, and y<sup>e</sup>→the." It is reasonable to read this as a recommendation against introducing such ligatures in article text. Otherwise, what sense do we make of "normalizing"? The whole section is about making text in quotations conform, in accord with all publishing practice, with the house style used in the surrounding article.
	:So I would support a change, to state this positively. There are good reasons for avoiding these characters, similar for those for straight apostrophes and against curly ones.
	:Important exceptions that used to be mentioned in MOS, I think:
	:* æ in Anglo-Saxon names and text (but not in such modern words as "mediæval", "encyclopædia"). It was a distinct letter in Anglo-Saxon, but not in later English or in Medieval Latin.
	:* œ in French words ''used as'' French text, such as quoted French text that include such words as "œuf" and "sœur" (but not the British spellings "œsophagus" and "manœuvre"; use "oe" in those).
	:Those are standard principles in major guides.
	:Other thoughts?
	:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

			I am finding an increased number of refs in the middle of text, and I wondered if it could be confusion to the current wording. If the editor/reader deos not read more/further than the first sentence of this section of the paragraph, they may well put the ref in the middle of a sentence and not after punctuation as it appears to first suggest that:
	::I agree that both of those are necessary exceptions, though I wonder if it would make sense to subsume them into—or make examples of—a general rule that ligatures are acceptable in any languages in which they are standard, hence Old English, French, Icelandic, Norwegian, Faroese...but not English.
			"All reference tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space. Apart from the exceptions listed below, references are placed after adjacent punctuation, not before."
	::In your experience, how much must the MOS spell out, and how much can be left up to common sense? <small>I guess the fact that I see people changing "medieval" to "mediæval" answers that question to some extent!</small>
	::What do you think of wording like:
	::*Ligatures should be used in languages in which they are standard, hence {{xt\|The meaning of Moreau's last words, ''clin d'œil'', is disputed.}} is preferable to {{!xt\|The meaning of Moreau's last words, ''clin d'oeil'', is disputed.}}. Ligatures should not be used in English outside of names, hence {{xt\|Æthelstan was a pre-mediaeval king}}, not {{!xt\|Æthelstan was a pre-mediæval king}}.
	::] (]) 04:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

			This would then read as a two-part instruction rather than the current which appears to be one instruction to place it directly after the text.
	on disambiguation pages, is it necessary that the disambiguated term be used in the target article? an editor has been removing dab entries from ] on the basis that "usage is not supported by the linked article". This is obviously nonsensical since it implies that, for example, ] would not include an entry for ]. Or am I mistaken? --] (]) 02:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

			Thanks ] (]) 01:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I found the guideline: ]. "Do not add articles to abbreviation or acronym disambiguation pages unless the target article defines the acronym or abbreviation ..." And I don't understand the Houston example. "Houston" isn't an abbreviation or acronym, and anyway the word "Houston" occurs once in the title "Houston Astros", and 118 times in the Houston Astros article. The article occasionally uses the word "Houston", without the word "Astros", as a shortened form of the name "Houston Astros". So a sports announcer mentioning "Houston" could mean the Astros. It turns out NOK can mean New Orleans/Oklahoma City Hornets, but the linked article doesn't say so. ] (]) 03:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

			== Upgrade ] to an official guideline ==
	Move requests on these talk pages debating competing sections of the MOS. I tried adding a section a year or so ago on why we prefer Ganges over Ganga, despite ENGVAR, but the response was that it was too obvious to bother with. Well, it's back: Since Pondicherry is in India, the argument is we should use the local Indian English name regardless of what is the common name over all. Do we have a clear answer one way or the other? — ] (]) 04:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

			Over at ], I proposed ] from an essay to an official guideline. If this talk page is the preferred venue, I apologize. I also apologize for the delay in notifying this talk page. Please see the discussion if you have any input or opinion.--] (] \| ]) 12:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The principles seem pretty clear to me and always have done, that we should be looking to: "The most common name for a subject ... as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources". WP is a global encyclopedia and that means ''all'' such sources. We don't simply, necessarily, go with the local, "national" or official name. I get the point about local varieties of English and ], but I'm not sure how relevant it is. We are not talking about either spelling (eg favour vs favor) or different words for generic terms (eg pavement vs sidewalk) – where the different varieties of English have relatively fixed and clear rules and where ENGVAR clearly comes into play – but proper names. It seems doubtful whether one can say that there are "Indian English" versions of placenames in any real sense; especially with these changing ones, even if a majority of Indian English sources have started to use the new official form, other Indian sources will continue to use the former one. Until we have clear unanimity within Indian sources, I can't see that we have an ENGVAR issue to override COMMONNAME when global majority use genuinely remains at the old official name. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 15:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

			:The discussion has been moved to ].--] (] \| ]) 21:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::That's always been my understanding. Can we add something explicit to that point to head off some of these chronic disputes? — ] (]) 03:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::N-HH, what happens when we do get clear unanimity within Indian sources on a spelling reform but British Australian and American sources continue to use the old spelling for another 5 years. Since this is what happened with e.g. Kolkata. What then? ] (]) 04:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

			== New discussion at ] ==
	== Taj Mahal and British English ==
	On a related point to the above .. maybe I'm being thick, but I don't quite see why British English would be an equal option to Indian English for a page about a Mughal monument in India? The example was included I think with both options listed and now we have the British option being after it was removed. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 15:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::Maybe OhConfucius' edit was because ] doesn't actually have the tag/banner. To me it would seem like a no brainer, but maybe there's something in the archive? ] (]) 04:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
	:I agree. The British didn't build the Taj Mahal. The "strong national tie" to the Taj Mahal is India's tie. Otherwise, you might as well put British English as an option on the American Civil War (civil war in a former British colony) and Vancouver B.C. (named for an English officer, and it's even ''British'' Columbia, right?). -- ] (]) 15:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
	::Would use of Indian rather than British English actually make much difference in the Taj Mahal article other than use of Indian-style numbering (i.e. Lakhs and Crores) which would have to be appropriately linked and or explained anyway?] (]) 15:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::Not sure it would really in practice – I'm not an expert on the differences and peculiarities (other than a slightly odd, to these eyes, use of the word "mishap" on occasion in such a way that it understates the gravity of an event) but I'm not aware of such wide-ranging and obvious differences as there are between, say, US and British English in terms of words, spelling etc. Either way though, the assertion of equivalence matters as an issue of principle here surely, if nothing else. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 16:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::Little or no difference in ] (few if any textual changes), big difference in ] (one is right and the other is wrong). -- ] (]) 16:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::In that case, is it appropriate as an example to use in MOS - shouldn't we use examples where using different variants of English will make a difference?] (]) 16:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Different varieties of English will make a difference at ]. I suspect it would read differently using American English, Australian English, or Jamaican English. But I have no objection to replacing it with a different example of an article that should use Indian English. -- ] (]) 17:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::::I think Taj Mahal is as good an example as any. The only problem for me is where we suggest it could be written in British English ''or'' Indian English, which goes against ]. Also, let's remember we're not discussing the ] article. The discussion is whether Taj Mahal should be used as an example in the MOS of which variety of English to use. As a MOS example, we need to make an unambiguous statement. – ] (]) 17:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::I think Taj Mahal ''is'' unambiguous. It's in India, built by Indians, owned by Indians. Nothing British at all. But another example could be used if necessary. And whilst there aren't many practical differences between British and Indian English, there ''are'' some differences, so it is not correct to conflate the two. ] (]) 18:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::Clarification about my use of the word "unambiguous": what I am saying is it's ambiguous to continue to say "(Indian English or British English)". Based on the discussion here, I'm fine with saying "Taj Mahal (Indian English)". – ] (]) 18:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::Apologies btw for opening up this semi-duplicate thread; I hadn't noticed it was already part of the wider ENGVAR thread a couple of sections up, and only started it in response to the main page edit noted in my opening comment. Anyway, between the two discussions, we seem to be fairly much in agreement that the Taj Mahal would work as an example for India and nonetheless nearly 100% in agreement that it should say "Indian English" not – as it does currently following the edit in question – "British or Indian English". Even if the argument is that they are more or less the same, and that there isn't a substantively distinct thing as "Indian English", then we have tautology as well as a confused point being made. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 18:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

			I've tagged it at the top of this page as well, but also putting the invitation here to participate in a new discussion on the use of ] in article titles (such as train and bus accidents) at ] - ] (]) 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Do we need 5 new shortcuts into MOS:NDASH? ==

			== Usage of 'Notable person' vis-a-vis that of 'Notable people' ==
	I've reverted pending discussion of why we would want them. The MOS and other pages are already overloaded with too many shortcuts, I think. ] (]) 18:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

	~~Useful~~ or ~~not~~, ~~but~~ it is ~~the~~ ~~target~~ ~~for~~ ~~redirects~~ I ~~currently~~ ~~use~~ in ~~discussions.~~ ~~Dicklyon,~~ I ~~hate~~ ~~your~~ ~~attitude~~ to ~~push~~ the ~~"undo"~~ ~~button~~ ~~when~~ ~~you~~ ~~see~~ ~~something~~ ~~which~~ ~~cannot~~ ~~promptly~~ ~~explain~~. ~~Put~~ my ~~anchor~~ ~~back~~, ~~please~~, I ~~need~~ it ~~'''now'''~~. ] (]) 19:57, 5 January ~~2013~~ (UTC)		Several days ago, after making such a change, the edit was reverted outright, in conjunction with a statement to the effect that the heading is 'Notable people' regardless of the number of entries listed. It seems to me that, per https://en.wikipedia.org/English_plurals#Miscellaneous_irregular_plurals, the reversion was incorrect. ] (]) 07:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Honestly I think we should use "persons" as the unmarked plural of "person" Misplaced Pages-wide. Encyclopedic writing is a very formal register, and "people" has other baggage, often not intended.
	:It's called ]. Is it such a bad process? If you really need an anchor, just put an anchor; but say why. ] (]) 00:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
			:That said, what sort of article is this? Are these city articles, or what? --] (]) 08:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There has been no negative intent on my part when using 'people', but so it goes.
			::These articles have been on various communities and I have made such changes for years, but till now have never had any editor state that grammar is immaterial. ] (]) 11:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Some section headings are either by guideline, like ] for "External links" or ] for "Notes" and "References" etc., or by tradition and common usage, like "Notable people", "Awards", "Published works", written as plurals, even if there's only one entry. -- ] (]) 11:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Agreed; keep it plural, also like "Languages" in the sidebar (even for only one language) and like "Media" in the Commons template (even for only one file there). ] (]) 11:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:54, 19 January 2025

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:MOS

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228Auto-archiving period: 30 days

faq page Frequently asked questions

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

Why does the Manual of Style recommend straight (keyboard-style) instead of curly (typographic) quotation marks and apostrophes (i.e., the characters " and ', instead of “, ”, ‘, and ’)‍? Users may only know how to type in straight quotes (such as " and ') when searching for text within a page or when editing. Not all Web browsers find curly quotes when users type straight quotes in search strings. Why does the Manual of Style recommend logical quotation? This system is preferred because Misplaced Pages, as an international and electronic encyclopedia, has specific needs better addressed by logical quotation than by the other styles, despite the tendency of externally published style guides to recommend the latter. These include the distinct typesetters' style (often called American, though not limited to the US), and the various British/Commonwealth styles, which are superficially similar to logical quotation but have some characteristics of typesetters' style. Logical quotation is more in keeping with the principle of minimal change to quotations, and is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing, than the alternatives. Logical quotation was adopted in 2005, and has been the subject of perennial debate that has not changed this consensus. Why does the Manual of Style differentiate the hyphen (-), en dash (–), em dash (—), and minus sign (−)? Appropriate use of hyphens and dashes is as much a part of literate, easy-to-read writing as are correct spelling and capitalization. The "Insert" editing tools directly below the Misplaced Pages editing window provide immediate access to all these characters. Why does the Manual of Style recommend apostrophe+s for singular possessive of names ending in s? Most modern style guides treat names ending with s just like other singular nouns when forming the possessive. The few that do not propose mutually contradictory alternatives. Numerous discussions have led to the current MoS guidance (see discussions of 2004, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2017, 2017 (the RfC establishing the present consensus), 2018, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022). Why doesn't the Manual of Style always follow specialized practice? Although Misplaced Pages contains some highly technical content, it is written for a general audience. While specialized publications in a field, such as academic journals, are excellent sources for facts, they are not always the best sources for or examples of how to present those facts to non-experts. When adopting style recommendations from external sources, the Manual of Style incorporates a substantial number of practices from technical standards and field-specific academic style guides; however, Misplaced Pages defaults to preferring general-audience sources on style, especially when a specialized preference may conflict with most readers' expectations, and when different disciplines use conflicting styles.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Section sizes

Section size for Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (157 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	2,657	2,657
Retaining existing styles	2,787	2,787
Article titles, sections, and headings	137	12,678
Article titles	3,406	3,406
Section organization	4,752	4,752
Section headings	3,573	4,383
Heading-like material	810	810
National varieties of English	847	6,626
Consistency within articles	1,230	1,230
Opportunities for commonality	1,882	1,882
Strong national ties to a topic	1,414	1,414
Retaining the existing variety	1,253	1,253
Capital letters	648	18,724
Capitalization of The	984	984
Titles of works	1,232	1,232
Titles of people	780	780
Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines	4,974	4,974
Calendar items	701	701
Animals, plants, and other organisms	5,616	5,616
Celestial bodies	1,249	1,249
Compass points	1,203	1,203
Proper names versus generic terms	1,337	1,337
Ligatures	495	495
Abbreviations	774	8,140
Write first occurrences in full	640	640
Plural forms	245	245
Punctuation and spacing	1,175	1,175
US and U.S.	1,929	1,929
Circa	279	279
Avoid unwarranted use	662	662
Do not invent	874	874
HTML tags and templates	383	383
Ampersand	1,179	1,179
Italics	105	6,366
Emphasis	1,133	1,133
Titles	572	572
Words as words	1,320	1,320
Non-English words	751	751
Scientific names	499	499
Quotations in italics	581	581
Italics within quotations	767	767
Effect on nearby punctuation	638	638
Quotations	1,355	16,801
Original wording	3,026	3,026
Point of view	1,234	1,234
Typographic conformity	5,818	5,818
Attribution	438	438
Quotations within quotations	94	94
Linking	483	483
Block quotations	3,214	3,214
Non-English quotations	1,139	1,139
Punctuation	203	76,953
Apostrophes	2,184	2,184
Quotation marks	394	13,595
Quotation characters	1,035	1,035
Double or single	1,234	1,234
For a quotation within a quotation	869	869
Article openings	729	729
Punctuation before quotations	2,023	2,023
Names and titles	1,331	1,331
Punctuation inside or outside	3,717	3,717
Quotation marks and external links	940	940
Quotation marks and internal links	1,323	1,323
Brackets and parentheses	3,366	4,571
Brackets and linking	1,205	1,205
Ellipses	2,939	2,939
Commas	4,876	8,072
Serial commas	3,196	3,196
Colons	1,868	1,868
Semicolons	3,331	5,721
Semicolon before "however"	2,390	2,390
Hyphens	9,985	9,985
Dashes	939	16,165
In article titles	759	759
In running text	2,195	12,353
In ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through	3,064	3,064
In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between	5,212	5,212
Instead of a hyphen, use an en dash when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that itself includes a space, dash or hyphen	1,297	1,297
To separate parts of an item in a list	585	585
Other uses for en dashes	543	543
Other uses for em dashes	966	966
Other dashes	605	605
Slashes (strokes)	3,341	3,948
And/or	607	607
Symbols	595	595
Number (pound, hash) sign and numero	2,310	2,310
Terminal punctuation	737	737
Spacing	512	512
Consecutive punctuation marks	1,151	1,151
Punctuation and footnotes	2,179	2,179
Punctuation after formulae	218	218
Dates and time	361	5,083
Time of day	794	794
Dates	1,033	1,033
Months	323	323
Seasons	774	774
Years and longer periods	1,080	1,080
Current	718	718
Numbers	1,884	1,884
Currencies	1,637	1,637
Units of measurement	2,737	2,737
Common mathematical symbols	2,606	2,606
Grammar and usage	62	12,759
Possessives	158	1,918
Singular nouns	975	975
Plural nouns	523	523
Official names	262	262
Pronouns	104	5,804
First-person pronouns	1,494	1,494
Second-person pronouns	2,306	2,306
Third-person pronouns	1,900	1,900
Plurals	2,005	2,005
Verb tense	2,970	2,970
Vocabulary	98	22,675
Contractions	476	476
Gender-neutral language	1,692	1,692
Contested vocabulary	256	256
Instructional and presumptuous language	2,578	2,578
Subset terms	618	618
Identity	1,957	3,604
Gender identity	1,647	1,647
Non-English terms	301	8,016
Terms without common usage in English	1,547	1,547
Terms with common usage in English	400	400
Spelling and romanization	4,917	4,917
Other non-English concerns	851	851
Technical language	1,961	1,961
Geographical items	3,376	3,376
Media files	69	2,791
Images	313	313
Other media	181	181
Avoid using images to display text	884	884
Captions	526	1,344
Formatting of captions	818	818
Bulleted and numbered lists	1,552	1,552
Links	10	1,750
Wikilinks	1,411	1,411
External links	329	329
Miscellaneous	18	13,493
Keep markup simple	1,219	1,219
Formatting issues	1,016	3,146
Color coding	1,245	1,245
Indentation	885	885
Controlling line breaks	2,471	2,471
Scrolling lists and collapsible content	3,164	3,164
Invisible comments	1,554	2,817
How to add an invisible comment	1,263	1,263
Pronunciation	658	658
See also	1,199	4,870
Guidance	1,242	1,242
Tools	300	300
Other community standards	523	523
Guidelines within the Manual of Style	310	1,606
Names	1,296	1,296
Notes	24	24
References	28	28
Further reading	1,206	1,206
Total	227,322	227,322

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Manual of Style

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

Misplaced Pages Help Top‑importance

	This page is within the scope of the Misplaced Pages Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Misplaced Pages HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Misplaced Pages Help ProjectHelp
Top	This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Style discussions elsewhere

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

Current

(newest on top)

Talk:Vasa (ship) - a discussion pertaining to MOS:RETAIN.
Talk:2018 Crozet, Virginia, train crash#Requested_move_15_January_2025 - new discussion around the use of MOS:GEOCOMMA in article title specific to train accidents (Jan 2025).
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Use of template "further." Does it need clarification? - Open Discussion on lead placement of templates {{further}}, {{broader}}, etc as compared to {{main}} and {{see also}}. Since those are popular templates I thought it best to get more input.
Talk:Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh#Requested move 18 December 2024 - A MOS:AT/WP:AT question
Talk:United States Virgin Islands's at-large congressional district#Requested move 10 December 2024 – Plural possessive MOS:POSS question
Talk:Second Italo-Ethiopian War#Flags in the infobox
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Proposal to import a line-item from WP:JUDAISMSTYLE into MOS:BIO – to use policy-based material on "Christ" found in an essay but more useful in a guideline. (Nov. 2024)
Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles#Request for comment on the relationship between WP:CRITERIA and WP:TITLEFORMAT – Has stylistic implications (punctuation, leading "The", etc.) despite not being intrisically an MoS matter. (Nov. 2024)
Talk:Battle of Tory Island#Infoboxflags - use of flag icons in infobox per MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS (Sep.–Nov. 2024) – See also prior Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict#Belligerents flags.

Pretty stale but not "concluded":

RfC needed on issue raised at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2024 archive#British peer titles in infoboxes (June–July 2004, archived without resolution). Presently, the royalty/nobility wikiprojects have imposed putting British peerage titles in place of names in biographical infoboxes, against MOS:BIO, MOS:INFOBOX, and the template's documentation. Either the community will accept this as a best practice and the guidelines changed to accomodate it, or it should be undone and the infobox used consistently and as-intended.
A MOS:JOBTITLES revision RfC needs to be drafted, based on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#JOBTITLES simplification proposal (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024, archived without resolution). JOBTITLES remains a point of confusion and conflict, which the guidelines are supposed to prevent not cause.
Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (companies)#Use of comma and abbreviation of Incorporated – Involves MOS:TM (plus WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAME, WP:POLICYFORK). Covers more than thread name implies. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) Result: Stalled without resolution; at least 3 options identified which should be put to an RfC.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" – Involves MOS:HONORIFIC, MOS:DOCTCAPS, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICKING, etc. (Sep. 2023 –) Result: Still unresolved, though consensus seems to lean toward permitting lower-case "prophet" when needed for disambiguation, but no agreement yet on specific guideline wording.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Tables#Proposal to discourage vertically oriented ("sideways") column headers – Specifically in tables, possibly elsewhere. MOS:UNITNAMES (at the table "General guidelines on use of units") has an example of existing use that is being challenged, and material at Help:Table is also at issue. (Dec. 2023 –) Result: Still unresolved.
Help talk:Table/Archive 9#Indenting tables – Help page is conflicting with MOS:DLIST and MOS:ACCESS on a technical point. (Aug. 2023 – Jan. 2024) Result: No objection to fixing it, and a suggestion to just do it WP:BOLDly, but the work actually has to be done.

Capitalization-specific:

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

Move requests:

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 17 January 2025 – "Gaza War" with uppercase "War"?
Talk:Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator#Requested move 13 January 2025 – Use sentence case?
Talk:Bodhi Tree#Requested move 11 January 2025 – Lowercase "tree"?
Talk:Adlersky City District#Requested move 10 January 2025 – Lowercase "city district" on 4 city districts of Sochi?
Talk:Slab-grave culture#Requested move 28 December 2024 – Capitalize Slab Grave?
Talk:Tri-State tornado outbreak#Requested move 18 December 2024 – Was this a "Tri-State tornado outbreak" or a "tri-state tornado outbreak"?
Talk:Island Cove (Cavite)#Requested move 17 December 2024 – Should this be called the Island Cove POGO Hub or Island Cove POGO hub?

Other discussions:

Talk:Syrian civil war#Capitalisation of Iraqi civil war - lowercase?
Talk:Fullbore target rifle#Major rework – Is it too risky to ask people who are carrying firearms to use lowercase?
Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles#Request for comment on the relationship between WP:CRITERIA and WP:TITLEFORMAT
Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen#Capitalization of the word mass – "her funeral Mass" vs "her funeral mass"
Talk:Julian (emperor)#Capitalization of "emperor" – should "emperor" be capped when referring to a specific person?
Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Indigenous – continuation of an RM discussion on capitalization of "indigenous"
Talk:War on terror#Capitalisation of "global war on terrorism" in prose
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Music#THEBAND disambiguators – what to do about "The" in parenthetical disambiguators?
Talk:F1NN5TER#Capitalization – Should the online persona be called "F1NN5TER", "F1nn5ter" or "Finnster"?
Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Capitalisation of "oblast" when used as the name of a Ukrainian administrative division – May affect other administrative divisions (e.g. raion) and other nations for which such terms are used

Pretty stale but not "concluded":

Talk:Upstate New York#Other plausible capitalization issue – Capitalization of "Upstate" New York.
Talk:Southern Italy#Lowercase or uppercase? – Capitalisation of "southern". Also "northern" and "central" in related articles.
Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Capitalization of geologic names – Despite being opened on an NC talk page, this is about usage in general not just in our article titles.
Talk:Fall of Saigon#Names section and capitalisation – capitalisation of Vietnamese language names and capitalisation of their English translations?
Talk:Union Jack#Case consistency – Union Flag, or Union flag?

Concluded

Extended content

Talk:Kula–Farallon Ridge#Requested move 26 October 2024 – Use en dash not hyphen in four paired names? Result: Yes.
WP:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 59#Could MOS:TMRULES be amended to avoid conflict with WP:COMMONNAME, esp for contemporary artists and their works? – In short, should we use odd-ball stylization of band names and the like to match their marketing? (July–Aug. 2024) Result: No formal closure, but a clear consensus against this idea, and against the underlying "conflict" premise; the proponent simply did not understand the policy.
- Various simultaneously executed RMs by the same proponent all concluded against the desired over-stylizations (usually ALL-CAPS) – some by affirmative consensus against, some by no consensus to move.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2024 archive#British peer titles in infoboxes – Should British peers use their peerage title in place of their name in infoboxes? (June–July 2004) Result: archived without resolution. This needs to be RfCed.
Talk:Shays's Rebellion#Requested move 27 April 2024 – MOS:POSS: "Shays'" or "Shays's"? Result: "Shays's". No objective rationale was presented for an exception to the guideline, and evidence shows "Shays's" common in source material even if "Shays'" is also common, especially in older sources.
Template talk:Infobox university/Archive 23#Type – Should multiple entries be formatted as a list or a single phrase? (Apr.–May 2024) Result: 4:1 against proposed change to a list format; alternative idea at end neither accepted nor rejected.
Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict#Flags and wikilinks in the Infobox "Belligerents" section – Do flags in this infobox serve a "useful purpose" per MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS or are they primarily decorative and should be removed? (Apr.–May 2004) Result: 3:1 against inclusion; the 1 did not read or understand the entire guideline. See also later Talk:Battle of Tory Island#Infoboxflags.
Misplaced Pages talk:Image use policy/Archive 16#Collages in infoboxes – Primarily on a recent habit of military-conflict articles having collages of 4, 6, or even more images in their infobox. (Mar.–May 2024) Result: No formal closure, but a clear consensus against this practice; image galleries (when appropriate at all per WP:GALLERY) belong in the article body.
Misplaced Pages talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 23#RfC on the leads of DOY articles and their FL eligibility – MOS:LEADLENGTH (and MOS:LEADREL) in "day of year" (DoY) article candidates for "featured list". (Feb. 2024) Result: No formal closure, and little clear consensus other than that WP:OWN / WP:CONLEVEL apply, as does WP:DUE.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/Archive 17#Possessives in condition names – On Asperger syndrome vs. Asperger's syndrome, etc. (Jan. 2024) Result: No clear consensus reached; a great deal of sourcing is provided, but there's a feeling that real-world usage varies considerably on a case-by-case basis, so WP:COMMONNAME might invididually trump WP:CONSISTENT. Worth revisiting in a few years to see whether source usage has shifted.
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Names of deceased trans people (moved from WP:VPPOL) – Yet another round of this long-term, multi-RfC process. Consensus about "deadnames" seemed possible this time but was mostly elusive. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) Result: no consensus to change the wording of MOS:GENDERID based on this proposal; consensus against changing "should be included" to "may be included".
- Related: See numerous previous deadname-related and more general GENDERID discussions listed below.
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 189#Make Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style into Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Computer science – Proposal to merge a "guideline in all but name" into MoS. (Jan. 2024) Result: consensus to promote to a guideline (after some significant revisions).
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 210#Increase default thumbnail size from 220px to 250px – Peripherally related to MOS:IMAGES and MOS:ACCESS. (Jan. 2024) Result: Consensus to increase to 250px.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#JOBTITLES simplification proposal – MOS:JOBTITLES has long been considered too complicated and hard to follow. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) Result: input stalled out over the holidays, then it was archived without resolution.
- Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2024 archive#RfC on JOBTITLES – Abortive, unclear RfC that resolved nothing. (May–Sep. 2023) Result: unanimously opposed.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles/Archive 8#Kangxi radical template/gloss – Involves MOS:FOREIGN, MOS:SINGLE, MOS:ALLCAPS, MOS:BOLD. (Oct.2023 – Jan. 2024) Result: Archived without closure. There does not seem to be a compelling reason for this ALL-CAPS behavior in the template/module, but it was still happening in Nov. 2024.
- Discussion re-opened at Module talk:Kangxi radical#All-caps (Nov. 2024). Changed to lowercase ; we'll see if that sticks.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/Archive 14#Fictional characters known by initials - what qualifies as the "preferred style for their own name" ? – Involves MOS:WAF, MOS:INITIALS, MOS:TM, MOS:ACRO, WP:OFFICIALNAME, etc. (Oct. 2023 – Jan. 2024) Result: No formal closure, but there seems to be no appetite for diverging from MOS:INITIALS, and the OP commingled unrelated cases like stagenames of real people.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 16#Making redundant table captions screen-reader-only – About use of {{sronly}} around table captions (which are primarily for screen readers) to hide them from the usual non-screen-reader view, only when their content repeats what is in the table headers. (Nov.–Dec. 2023) Result: Archived without firm resolion. As there was but one opposer of the idea, there is no consensus against doing this. If more opposition arose or some reason, open an RfC about it.
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Linguistics#ALL-CAPS for "keywords for lexical sets"? – Involves MOS:ALLCAPS. (Oct. 2023 – Feb. 2024) Result: Thinly attended, but there does seem to be a linguistics standard to render lexical sets in smallcaps, so this has been accounted for and added to the exception lists at MOS:ALLCAPS (since our articles are consistently doing it based on that sourcing).
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 14#"the late" – On MOS:EUPHEMISMS and whether to add another example to it. (Oct. 2023) Result: Discussion archived without a clear conclusion.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles#About adding a link to each hangul syllable using Template:Linktext – On use of a template to link Korean characters to Wiktionary (Jan. 2024). Result: general consensus to not do that excessive linking; and a bot request made to clean it up.
Talk:Mercedes-Benz – Use an en dash instead of a hyphen? Result: Withdrawn
Pākehā settlers move review – Move review on Pākehā settlers vs. European settlers in New Zealand, related to WP:COMMONALITY, WP:TIES, WP:CONSISTENT, WP:RECOGNIZABILITY (Feb. 2024). Result: There were many steps in this process but ultimately Pākehā settlers was moved to European settlers in New Zealand.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Titles of works#MOS:TITLECAPS footnote to handle symbols substituting for words – To treat word-substitutions ("U" for "You", "❤️" for "Heart", "..." for elided wording), as "words" for the purposes of a particular line-item about title-case treatment. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) Result: Done, with unanimous support.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Minor consolidation merge – To merge a line-item (about stylization of stage/pen names) out of MOS:INITIALS (where the one of the examples is only semi-pertinent anyway) and into MOS:TM, leaving behind a cross-reference to MOS:TM from MOS:NAMES. (Nov.–Dec. 2023) Result: Because of some things that apply to personal not corporate names, this ended up not being practical; intead the MOS:BIO material was cleaned up and cross-references between the two MOS sections was improved; description at: Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Minor overhauling. No objections or other issues have come up.
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Standardizing ISBN formatting (and an end to editwarring about it) – Proposal to add something to MOS:NUM. (Oct.–Dec. 2023) Result: "no consensus as to whether or how to standardize ISBNs or whether to subject them to a CITEVAR-like rule .... The closest thing we have to a consensus here is that spaces (option 4) should not be used."
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#MOS style for odds – About changing MOS:RATIOS to specify a format (new or otherwise) for betting-odds ratios. (Oct.–Dec. 2023) Result: No formal closure, but apparent general agreement that the : style for ratios in general applies to odds ratio in particular like the rest, and MOS:RATIOS updated to say this.
Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places)#Centralization re: decommunization of names – Primarily a matter of article title, but there are related issues such as capitalisation. (Nov. 2023) Result: basically stalled out, without resolution/action. Specific revision proposal is needed.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Television#Number format within TV articles - request for views – Also involves MOS:NUMERALS. RfC on "season 3, episode 7" vs. "season three, episode seven" styles (and probably also "seventh season" vs. "7th season", etc.). (Oct.–Nov. 2023) Result: "season and episode numbers should be expressed as numerals in tables, headings, and article body" (revision of a previous, less clear close).
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#Proposed change MOS:TERRORIST – On how WP uses terms like "terrorist/terrorism" and "freedom fighter", specifically to add a requirement "these words should only be used in quotations or referencing third-party use of the term". (Oct. 2023) Result: "nearly unanimously opposed".
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC on capitalization after a colon or dash – Involves MOS:TITLES, WP:AT, etc. (Sep.–Oct. 2023) Result: "rough consensus to allow for lowercase or capital letters after dashes or colons in article titles, section titles, and list items".
Talk:Ulster Scots people#RfC on inclusion of ancestral national flags – MOS:FLAGS / MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and Northern Ireland again. (Sep.–Oct. 2023) Result: No formal closure, but near-unanimous consensus against using national flags as ethnicity symbols.
Talk:2023 Hawaii wildfires/Archive 2#Use of Hawaiian symbols in names – Involves MOS:HAWAII and could have implications for what the guideline says due to wildfire news bringing many more editorial eyes to that page than to WT:MOSHAWAII. (Aug.–Sep. 2023) Result: Archived without closure or any clear consensus; the general gist seems to be that the state of Hawaii is named Hawaii, the island is named Hawaiʻi, and diacritics (ʻokina and kahakō) should not be suppressed in the more localized names (and the US Geological Survey, which sets official placenames, along with the Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names, which basically tells USGS what to do in Hawaii/Hawaiʻi, both agree).
Talk:Bayes' theorem#Requested move 23 August 2023 – MOS:POSS stuff. (Aug. 2023) Result: Not moved. Lots of invalid arguments, and confused attempt to pit WP:COMMONAME against MoS (COMMONNAME is not a style policy, never has been one, and never will be; every proposal to incorporate a style matter into a policy has failed).
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 171#RfC: Use of 12 or 24-hour time – Wikiproject propsal to change MOS:TIME or MOS:MILFORMAT. (Aug. 2023) Result: wrong venue, and to the extent people commented on using 24-hour time, it was mostly opposed.
- Talk:Franklin–Nashville campaign#RFC on change from 12-hour clock time to 24-hour clock time – Above question was raised at a specific article as a "local consensus" matter. (Aug.–Sep. 2023) Result: unanimous opposition to 24-hour time.
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 50#Multinational bands and music groups – Follow-up to "unfruitful" discussions at WT:MOSMUSIC, etc. (Aug. 2023) Result: No formal closure; general agreement basically boils down to "write clearly and don't confuse or over-simplify with an adjective".
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 171#RfC: Abbreviations of rank – Wikiproject proposal to change rank abbreviations (to NATO style) in MOS:COMMONABBR. (Aug. 2023) Result: no formal closure, but overwhelming consensus to stick with MoS and ignore NATO preferences.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#Proposal to split MOS:GENDERID from Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Biography – And some alternative ideas, including merger into WP:BLP. (Aug. 2023) Result: No formal closure, and the idea was mostly opposed, with no effect but returning all of the shortcuts (MOS:GENDERID, MOS:GID, MOS:DEADNAME, WP:GENDERBLP, MOS:NB) that someone changed to point to the WP:Manual of Style/Gender identity essay to now point back to the real guideline at WP:Manual of Style/Biography#Gender identity.
- The essay has since been retooled to be an exegesis of the guideline, though attempts at WP:POLICYFORKing are likely to continue, as this is one of our most hotbed internal topics. See also the guideline Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language, and the essays WP:Gender-neutral language and WP:Gender-neutral language in Misplaced Pages policies.
- Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 186#RfC on GENDERID in BLP – Proposal to move the MoS material into WP:BLP. (Aug. 2023) Result: Procedurally closed as "premature".
Talk:Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod#Requested move 25 August 2023 – Should the en dash have spaces around it; should it be an em dash? Result: moved to spaced en dash.
Misplaced Pages:Help desk/Archives/2023 August 5#Hyphen vs. En dash usage (Wikidata)? and d:Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2023/08#Hyphen vs. En dash to separate years of birth/death? – Relating to concordance between wikidata descriptions and enwiki "short description". (Aug. 2023) Result: Good summary: "as long as you choose a comprehensible form, your edits are fine. However, you should not change existing descriptions for stylistic reasons, and also not to unify desriptions for a given set of items"; also observations that various languages, e.g. Spanish, do not use an en dash for this purpose. So, Wikidata will not be changing away from hyphen as default, and any desire to have WD material, like automatically provided short descriptions, will have to do that change on our end.
Talk:Decatur & Eastern Illinois Railroad#Requested move 9 August 2023 and Talk:Central Maine & Quebec Railway#Requested move 9 August 2023 – Use "&" or "and"? (see MOS:&). Result: Follow MOS:&; the essay WP:WikiProject Trains/Style advice conflicting with the guideline and with WP:COMMONNAME policy was noted, and this WP:ADVICEFORK was fixed in Jan. 2024. The second of these actually closed as "no consensus" because the WP:NAC who closed it did not know of WP:CONLEVEL policy and incorrectly treated policy- and guideline-based arguments as no stronger than those based on a contrary essay.
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 184#RFC: Change wording in MOS:SUICIDE to better reflect the supermajority consensus in the RFC that added it – Some re-wording proposals, and even a suggestion to remove the language entirely. (July 2023) Result: No formal closure, and did not result in wording changes, though a re-do might come to such a conclusion.
Talk:SAG-AFTRA#Requested move 20 July 2023 – move to SAG–AFTRA like AFL–CIO, or is there a reason to hyphenate as SAG-AFTRA? (July 2023) Result: Not moved. The closer actually misunderstood the guideline wording badly, and this has created a WP:CONSISTENT policy failure with titles of other such entities including AFL–CIO, and the Famous Players-Lasky decision covered just below. This probably needs to be re-done.
- Talk:2023 SAG-AFTRA strike#Requested move 20 July 2023 – ditto. Result: Procedurally closed as a WP:TALKFORK of the RM above.
Talk:Famous Players-Lasky#Requested move 24 June 2023 – proposal to use dash instead of hyphen. (June–July 2023) Result: Use the dash per MOS:DASH; a followup RM to add "Corporation" to the title rejected that idea despite WP:NCCORP supporting it, one of several recent RM incidents suggesting that at least some portions of the page do not enjoy consensus.
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 185#RfC: Proposed addition to MOS:GENDERID - when to include deadnames – Proposal to change MOS:DEADNAME that "encyclopaedic significance of the deadname established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources, or if they were notable prior to transitioning". (June–July 2023) Result: "no clear consensus".
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 182#RFC: MOS:GENDERID and the deadnames of deceased trans and nonbinary persons – Primarily about "When should Misplaced Pages articles include the former name of a deceased trans or nonbinary person who was not notable prior to transitioning?" (May–June 2023) Result: "there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. Where, exactly, the lines of encyclopedic interest and avoiding confusion are is not simple or clear and will likely need discussion on individual articles, although there is definitely space for more guidance in the MOS". This has let to a lot of follow-on discussion and dispute.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations/Archive 2#"Acronyms in page titles" is mis-placed in an MoS page – Proposal to move section to naming-convention guideline. (June 2023) Result: no pro or con input; re-opened (Jan. 2024) on main MoS page.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#Remove the "living" qualifier in MOS:DEADNAME – Proposal to make anti-deadnaming rules apply to the long-deceased as well. (Apr.–May 2023) Result: No consensus to remove living, so "the living qualifier, shall remain in place". The May–June 2023 RfC above was an outgrowth of this discussion.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 17#RfC Can notable Brazilian jiu-jitsu people display a rank icon in their infobox like Judo people do? – essential information, or icon cruft? (Mar.–Apr. 2023) Result: "There is consensus against inclusion of rank icons."
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Boxing/Archive 10#RfC about replacing "vs." and "v" with "vs" in boxing match article titles – involves MOS:MISCSHORT and MOS:TIES. (Feb.–Mar. 2023) Result: no consensus to use "v"; continue to use "vs." or "vs" as suits the MOS:ENGVAR of the article.
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Archive 8#Bold and Italics – Should an external style guide be used in place of WP:MOS in chapter lists (e.g. List of Alpha Phi Alpha chapters)? (Jan.–Feb. 2023) Result: Insufficient input to reach a consensus. Needs to be RfCed. But the status quo default principle is that a lack of consensus to create an exception to general rules does not result in such an exception.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 162#Decimals when quoting time periods? – Open discussion as to whether decimalized years should be used in personal biographies. (Jan. 2023) Result: discussion archived; majority felt that decimalized years are not standard in biographical prose and should be limited to a statistical/mathematical context.

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

Capitalization-specific:

Talk:Rapperholic Concert#Requested move 10 January 2025 – Lowercase or omit "concert"? Result: Omit
Talk:1925 Tri-State tornado#Requested move 26 December 2024 – Was this the "1925 Tri-State tornado" or "Great Tri-State Tornado" or something else? Result: "Great Tri-State Tornado"
Talk:History of Champagne#Requested move 9 January 2025 - Lowercase "champagne"? Result: Lowercase for the drink
Talk:Poison Ivy (character)#Requested move 6 January 2025 – Does the capitalized (undisambiguated) "Ivy" have a primary topic? Result: Uppercase leads to the plant
Talk:L'argent des autres#Requested move 5 January 2025 – Capitalize "argent"? Result: Capitalized per MOS:FRENCHCAPS
Talk:Three wishes joke#Requested move 25 December 2024 – Should the disambiguation page use title case?
- Talk:Three wishes (disambiguation)#Requested move 31 December 2024 – Follow-up further discussion of whether the disambiguation page should use title case – Result: Title case
Talk:WWE Raw debut episode on Netflix#Requested move 26 December 2024 – Is this a Premier episode? A premier episode? Raw or RAW? – Result: "premiere"
Talk:North Yemen Civil War#Requested move 28 November 2024 – Lowercase "civil war"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:CUZZOS#Requested move 26 December 2024 – Drop the all-caps? Result: Yes, use mixed case.
Talk:Minsk District#Requested move 25 December 2024 (116 Belarus districts) – Lowercase "district"? Result: Lowercase district.

2024

Talk:Aizkraukle District#Requested move 23 December 2024 (26 Latvian districts) – Lowercase "district"? – Result: Lowercase district.
Talk:International Day To Combat Islamophobia#Requested move 16 December 2024 – Lowercase "To"? Result: Yes, per usual title case convention
Talk:The Desert Rats (film)#Requested move 3 December 2024 – Does that capitalization of "Rats" distinguish the film from the UK military division? Result: No, disambiguation retained
Talk:City Line (Merseytravel)#Requested move 18 December 2024 – Lowercase "Line"? Result: Uppercase retained (seems to be consistently capitalized in sources, unlike most lines)
Talk:LANCO (band)#Requested move 21 December 2024 – Drop the all-caps? Result: Yes, moved to "Lanco (band)"
Talk:Abancay Province#Requested move 16 December 2024 (196 articles) – On all the provinces of Peru, lowercase "province"? – Result: Lowercase province
Talk:Dakar Region#Requested move 11 December 2024 (14 articles) – Lowercase regions of Senegal? – Result: Lowercase region
Talk:Hunter Fracture Zone#Requested move 9 December 2024 (two articles) – Downcase "Fracture Zone" to "fracture zone"? – Result: Lowercase fracture zone
Talk:Buffalo Head Terrane#Requested move 14 December 2024 (24 articles) – Lowercase terrane for articles? – Result: Lowercase terrane.
Talk:Rustamid Crisis (873-874)#Requested move 6 December 2024 – Lowercase "crisis"? – Result: Lowercase succession crisis.
Talk:Adrar Region#Requested move 11 December 2024 (14 articles) – Lowercase regions of Mauritania? – Result: Lowercase region.
Talk:Bafatá Region#Requested move 11 December 2024 (7 articles) – Lowercase regions of Guinea-Bissau? – Result: Lowercase region.
Talk:Brest Region#Requested move 11 December 2024 (6 articles) – Lowercase regions of Belarus? – Result: Lowercase region.
Talk:Jarabe Tapatío#Requested move 10 December_2024 – Mexican Hat Dance or Mexican hat dance? – Result: Lowercase hat dance.
Talk:Wahhabi War#Requested move 26 November 2024 – Lowercase "war"? – Result: Lowercase war.
Talk:Dobeles apriņķis#Requested move 2 December 2024 (18 articles) – If "aprikis" becomes "c/County", which case should that word use? Result: Lowercase county.
Talk:Korean decimal classification#Requested move 20 November 2024 – Uppercase "decimal" and "classification"? – Result: Capitalize.
Talk:Scotch Tape#Requested move 5 December 2024 – Lowercase "tape"? – Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Adi Keyh Subregion#Requested move 25 November 2024 (61 articles) – Lowercase "subregion", "region", and "administration" in titles for subregions/regions of Eritrea? – Result: Lowercase region etc.
Talk:Mendocino Fracture Zone#Requested move 20 November 2024 (19 articles) – Lowercase fracture zone on these titles? – Result: Lowercase fracture zone.
Talk:First battle of Öland (1564)#Requested move 13 November 2024 (13 articles) – Uppercase enumerated "battle"s? – Result: No consensus to cap these.
Talk:Anglo-Mysore Wars#Requested move 29 November 2024 – Lowercase "wars"? Result – lowercased
Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2024 November#Talk:England in the Late Middle Ages – upheld lowercase
Talk:.22 Long Rifle#Requested move 27 November 2024 (4 articles) – Lowercase four articles? Result: Lowercase
Talk:White Party (Sean Combs)#Requested move 4 November 2024 – Result: Moved to Diddy parties.
Talk:Tag Team (group)#Requested move 16 October 2024 – Is the capital letter enough to identify this as a hip-hop duo rather than a wrestling team? – Result: Moved to Tag Team (duo).
Talk:Anglo-Marri Wars#Rename – Lowercase "Wars"? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:DLL Hell#Requested move 16 November 2024 – Lowercase "Hell"? – Result: Sentence case.
Talk:Humber Light Reconnaissance Car#Requested move 15 November 2024 (5 articles) – Lowercase three "Light Reconnaissance Cars", a "Scout Car" and an "Armoured Truck"? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Mediterranean Basin#Requested move 13 November 2024 – Sentence case or title case? Result: Sentence case.
Talk:First and Second Battles of El Teb#Requested move 13 November 2024 – Lowercase 'Second' and 'Battles'? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland#Requested move 11 November 2024 – Uppercase 'deputy'? Result: Yes.
Talk:MAP45 Armoured Personnel Carrier#Requested move 13 November 2024 – Lowercase type, 3 titles? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Leyland Armoured Car#Requested move 11 November 2024 – Lowercase 8 armoured cars? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Tunisian revolution#Requested move 7 November 2024 – Requested move to 'Jasmine Revolution' would change "revolution" to uppercase. Result: Not moved (lowercase retained).
Talk:Wall Street Crash of 1929#Requested move 9 November 2024 – Change 'Crash' to lowercase? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:First Battle of Panipat#Requested move 25 October 2024 – Lowercase battle on 3 articles? Result: No consensus.
Talk:Marmara Region#Requested move 1 November 2024 – Lowercase region on 4 articles? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Damn the Torpedoes (album)#Requested move 21 October 2024 – Is the capital 'T' sufficient to distinguish this album from the exclamation? Result: No; disambiguation retained.
Talk:Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?)#Requested move 23 September 2024 – Lowercase the words inside the parentheses? Result: No consensus.
Talk:M1117 Armored Security Vehicle#Requested move 2 November 2024 – Lowercase? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:PEGASUS (reconnaissance system)#Requested move 25 October 2024 – Uppercase some parts of new title? Result: No change.
Talk:Chōsen Shinpō#Requested move 13 October 2024 – Lowercase Shinpō? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:NBA Finals Most Valuable Player award#Requested move 11 October 2024 – Uppercase award? – Result: dropped "award", but one was already moved again as it was not named for an award but about two awards and is still in a state needing a fix, so this followup:
- Talk:NBA conference finals most valuable player#Requested move 20 October 2024 – better as NBA conference finals MVP awards? Result: Moved with all-caps abbreviation and lowercase "awards" as proposed.
Talk:AEC Armoured Command Vehicle#Requested move 19 October 2024 – Lowercase? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:BoyNextDoor#Requested move 18 October 2024 – Drop the caps in the middle of the name? Result: No consensus.
Talk:Himyarite Kingdom#Requested move 27 October 2024 (4 articles) – Lowercase these ancient kingdom titles? Result: Lowercase except avoiding the word "kingdom" for one topic
Talk:England in the Late Middle Ages#Requested move 5 October 2024 – Multi RM to lowercase early and late as modifiers of Middle Ages. Result: Uppercase retained.
Talk:New Peasant Poets#Requested move 22 October 2024 – Lowercase 4 movement titles? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Cornstalk (Shawnee leader)#Requested move 17 October 2024 – Lowercase "Stalk" for the disambiguation page at "Corn Stalk"? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Bergen School (art)#Requested move 22 October 2024 – Lowercase school? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:First Battle of Tembien#Requested move 19 October 2024 – Lowercase "Battle"? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Modernized Load-Carrying Equipment#Requested move 24 October 2024 – Lowercase? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Austin Armoured Car#Requested move 18 October 2024 – Lowercase armoured car? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Textron Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle#Requested move 30 October 2024 – Lowercase? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:M21 Mortar Motor Carriage#Requested move 28 October 2024 – More commonly called M21 mortar carrier? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Federal Firearms License#Requested move 24 October 2024 – Lowercase? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Northern Mannerism#Requested move 22 October 2024 – Lowercase mannerism in 2 titles? Result: Not moved. There's no consensus to move at this time.
Talk:Union Army#Requested move 21 October 2024 – Lowercase Army? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:M3 Scout Car#Requested move 20 October 2024 – Lowercase? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Daimler Armoured Car#Requested move 19 October 2024 – Lowercase? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Hawk Tuah#Requested move 28 September 2024 – Lowercase "Tuah"? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle#Requested move 18 October 2024 – Lowercase? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Python Minefield Breaching System#Requested move 18 October 2024 – Lowercase? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Eurasian Plate#Requested move 6 October 2024 (74 articles) – Lowercase "Plate"? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Eryholme–Richmond branch line#Requested move 13 September 2024 – Uppercase "branch"? Result: Word removed.
Talk:Tichitt culture#Requested move 5 October 2024 – Change 'culture' to 'Tradition' or 'tradition'? Result: 'tradition' (lowercase).
Talk:Sri Lankan Civil War#Requested move 15 October 2024 – Lowercase "civil war"? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Gupta Empire#Requested move 5 October 2024 – Lowercase empire? Result: Not moved.
Talk:Aviation between the World Wars#Requested move 14 October 2024 – Drop uppercase? Result: Rephrased to remove the uppercase words.
Talk:Hungary between the World Wars#Requested move 14 October 2024 – Drop uppercase? Result: Rephrased to remove the uppercase words.
Talk:First Periodic Review of Scottish Parliament Boundaries#Requested move 2 October 2024 – Lowercase "Boundaries"? Lowercase "Periodic" and "Review"? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Anatolian Plateau#Requested move 6 October 2024 – Lowercase plateau? – Result: Lowercase.
Talk:UniTeam Alliance#Requested move 10 October 2024 – Drop or lowercase "Alliance"? Result: Word removed.
Talk:BabyMonster#Requested move 10 October 2024 – Drop the caps in the middle of the name? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Asgard (archaea)#Requested move 10 October 2024 – Uppercase "Archaea"? Result: Uppercase per naming convention for taxonomic hierarchy
Talk:Kuninda Kingdom#Requested move 5 October 2024 – Lowercase kingdom? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Indo-Parthian Kingdom#Requested move 3 October 2024 – Lowercase "kingdom"? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Russian-Livonian War (1480-1481)#Requested move 26 September 2024 – Lowercase "War" when converting to WP:NATURALDIS? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Humber Armoured Car#Requested move 8 October 2024 – Lowercase armoured car? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Rococo Revival#Requested move 21 September 2024 – is it a proper name? Result: No consensus.
Talk:Lists of members of the Canadian Parliament who died in office#Requested move 4 October 2024 (five articles) – If "Canadian Parliament" is used instead of "Parliament of Canada", should "Parliament" be lowercase? Result: Moot, since title phrase changed to "Parliament of Canada".
Talk:Balancing Rocks#Requested move 1 October 2024 – Lowercase "Rocks"? Result: Lowercase and identify the national location of the Balancing rocks of Zimbabwe.
Talk:Iranian Revolution#Requested move 12 September 2024 – Lowercase "Revolution"? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Stanisław Potocki (1659-1683)#Requested move 27 August 2024 (four articles) – If we use role description disambiguation, should "starost of Foo" and "voivode of Bar" use lowercase? Result: Lowercase "starost" and "voivode".
Talk:Canadian women in the World Wars#Requested move 28 September 2024 (ten articles) – Lowercase "World Wars"? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:List of films made in Poland in the Interwar Period#Requested move 25 September 2024 (two articles) – Lowercase "Interwar" and "Period" (and "Level" and "Football" and "Leagues")? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Department of Defense police#Requested move 23 September 2024 – Capitalize "police"? Result: Lowercase retained
Talk:Aerial Rocket Artillery#Requested move 21 September 2024 – Lowercase "rocket artillery"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:2167/2168 Changchun-Mudanjiang Through Train#Requested move 19 September 2024 – Lowercase "through train" on these 30-odd articles? Result: lowercase through train and dash between termini on all 38
Talk:M40 Gun Motor Carriage#Requested move 27 August 2024 – 14 articles; lowercase the various kinds of motor carriages? Result: No consensus.
and side discussion at WT:WikiProject Military history/Archive 173#Capitalisation (yet again) now running at M40 Gun Motor Carriage
Talk:Palestinian territories#Requested move 5 August 2024 – Capitalize "territory" / "territories"? – Result: Moved as proposed but lowercase plural: Occupied Palestinian territories
Talk:Free area of the Republic of China#Requested move 2 September 2024 – Should "area" be uppercase in this term or another? – Result: Moved to Taiwan Area, uppercase Area.
Talk:Ottoman–Habsburg War (1529–1533)#Requested move 2 September 2024 (four or ten articles) – Lowercase "War" when converting to WP:NATURALDIS? – Result: Moved to naturaldis, lowercase war.
Talk:Republican in Name Only#Requested move 1 September 2024 – change to sentence case? – Result: Sentence case; also applied to Democrats in name only.
Talk:Bolognese School#Requested move 26 July 2024 (14 articles) – Lowercase school for "schools" of artistic styles of painting that are not the names of actual institutions? Result: Lowercase except two that were found frequently uppercased in sources
Talk:St. Aloysius College (Mangalore)#Requested move 19 August 2024 – "Deemed to be University" or similar with lowercase? Result: Different path taken, so caps question not relevant
Talk:Non è la RAI#Requested move 21 July 2024 – Remove the all-caps? Result: Yes, "RAI" → "Rai"
Talk:Canada in the World Wars and Interwar Years#Requested move 27 August 2024 – Lowercase four words in the title? Result: Lowercase
Talk:M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle#Requested move 27 August 2024 – Lowercase "automatic rifle"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:What's up – Uppercase "up" for disambiguation page? Result: Yes; nearly all listed topics are titles, so put in title case
Talk:Ahmadnagar Sultanate#Requested move 11 August 2024 – Lowercase "sultanate", 5 more like recent Berar sultanate move? Result: No, left uppercase Sultanate.
Talk:List of Moderators of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (multi-page RM) – Lowercase "Moderators"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Who is the Master that Sees and Hears?#Requested move 21 August 2024 – Convert to sentence case? Result: Sentence case
Talk:2023 USL Championship Playoffs#Requested move 9 August 2024 – Lowercase playoffs? Result: Lowercase playoffs
Talk:RAI/Archive 1#Requested move 16 July 2024 – Remove the all-caps? Result: Uppercase retained as an abbreviation
Talk:All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment#Requested move 24 July 2024 (three articles) – Treat these as descriptive, lowercase? Result: Lowercase
Talk:MLS is Back Tournament#Requested move 13 August 2024 – Lowercase tournament in 2 article titles? Result: No, leave capitalized Tournament.
Talk:Artms#Requested move 25 July 2024 – All-caps? Result: No consensus, mixed case retained
Talk:Global War Party#Requested move 16 July 2024 – Change to sentence case? Result: Title case retained
Talk:PAW Patrol#Requested move 14 August 2024 – Drop the all-caps? Result: Yes, "PAW"→"Paw"
Talk:Improved Military Rifle#Requested move 13 August 2024 – Generic improved military rifle powder instead of brand? Result: Yes, lowercased (with added "powder")
Talk:SWIFT#Requested move 14 July 2024 – Remove the all-caps? Result: No consensus to change (this is an abbreviation)
Talk:Timeline of the African mpox epidemic#Requested move 18 August 2024 – Uppercase 'mpox'? Result: Lowercase retained (uppercase possibly unintentional part of requested move)
Talk:Landing Ship, Tank#Requested move 4 August 2024 – Six Landing Crafts and a Ship, Word Order and Capitalization of – Result: Not moved (capitalization not the primary focus of discussion)
Talk:Zimmermann Telegram#Requested move 10 August 2024 (multi-page RM) –Lowercase telegam, letter, and cable? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Home improvement (disambiguation)#Requested move 26 July 2024 – Should this disambiguation page have an uppercase 'I'? Does the uppercase form have a primary topic? Result – No consensus.
Talk:Magic realism#Requested move 1 August 2024 – Uppercase 'realism'? (possibly an unintentional aspect of a wording change proposal) Result: Lowercase
Talk:'S Up#Requested move 6 August 2024 – Lowercase "S"? Result: Moved to 's Up.
Talk:The Guy She Was Interested In Wasn't a Guy at All#Requested move 30 July 2024 – Lowercase "In"? Result: Lowercase (a preposition, not a phrasal verb)
Talk:MLS Cup Playoffs#Requested move 31 July 2024 – Lowercase playoffs? Result: Lowercase
Talk:M6 Bomb Service Truck#Requested move 4 August 2024 – Lowercase "bomb service truck"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Berar Sultanate#Requested move 20 July 2024 – Downcase to sultanate? Result: Lowercase sultanate on this one, maybe more.
Talk:DNCE#Requested move 19 July 2024 – Remove the all-caps? Result: No consensus; kept at DNCE
Talk:M40 gun motor carriage#Requested move 2 August 2024 (19 articles) – Uppercase or lowercase? Result: Procedurally closed without change of title
Talk:Estoile Naiant#Requested move 30 July 2024 (two articles) – All-caps? Result: No. Mixed case retained; all-caps deemed a promotional stylization
Talk:Ive (group)#Requested move 30 July 2024 – All-caps? Result: No. Mixed case retained; all-caps deemed a promotional stylization
Talk:Te Deseo Lo Mejor#Requested move 25 July 2024 – Lowercase as the Spanish convention? Result: English-style title case retained, as an American production
Talk:Home economics#Requested move 2 August 2024 – Use title case? (possibly an unintentional aspect of a wording change proposal) Result: RM withdrawn, lowercase retained
Talk:Red State#Requested move 22 July 2024 – Move this disambiguation page to lowercase to replace the lowercase WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT? Result: No, retain primary redirect for the lowercase
Talk:Hearts on Fire (company)#Requested move 29 July 2024 – Uppercase "on", like the company does? Result: Lowercase retained
Talk:Au Hasard Balthazar – Lowercase the 'Hasard'? Result: Yes, following French language convention
Talk:Yo Momma (TV series)#Requested move 25 July 2024 – Does the title sufficiently distinguish the topic from the lowercase topic? Result: No; article moved from You Momma to disambiguated title, the original redirected to Yo mama (disambiguation)
Talk:War of 1812/Archive_29#Capitalisation of "house" and "senate" – as stand-alone terms in prose. Result: Not a formally closed discussion. In summary, shortened forms of names for institutions are not capitalized unless they are "a shorter but still specific form", not just a single generic word. The material at MOS:INSTITUTIONS probably could be clarified on the question, as this isn't the first time the matter has come up.
Talk:2020 MLS Cup Playoffs#Rounds are proper names? – Lowercase some words in headings? – Stalled on Playoffs. RM next?
Talk:French liberal school#Requested move 2 July 2024 – Lowercase school? – Result: lowercase
Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples#Requested move 25 May 2024 – Lowercase "indigenous" in a generic usage? Result: Lowercase when referring to people generally, but move review opened at Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2024 July#Genocide of indigenous peoples; closure upheld with no consensus to overturn
Talk:Main Development Region#Requested move 18 July 2024 – Downcase to Main development region? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Libyan Crisis (2011–present)#Requested move 16 July 2024 – Back to lowercase crisis? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:UAAP Final Four#Requested move 12 July 2024 – Three titles: lowercase final four? Result: Leave Final Four capped (thinly participated, no real consensus).
Talk:Hurricane Alley#Requested move 11 July 2024 – Call this the "Main Development Region" or "Main development region"? Result: "Main Development Region" without prejudice against considering "Main development region"; new RM opened.
Talk:PBA Best Player of the Conference Award#Requested move 9 July 2024 – Lowercase award on these dozen titles? Result: All moved to lowercase "award"
Talk:Three Musketeers (game)#Requested move 10 June 2024 – Is it capped as a trademark, or should be lowercase musketeers? Result: Moved to lowercase musketeers.
Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples#Requested move 25 May 2024 – Lowercase "indigenous" in a generic usage? (Result: Lowercase when referring to people generally, but move review opened at Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2024 July#Genocide of indigenous peoples) – Result: Moved back to lowercase indigenous
- Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Indigenous – continued discussion – petered out in June
Talk:Ballistic Missile Early Warning System#Article title – Use sentence case? Result: Title case, since it's the name of a specific system
Talk:Anyone but You#Requested move 30 June 2024 – Capitalize "but"? Result: Retain lowercase.
Talk:Blowing in from Chicago#Requested move 25 June 2024 – Uppercase "in"? Result: Uppercase.
Talk:Digital Light Processing#Requested move 18 June 2024 – Should this be "digital light processing"? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Blue Dragon (video game)#Requested move 9 June 2024 – Is the capitalization sufficient to identify the video game? Result: No, retain disambiguator.
Talk:Bini (group)#Requested move 18 June 2024 – Use all-caps? Result: No.
Talk:Cross-Strait relations#Requested move 14 June 2024 (about capitalization) (six articles) – Should "cross" and "strait" be lowercase? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Popverse#Redirect templates – Should the "avoided double redirect" tag to applied on a correctly capitalized redirect when there's a similar but miscapitalized redirect? Or should only the miscapitalized one be so tagged? Result – Removed tag from correctly capitalized Popverse as inappropriate, and left it on PopVerse which is miscapitalized.
Talk:IMP.#Requested move 9 June 2024 – All-caps for this shortened form of "Impactors"? Result: All-caps retained since sources seem to do that.
Talk:The N-Word (film)#Requested move 24 May 2024 – Is the capitalization and hyphen sufficient disambiguation to identify this film? – Result: Disambiguated.
Talk:NoBull#Requested move 29 May 2024 – All-caps? Result: Not moved.
Talk:Giant Center#Requested move 29 May 2024 – All-caps for "Giant"? Result: Mixed-case retained.
Talk:Motor Launch#Requested move 12 May 2024 – lowercase Launch and disambiguate? – Result: moved to Motor launch (naval)
Talk:1999 NAIA Football National Championship#Requested_move_11_May_2024 – lowercase football national championship? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Djurgårdens IF Hockey#Requested move 16 April 2024 – Lowercase hockey? Or other alternative? Result: Lowercase hockey in a disambiguation term (Djurgårdens IF (men's hockey))
Talk:Ae Fond Kiss (song)#Requested move 2 May 2024 – Sentence case as MOS:INCIPIT? Result: No consensus
Talk:Rub-A-Dub-Dub#Requested move 2 May 2024 – Lowercase "A"? Result: Not changed; capitalization considered a secondary issue in an RM for disambiguation
Talk:Pied-Noir#Lowercase – Lowercase "Pied-Noir" (or use "Pied-noir" or "Pieds-Noirs" or "Pieds-noirs" or "pieds-noirs")? Result: Lowercase "noirs", leaning lowercase for "pieds" as well.
Talk:Theory of forms#Requested move 28 April 2024 – Back to capitalizing Forms? Result: Retain lowercase.
Talk:More than This#Requested move 8 May 2024 (three articles) – Lowercase "Than"? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Ave Maria ... Virgo serena#Requested move 8 May 2024 – Lowercase "Virgo"? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:More than a Game#Requested move 5 May 2024 – Uppercase "than"? Result: Lowercase (per MOS:CT)
Talk:UFL Championship Game#Requested move 5 May 2024 – Lowercase championship game? – Result: Lowercase championship game
Talk:Pistol Shrimp#Requested move 3 May 2024 – Is the uppercase letter sufficient disambiguation to indicate that the topic is a video game company? – Result: moved to Pistol Shrimp Games
Talk:When I was a Bachelor#Requested move 2 May 2024 – Uppercase "was"? Lowercase "Bachelor"? – Result: Uppercase Was
Talk:NAIA Ice Hockey Championship#Requested move 3 May 2024 – Change to sentence case? – Result: Lowercase
Talk:AFC Championship Game#Requested move 29 April 2024 – Lowercase "championship game" for 9 AFC and NFC articles and 2 templates? – Result: For the AFC and NFC, keep Championship Game uppercase.
Talk:1933 NFL Championship Game#Requested move 3 May 2024 – 38 articles, lowercase "championship game"? – Result: For the NFL, keep Championship Game uppercase.
Talk:Tunisian Revolution#Requested move 21 April 2024 – Lowercase revolution? – Result: Lowercase revolution
Talk:But what about the noise...#Requested move 11 April 2024 – Change to title case? – Result: Yes, caps for "What", "About" and "Noise".
Talk:Statute of Autonomy#Requested move 30 April 2024 – Lowercase "Autonomy"? – Result: Lowercase
Talk:Sturges' Rule#Requested move 24 April 2024 – Lowercase rule? And s after apostrophe per MOS:POSS? – Result: Lowercase rule and add the s
Talk:ULTra (rapid transit)#Requested move 16 March 2024 – Lowercase the second and third letters of the name? – Result: downcase to Ultra
Talk:Cretan School#Requested move 25 April 2024 – Lowercase on these three "schools"? – Result: Lowercase
Talk:This Is the House That Jack Built#Requested move 2 May 2024 (ten articles) – Lowercase "That"? Sentence case one as MOS:INCIPIT? – Result: Withdrawn
Template talk:R from miscapitalisation#Template intent – No clear consensus on when to tag as miscapitalization.
Talk:Love Etc.#Requested move 13 April 2024 – Uppercase "etc" in the novel article title Love, etc (novel)? Result: Yes, uppercase as the last word of the title of a published work.
Talk:NHL Entry Draft#Requested move 14 April 2024 – 71 articles; downcase "Entry Draft" and "Amateur Draft"? Result: Yes, lowercase.
Talk:Conference Finals#Requested move 13 April 2024 – Lowercase? Result: Yes, lowercase.
Talk:KHL Conference Finals#Requested move 13 April 2024 – Lowercase? Result: Yes, lowercase.
Talk:Good Vibrations: Thirty Years of The Beach Boys#Requested move 13 April 2024 – Lowercase "The"? Result: Yes, lowercase.
Talk:Timeline of the Yemeni Crisis (2011–present)#Requested move 10 April 2024 – Multi; lowercase "Civil War", "Revolution", and "Crisis"? Result: Yes, lowercase.
Talk:1973 Australian referendum (Incomes)#Requested move 1 April 2024 (four articles) – Change the capitalized topic identifiers in parentheses? Result: Reworded with lowercase
Talk:Daddy, what did you do in the Great War?#Requested move 6 April 2024 – Change to title case? Result: Title case.
Talk:1933 German referendum#Requested move 23 February 2024 (4 articles) – Uppercase or lowercase for "Freedom Law" in one suggested title? Result: "Freedom Law" replaced with the name of a specific program
Talk:Attack on the Azerbaijani Embassy in Tehran#Requested move 7 April 2024 – Lowercase "Embassy"? Result: Yes.
Talk:Can You Hear Me? (telephone scam)#Requested move 6 April 2024 – Change to sentence case? Result: Yes.
Talk:Is this music?#Requested move 6 April 2024 – Change to title case? Result: Yes. – subsequently deleted per AFD discussion
Talk:October 2023 speaker of the United States House of Representatives election#Requested move 29 March 2024 – Switch to "speakership" with rephrasing? (after revert of bold moves to lowercase) Result: No consensus.
Talk:CFL Draft#Requested move 27 March 2024 – Lowercase Draft, Expansion Draft, Dispersal Draft, Global Draft? Result: Lowercase
Talk:UK Singles Chart#Requested move 12 March 2024 – Lowercase "singles chart" in 17 article titles? (170 more later identified) Result: Lowercase
Talk:Negev desert road ambush – Uppercase "desert"? Result: No consensus to rename
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 73#WP:THEBAND in article titles – Capitalize "the" in band names in article titles? Result Discussion archived without a clear conclusion
Talk:2024 NWSL Expansion Draft#Requested move 17 March 2024 – Multi; lowercase "expansion draft" and such? Result: Lowercase "expansion draft"
Talk:M1126 infantry carrier vehicle#Requested move 18 March 2024 (10 articles) – Lowercase vehicle descriptions? Result: Lowercase
Talk:National Signing Day#Requested move 28 March 2024 – Lowercase "signing day"? Result: Uppercase retained.
Talk:A Chip Off the Old Block (album)#Requested move 27 March 2024 – Lowercase "Off"? Result: Lowercase as a preposition per MOS:CT
Talk:Automatic Train Protection (United_Kingdom)#Requested move 25 March 2024 – Lowercase like the generic Automatic train protection? Result: No; retain caps as the name of a specific system.
Talk:ICON Park#Requested move 25 March 2024 – Drop the all-caps for "ICON"? Result: Yes, change "ICON" to "Icon".
Talk:2017 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election#Requested move 13 March 2024 – Lowercase "Speaker"? (Switch to "speakership?) Result: Procedurally withdrawn to open a discussion of a somewhat different suggestion
Talk:Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry#Requested move 19 March 2024 – Lowercase job title? Result: No, the topic is the formal title
Talk:List of Flatiron buildings#Requested move 19 March 2024 – Lowercase "Flatiron"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Battle of Van Buren#Requested move 14 March 2024 – Move to "Van Buren R|raid"? Result: Yes, with lowercase "raid"
Talk:Just Like Heaven#Requested move 10 March 2024 (4 articles) – Lowercase "Like"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Blue Water Thesis#Requested move 19 March 2024 – Sentence case the title for this concept? Result: Sentence case
Talk:Ma! (He's Making Eyes At Me)#Requested move 10 March 2024 – Lowercase "at"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:KAIROS#Requested move 18 March 2024 – Drop the all-caps for this Canadian organization? Result: Not all-caps.
Talk:1991 NHL Dispersal and Expansion Drafts#Requested move 17 March 2024 – Multi; lowercase "expansion draft" and such? Result: Lowercase
- Talk:AAF QB Draft#Requested move 17 March 2024 – Multi; more lowercasing of draft? Result: Lowercase
- Talk:2001 WUSA Supplemental Draft#Requested move 17 March 2024 – Multi; lowercasing of "supplemental draft"? Result: Lowercase
- Talk:MLS Supplemental Draft#Requested move 17 March 2024 – Multi; more lowercasing of "supplemental draft"? Result: Lowercase
- Talk:NHL Supplemental Draft#Requested move 17 March 2024 – Multi; more lowercasing of "supplemental draft"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:List of American Physical Society Fellows#Requested move 17 March 2024 (5 articles) – Lowercase "Fellows"? Result: Lowercase (and reworded)
Talk:List of Honorary Fellows of Christ's College, Cambridge#Requested move 17 March 2024 (46 articles) – Lowercase "Honorary" and "Fellows"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Illit (group)#Requested move 10 March 2024 – All-caps? Result: No (not moved)
Talk:List of fellows of the Association for Computing Machinery#Requested move 3 March 2024 – Capitalize "fellows"? Result: Retain lowercase
- Talk:List of Fellows of the British Academy elected in the 2020s#Requested move 4 March 2024 (five articles) – Lowercase "Fellows"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:King Armored Car#Requested move 7 March 2024 – Lowercase "Armored" and "Car"? Result Lowercase.
Talk:NVDES#Requested move 2 March 2024 – Drop the all-caps? Result: Yes ("Nvdes")
Talk:The CW#Capitalizing "the" – "The CW" or "the CW" mid-sentence? Result Lowercase.
Talk:Ley de Lemas#Requested move 5 March 2024 – Lowercase "Lemas"? Result Lowercase.
Talk:Optimality Theory regarding maybe fixing an old undiscussed move after an older no-consensus RM – Result: technical move back to lowercase.
Talk:Just like Heaven (film)#Requested move 2 March 2024 – Uppercase "like"? Result Lowercase.
Talk:DENK (political party)#Requested move 2 March 2024 – Drop the all-caps? Result: Yes ("Denk")
Talk:NHL Conference Finals#Requested move 1 March 2024 – Lowercase "Conference Finals"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:1992 PBA All-Filipino Conference Finals#Requested move 1 March 2024 – 15 titles; lowercase "Finals"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:USFL Draft#Requested move 13 February 2024 – Lowercase "Draft" (multiple articles)? Result: Lowercase
Talk:T1 Light Tank#Requested move 19 February 2024 (9 articles) – Lowercase "Light"/"Medium"/"Heavy"/"Super" and "Tank"? Result: Lowercase
- Talk:Heavy Tank M6#Requested move 21 February 2024 (7 articles) – More Tanks (or tanks): Result: Lowercase
- Talk:A7 Medium Tank#Requested move 22 February 2024 (4 articles) – More Tanks (or tanks), plus an Armored Car: Result: Lowercase
- Talk:Ford 3-Ton M1918#Requested move 22 February 2024 (1 article) – A 3-Ton (or 3-ton) tank: Result: Lowercase
- Talk:M1 Armored Car#Requested move 25 February 2024 (3 articles) – Two Armored Cars and a Combat Car: Result: Lowercase
Talk:Quantum Leap#Requested move 22 February 2024 – Should the phrase with lowercase 'l' continue to be assumed to be a mis-formatted 1989 TV series name? Result: No, disambiguate.
Talk:Dancing On My Own#Requested move 21 February 2024 – Lowercase "on" as a preposition? Result: Yes, lowercase
Talk:Always On the Run (Isaak song)#Requested move 18 February 2024 – Lowercase "On"? Result: Yes, citing MOS:CT
Talk:Mughal–Maratha Wars#Requested move 8 February 2024 → – Capitalisation of war and other things? Result: Moved to Deccan wars
Talk:NBA Conference Finals#Requested move 20 January 2024 – Lowercase "Conference" and/or "Finals"? Result: Lowercase conference finals
Talk:Sèvres Syndrome#Requested move 15 February 2024 – Change Syndrome to lower case? Result: Yes, use lowercase
Talk:Polish Cathedral style#Requested move 15 February 2024 – Change Cathedral to lower case? Result: Yes, use lowercase
Talk:Ehlers–Danlos syndromes#Requested move 3 February 2024 – Capitalize Syndromes, like title case? Result: No, use lowercase
Talk:EUCLID (university)#Requested move 8 February 2024 – Drop the all-caps? Result: Yes , use "Euclid"
Talk:Australian Aboriginal Flag#Requested move 13 February 2024 – Lowercase flag and red ensign on 3? Result: Lowercase flag and ensign.
Talk:Ranger tab#Requested move 10 February 2024 – uppercase tab? Result: Not moved; no support for capping tab.
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles – "NFL Draft" vs "NFL draft" in article text and titles. Result: Lowercase draft; and move the 400 or so affected articles.
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive359 § Close review of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles – Result: Close endorsed.
Talk:Cow Hugging Therapy – Sentence case? Result: Moved to Cow-hugging therapy
Talk:Allegro Non Troppo#Requested move 24 January 2024 – Sentence case? Result: Moved to lowercase Allegro non troppo
Talk:Full Faith and Credit Clause#Requested move 21 January 2024 – Change to sentence case (note that nearly all other other U.S. Constitution clause articles use title case)? Result: No consensus
- Discussion continued at User talk:BilledMammal#Close of Talk:Full Faith and Credit Clause#Requested move 21 January 2024 and Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2024 March, then closed with an endorsed conclusion of no consensus
Talk:California's 1st State Senatorial district#Requested move 17 January 2024 – Multi-page RM to change "State Senatorial" to simply "senatorial" (other options also presented). Result: Moved, lowercase, dropped State: California's 1st senatorial district
Talk:EXO Travel – Drop the all-caps? Result: Moved to Exo Travel
Talk:Variable Cam Timing – Sentence case? Result: Moved to Variable camshaft timing
Talk:Connecticut panhandle#Requested move 30 January 2024 – Follow up to previous multi-move RM. Capitalising panhandle for Northern Panhandle of West Virginia and Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia? Result: Lowercase 'panhandle'.
Talk:Major League Baseball draft#Requested move 18 January 2024 – Capitalize "Draft"? Result: Lowercase retained.
Talk:Ford Police Interceptor#Requested move 30 January 2024 – Generalize the title? Use sentence case? Result: "Ford police vehicles" (sentence case)
Talk:Iranian Principlists#Requested move 23 January 2024 – Should it be "Principlists", "principlists", "Principalists", or "principalists"? Result: "principlists" (sentence case)
Talk:Brigade General (Poland)#Requested move 30 January 2024 – Sentence case? Result: Sentence case
Talk:Iranian Reformists#Requested move 24 January 2024 – "Reformists" or "reformists"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:United States Capitol rotunda#Requested move 22 January 2024 – Capitalize "Rotunda"? Result No – retain lowercase.
Talk:Battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip#Requested move 27 January 2024 – Lowercase forts in the plural form? Result: withdrawn by nom
Talk:American Football League draft#Requested move 18 January 2024 – Capitalize "Draft"? Result: lowercase
Talk:Willie "the Lion" Smith – Willie "The Lion" Smith or Willie "the Lion" Smith? – Result: Clear consensus for lowercase "the". (January 2024)
Talk:Connecticut panhandle#Requested move 7 January 2024 – Also Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virgina (eastern and northern). Result: Lowercase "panhandle" except no consensus on WV.
Talk:California Gold Rush#Requested move 3 January 2024 – Sentence case? Result: Yes.
Talk:The Game Awards#"The Game Awards" or "the Game Awards" – Uppercase "The" mid-sentence? Result: lowercase.
Talk:Florida Panhandle#Requested move 22 December 2023 – to ? Result: Lowercase "panhandle".
List of grand master masons of the Grand Lodge of Scotland#Requested move 21 December 2023 – Does MOS:JOBTITLES apply to traditional and honorary titles as well? Result: Yes, so lowercase plurals.
Talk:Women in Refrigerators#‎Requested move 14 December 2023 – Should lowercase distinguish a corpse from a website? Result: Merge the two relevant articles and use sentence case.
Talk:10.5" Corporate 14 Bolt Differential#Requested move 28 December 2023 – Sentence case? Result: – Lowercased and hyphenated to GM 10.5-inch 14-bolt differential
Talk:OXXO#Requested move 25 December 2023 – Drop the all-caps? Result: Not all-caps.

2023

Talk:New Pop#Requested move 20 December 2023 – Lowercase "New Pop"? – Result: lowercase pop
Talk:Aquarius (beverage)#Requested move 21 December 2023 – Drop the all-caps for ZICO (beverage)? – Result: Yes to "(drink)" and no all-caps for Zico.
Talk:List of Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order appointed by Victoria#Requested move 22 December 2023 – Should "Grand Cross" be lowercase along with "knights" and "dames"? Result: Yes, lowercase.
Talk:Clonfin Ambush#Requested move 19 December 2023 – Should "Ambush" be lowercased? Result: Yes, sentence case.
Talk:Right-bank Ukraine#Requested move 1 December 2023 – Uppercase "bank"? Result: No consensus.
Talk:Toy boy#‎Requested move 17 December 2023 – Should lowercase indicate a boy that is a toy rather than the title of some published works? Result: Yes; disambiguation moved to uppercase.
Talk:AI spring#‎Requested move 17 December 2023 – Uppercase "spring" as in "Arab Spring"? Result: Moved to "AI boom".
Talk:Adoration of the Shepherds#‎Requested move 14 December 2023 – Lowercase Shepherds? Magi? Result: Uppercase retained.
Talk:Man was made to Mourn#‎Requested move 13 December 2023 – Capitalize more of the words? Result: Yes, everything but the "to".
Talk:Canada Goose (clothing)#‎Requested move 10 December 2023 – Is capping sufficient to distinguish a clothing brand from a bird? Result: No; continue to disambiguate the title case term.
Talk:Local Access Alert#Requested move 10 December 2023 – Sentence case? Result: Yes, sentence case.
Talk:Its name was Penelope#Requested move 9 December 2023 – Use title case? Result: Yes, capitalize as usual for the title of a published work.
Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 23#JUNIPER → Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 1#JUNIPER → Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 8#JUNIPER → Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 15#JUNIPER – Should the all-caps version of juniper redirect to Juniper (disambiguation) or to the differently spelled Junlper? Result: Continue disambiguation of the all-caps term
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 22#Capitalization of "Week" in "Week #" in Articles – Should the word "week" preceding the week number be capitalized? Result: Archived without a very clear outcome
Capitalization of short prepositions followed by an ellipsis at the end of a title:
- Talk:In Search of#Requested move 7 December 2023 – Lowercase "of" for In Search Of... (Fu Manchu album)? Result: Lowercase.
- Talk:Death on Two Legs (Dedicated to...)#Requested move 7 December 2023 – Uppercase "To"? Result: Rapidly withdrawn.
  - Talk:Death on Two Legs (Dedicated to...)#Another requested move 7 December 2023 – Remove the parenthetical to avoid the "to", which may or may not need to be capitalized? Result: Yes.
Talk:Neo da Matrix#Requested move 7 December 2023 – Capitalize "da"? Result: Capitalize (note exception in MOS:THEMUSIC)
Talk:GIGA Connect#Requested move 29 November 2023 – Is all-caps justified? Result: Mixed case.
Talk:GIGA Television#Requested move 29 November 2023 – Is all-caps justified? Result: RM closed as not moved for a different reason, without addressing caps issue.
Talk:Big wheel (tricycle)#Requested move 28 November 2023 – Capitalize "wheel" for brand-name product? Result: Title case.
Talk:Here Are The Sonics#Requested move 19 November 2023 – Lowercase "The"? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Pecorino Romano#Requested move 19 November 2023 and Talk:Caffè Americano#Requested move 19 November 2023 – Italicize and lowercase since it's an Italian, not English, name? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:3YOURMIND#Requested move 21 November 2023 – Drop the all-caps? Result: Mixed case.
(Three pages) Talk:USA Today All-USA high school baseball team#Requested move 17 November 2023 – Change to title case? Result: Title case.
(Two-page) Talk:List of Orders in Council for Northern Ireland#Requested move 17 November 2023 – Change "orders" to lowercase? Result: Lowercase.
(Multi-page) Talk:List of Statutory Rules and Orders of the United Kingdom#Requested move 17 November 2023 – Change "statutory rules", "statutory orders", and "statutory instruments" to lowercase? (Applies to multiple lists not included in request) Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Allegations of CIA drug trafficking#Requested move 8 November 2023 – Change to title case? Result: Title case suggestion dropped.
Talk:Kekma Forum#Requested move 13 November 2023 – Rename to all-caps? Result: Retain mixed case.
Talk:ANU – Museum of the Jewish People#Requested move 13 November 2023 – A WP:ALLCAPS / WP:TITLETM / MOS:SIGCAPS / MOS:TM case (presented as if an acronym but is not one) Result: "Anu", not "ANU".
Talk:Third-Worldism#Requested move 5 November 2023 – Third-worldism? Third Worldism? Result: Third-worldism.
Talk:List of National Monuments in Connacht#Requested move 8 November 2023 – Lowercase "National" and "Monuments"? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:DMA's#Requested move 3 October 2023 – cap the final S? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:American fuzzy lop (fuzzer)#Requested move 3 November 2023 – Does lowercase identify the software package and distinguish it from the breed of rabbit? Should it instead by capped like a proper name? Result: Caps; it's a proper name.
Talk:Chincoteague Pony#Requested move 3 November 2023 – Lowercase pony? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:LIGNA#Requested move 4 November 2023 – Drop the all-caps? Result: Lowercase except the first letter of the word.
Talk:SING!#Requested move 1 November 2023 – Drop the all-caps? Result: Lowercase except the first letter of the word.
Talk:Marco Polo Bridge Incident#Requested move 31 October 2023 – :owercase incident in 3 such article titles? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Ai#Requested move 29 October 2023 – Does the lowercase 'i' imply that artificial intelligence is not the primary topic? Result: Retain disambiguation.
(22 articles) Talk:List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom#Requested move 26 October 2023 – Should Acts be capitalized? Applies to many lists. Result: Lowercase.
Talk:List of spaghetti Westerns#Requested move 1 November 2023 – Try again to reach a consensus about how to capitalize? Result: Withdrawn to give it a rest.
Talk:Anti-Spiritual Pollution Campaign#Requested move 27 October 2023 – Lowercase or rephrase some of that? Result: Rephrase in sentence case.
Template talk:Infobox UK place#All-caps – Should the template give post_town parameter in all-caps (e.g. "LONDON")? Result: avoid all-caps in WP.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Capitalization of "the Strait", "the Bay", etc. – Result: Lowercase except when part of a name.
Talk:MF Doom#Alteration in opening paragraph. MF Doom, stylized in the form "MF DOOM" – Does MOS:ALLCAPS apply to artist names. Result: Avoid all-caps.
WT:WikiProject Freemasonry#Capitalization – Where do we draw the line of capitalization of offices and such in Freemasonry? Result: Some say just follow MOS:OFFICE, others want to follow Freemasonry's conventions. No clear consensus.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#International incidents and affairs – Should named international incidents and political scandals be capitalized? Result: Pretty standard; only rarely are such terms consistently capped in sources; lowercase the others.
Talk:Western music (North America)#Capitalization – Should "western" remain capitalized in mid-sentence in this article (and in Western (genre), Spaghetti Western, Science fiction Western and Space Western)? Result: Not totally clear, but mostly lowercase "western" for western music in America (as opposed to Western vs Eastern/Oriental/Asian music), but usually capitalized Western for movie genres.
Talk:2011 Census of India#Requested move 23 October 2023 – lowercase "Census"? Result: Moved all to lowercase census.
Talk:Anti-Bourgeois liberalization#Requested move 23 October 2023 – Lowercase "Bourgeois" (or rephrase or change the hyphen to a dash)? Result: Not moved to the proposed "Against Bourgeois liberalization". Subsequently downcased -bourgeois.
Talk:Ho Mobile#Requested move 15 October 2023 – Move to all-lowercase (hyphenated)? Result: Not moved.
Talk:Koryo-saram#Requested move 10 October 2023 – Capitalize Saram? Remove hyphen? Result: No consensus.
Talk:The Old Woman and her Pig#Requested move 23 October 2023 – Capitalize "her" in title of nursery rhyme? Or sentence case like the opening sentence? Result: Uppercase.
Talk:Never Be Like You#Requested move 22 October 2023 – Uppercase "like" in song title? Result: Uppercase.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC on capitalization after a colon or dash 27 Oct 2023 – Result Letters after a colon or dash may be capitalized. Minor changes to MOS specific pages and sections.
Talk:List of Ayatollahs#Requested move 17 October 2023 – Lowercase for plural of title? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Removal of Kevin McCarthy#Requested move 8 October 2023 – Was he Speaker or speaker? Result: Moved to Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House.
Talk:Io (film)#Requested move 26 September 2023 – Io vs IO for title based on Jupiter's moon. Result: No, allcaps unanimously opposed.
Talk:Italian Empire#Requested move 18 September 2023 – Case of "empire" among other things. Result: No consensus.
Talk:Let's Play – Lowercase "Play"? Result: No consensus.
(multi-page) Talk:List of Lord Lieutenants of Anglesey#Requested move 27 September 2023 – Lowercase the plurals of some titles? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Apple Campus#Requested move 15 September 2023 – Lowercase "campus" while we're at it? Result: Lowercase
Talk:2022 European Wrestling Championships – Men's Freestyle 57 kg#Requested move 17 September 2023 – Multi-RM – Lowercase 206 "freestyle" wresting event titles? Result: Yes, lowercased "freestyle" in 206 articles (moves done by TolBot); still seeking AWB help for case cleanup in linking articles.
Talk:List of spaghetti Westerns#Requested move 30 August 2023 → Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2023 September – Lowercase "Westerns"? Result: No consensus.
Talk:NTV Plus#Requested move 15 September 2023 – Is all-caps an appropriate distinction between Russian and Nepali TV channels? Result: No; use ordinary title case for proper name, not all-caps.
Talk:August 2023 Mid-South U.S. floods#Requested move 22 August 2023 – should "South" be lowercased after a hyphen? Result: Lowercase (see also subsequent revert request below).
- Talk:Mid-South (region)#Requested move 24 August 2023 – same question. Result: No (inconsistent with the outcome of August 2023 mid-south U.S. floods)
- Talk:Mid-South Derecho of 2003#Requested move 30 August 2023 – same question, along with capitalization of "Derecho". Result: Moved to Mid-south derecho
- Talk:August 2023 mid-south U.S. floods#Requested move 16 September 2023 – Revert the RM of a few days earlier to use uppercase again? Result: Not moved.
Talk:Project MUSE#Requested move 6 September 2023 – Drop the all-caps? – Result: Mixed case
Talk:Sangaku#Capitalization: is the article title just an ordinary Japanese word borrowed into English, or a proper noun? (note – while the discussion was not formally closed, all instances are now in lowercase
Talk:List of Offspring members#Requested move 11 August 2023 – move to a title using "The Offspring" or "the Offspring" (or no definite article)? – Result: Moved to List of members of the Offspring.
Talk:Unfriendly Countries List#Requested move 30 August 2023 – Sentence case? – Result: Sentence case
Talk:ASmallWorld#Requested move 7 September 2023 – All-caps? All-lowercase? – Result: Not moved (no consensus?); left as CamelCase
Talk:Candy bar protest#Requested move 29 August 2023 – Cap as a proper noun? – Result: No, and moved to Chocolate bar strike
Talk:Leaving Certificate (Ireland)#Requested move 28 August 2023 – Lowercase "Certificate"? Result: not moved for the Irish case
Talk:Future Tripping#Requested move 28 August 2023 – Lowercase the second word? Result: Yes but moved to Anticipatory anxiety.
Talk:Helicopter Flight Rescue System#Requested move 22 August 2023 – change to use sentence case? Result: Changed to sentence case, but not to the proposed shorter title
Talk:First Battle of Lyman#Requested move 28 August 2023 (also for second battle) – lowercase battle? Result: Yes, consensus for lowercase battle
Talk:Iris menas#Requested move 29 August 2023 – Capitalize the person's name? Result: Yes, follow conventional caps for this personal name
Talk:List of Justices of the High Court of Australia#Requested move 2 September 2023 – Does the Australian Constitution supersede MOS:JOBTITLES? Result: Lowercase
Talk:List of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Turkey#Requested move 1 September 2023 – Lowercase plural position title? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Sluggish cognitive tempo#Requested move 12 August 2023 – "Cognitive Disengagement Syndrome" or "Cognitive disengagement syndrome" (or not) Result: Sentence case
Talk:Yemeni Civil War (2014–present)#Requested move 6 August 2023 – "Civil War" or "civil war"? Result: lowercase "civil war"
Talk:Post-it Note#Requested move 13 August 2023 – lowercase "Note"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Tartan track#Requested move 11 August 2023 – uppercase "track"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Baja California Desert#Requested move 16 August 2023 – lowercase desert? Result: Lowercase
Talk:List of Spaghetti Western films#Requested move 24 July 2023 – lowercase spaghetti? Result: Yes (despite the uppercase Western).
Talk:triple j#Requested move 16 August 2023 (and related articles) – uppercase as "Triple J" or use all-lowercase "triple j"? Result: Uppercase as a proper name.
(25+ titles) Talk:List of High Commissioners of the Faroe Islands#Requested move 13 August 2023 – lowercase "High Commissioners"? Result: Lowercase.
- (6 titles) Talk:High Commissioners for Palestine and Transjordan#Requested move 21 August 2023 – lowercase "High Commissioners"? Result: Lowercase.
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RfC on MOS:SECTIONCAPS after a colon: capitalisation after a colon in section headings. – Expired/archived without clear consensus; no change made.
Talk:Welsh Revolt#Requested move 30 July 2023 – Initially Welsh Revolt → Glyndŵr Rebellion but subsequently a question of capitalising the second word in any choice. Result: Lowercase "rebellion".
Talk:1991–1992 South Ossetia War#Requested move 22 July 2023 – initially 1991–1992 South Ossetia War → but alternative also affects capitalisation of war. Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Kyrgyz Revolution of 2010#Requested move 27 July 2023 – initially to remove year qualifier but subsequently, capitalisation of revolution? There are other Kyrgyz revolutions too. Result: Capitalization question deferred.
Double: Talk:Suseo Station#Requested move 11 July 2023 and Talk:Suwon Station#Requested move 11 July 2023 – lowercase station like the others? Result: No consensus.
Talk:Intel System Development Kit#Requested move 23 July 2023 – revert to lowercase Intel system development kit? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Taiwanese Indigenous peoples#Requested move 9 August 2023 – lowercase indigenous? Result: Lowercase (possibly later moving the words around to make the title start with "Indigenous").
Talk:Take a Daytrip#Requested move 2 August 2023 – capitalize the word "a"? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:List of organizations historically described as Communist fronts by the United States federal government#Requested move 9 August 2023 – lowercase Communist? Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Chernobyl exclusion zone#Requested move 2 August 2023 – apply sentence case? Result: yes.
Talk:2011 Syrian Revolution#Requested move 19 July 2023 – initially to remove year qualifier but subsequently, capitalisation of revolution? Result: Lowercase
Multi: Talk:2018 Major League Rugby Final#Requested move 12 July 2023 – lowercase final? Result: lowercase
Talk:1967 Alpine Skiing World Cup – Men's Downhill#Requested move 6 July 2023 – Downcase a bunch of Downhill, Slalom, etc.? Result: lowercase
Talk:PREDICT (USAID)#Requested move 8 July 2023 – Change "PREDICT (USAID)" to either "PREDICT" or "Predict (USAID)"? Result: Drop the all-caps → "Predict (USAID)"
Talk:YouTube poop#Requested move 13 July 2023 – uppercase poop? Result: Not moved; left lowercase
Talk:Syrian civil war#Requested move 17 July 2023 – reverse the earlier decision that this isn't a proper name? Result: Not moved; left lowercase
Talk:Cheongnyangni station#Requested move 11 July 2023 – another "tation" case; is this one somehow different? Result: Not moved from lowercase
Multi: Talk:List of Western subgenres#Requested move 12 July 2023 – lowercase western for genres of music, writing, film, TV, etc? Result: Not moved; left mostly capped Western
Multi: Talk:Festive amazon#Requested move 16 July 2023 – Uppercase "amazon"? Result: Not moved; left lowercase amazon
Talk:Suppressive Person#Requested move 16 July 2023 – not a proper name? Result: Moved; lowercase person (and suppressive in sentence, and other scientology lingo)
Talk:Scottish Games in North Carolina#Requested move 11 July 2023 – lowercase games? Result: Actually moved to Grandfather Mountain Highland Games because almost all the content is about that specific event.
Talk:Twenty20 International#Requested move 5 July 2023 – Lowercase international? Result: No.
Talk:Colección SOLO#Requested move 7 July 2023 – Drop the all-caps? Result: Yes.
Talk:XLINK (ISP)#Requested move 1 July 2023 – Change "HIVE (ISP)" to "Hive (Internet service provider)"? Result: Yes.
WT:WikiProject Tennis#Tournament column of 2023 ATP Tour etc.: Grass or grass, Hard or hard, Clay or clay? – cap after dash? – Mooted by putting surface first so it can be capped.
Talk:Bulava of the President of Ukraine#Requested move 30 June 2023 – Lowercase 'President'? (two articles) Result: Yes.
Talk:Pennant of the President of the Republic of Poland#Requested move 30 June 2023 – Lowercase 'President'? Result: Yes.
Talk:Shaolin Kung Fu#Requested move 29 June 2023 – Sentence case? Result: Yes.
Talk:Major Command#Requested move 28 June 2023 – Lowercase "Command"? Result: Merge content into another article instead.
Talk:Joint Support Ship#Requested move 28 June 2023 – Sentence case? Result: Yes.
Talk:Tai chi chih#Requested move 29 June 2023 – Title case? Result: Yes.
Talk:Hark! The Herald Angels Sing#Requested move 22 June 2023 – Sentence case supported by MOS:INCIPIT? (four articles) Result: No.
Talk:AS Long As Possible (ASLAP)#Requested move 21 June 2023 – What letters should be capitalized in the title after removing the abbreviation from it? Result: Moved to "As Long as Possible"
Talk:Tai chi#Requested move 13 June 2023 – Uppercase "chi"? (among other possibilities) Result: Lowercase retained (not moved).
Talk:Action at Springfield#Requested move 12 June 2023 – "First Battle at Springfield" or "First battle at Springfield"? Result: Capitalization question deferred; in the meantime it is moved to "Battle".
Talk:Awaga-jinja – Awaga Shrine or Awaga shrine? Result: Uppercase
Talk:German Expressionism#Requested move 5 June 2023 – Lowercase "Expressionism" to "expressionist cinema"? Result: Yes.
Talk:Army training regiment#Requested move 4 June 2023 – Change to title case? Result: No.
Talk:Certified Emission Reduction#Requested move 31 May 2023 – Sentence case for this and Emission Reduction Unit? Result: Yes.
Talk:Certified Arborist#Requested move 21 May 2023 – Lowercase 25 occupation-related certifications? Result: No consensus WP:TRAINWRECK.
Talk:Registered Battlefields (UK)#Requested move 31 May 2023 – Change to sentence case? Result: Yes.
Talk:Three Judges Cases#Requested move 23 May 2023 – Should this be Collegium system? What words should be capped? Result: Collegium system (lowercase 's')
Talk:Black Bottom (dance)#Requested move 24 May 2023 – Lowercase "Bottom"? Result: No, since it was named after a place.
Talk:PAIS Alliance#Requested move 26 May 2023 – Should this be "MOVER (political party)"? Or perhaps "Mover (political party)"? Result: Not all-caps.
WT:WikiProject Ice Hockey#RfC: NHL round names capitalization RFC on capitalization of "Preliminary Round" and "First Round" and such in hockey, to resolve recent disagreements. Result: Lowercase.
Talk:Drag Panic#Drag Panic → Drag panic (23 May 2023) – Lowercase "Panic"? Result: Yes.
Talk:Hear my prayer#Requested move 25 May 2023 – Should this use title case? Result: No, per MOS:INCIPIT.
Talk:Seal of the President of the United States#Requested move 18 May 2023 – lowercase "president"? Result: Yes, and in most similar cases.
Talk:Flag of the President of Ukraine#Requested move 18 May 2023 – lowercase "president"? Result: Yes.
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 49#MLB Draft or draft? – Is "Draft" part of a proper name? – concluded lowercase
Talk:Certified AM Directional Specialist#Requested move 21 May 2023 – Lowercase 26 technology certifications? Result: Yes.
Talk:Certified Anesthesia Technician#Requested move 15 May 2023 – Lowercase 14 healthcare certifications? Result: Yes.
Talk:Soviet Empire#Requested move 11 May 2023 – Lowercase for "Empire"? Result: Yes.
Talk:2002 Davis Cup World Group Qualifying Round#Requested move 7 May 2023 – Multi; lowercase "Qualifying Round" and "Play-offs"? Result: Yes.
Talk:Flag of the President of the United States#Requested move 9 May 2023 – Lowercase for "the President"? Result: Yes.
Talk:Applied Science Technology and Engineering Technology in Canada#Requested move 6 May 2023 – Lowercase various job titles and certifications of Canada? (a multipage request) Result: Yes.
Talk:Registered Cardiovascular Invasive Specialist#Requested move 6 May 2023 – Lowercase this job title / certification in the United States? Result: Yes.
Talk:Kerry Babies case#Requested move 5 May 2023 – Lowercase "Babies"? Result: Yes.
Talk:2024 NFL Draft#Requested move 27 April 2023 – Lowercase "Draft"? Result: No consensus.
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 22#Capitalization of NFL Draft – Is it time for the long-deferred RM discussion to fix this? "Result": It took place; no consensus.
Talk:ONE Championship#Requested move 17 April 2023 – Change "ONE" from all-caps to "One"? Result: No consensus.
Talk:Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) – Uppercase 'C' in "conflict"? Result: No.
Talk:Apple Campus#Requested move 21 April 2023 – Lowercase the second word? Result: No consensus.
Talk:sujatha baliga#Requested move 11 April 2023 – Change from all-lowercase to conventional formatting for this person's name? Result: Yes.
Talk:Ling tosite Sigure#Requested move 19 April 2023 – Uppercase the middle word in this band's name? Result: Yes.
Talk:Fair Game (Scientology)#Requested move 6 April 2023 – Lowercase "Game"? Result: Yes.
Talk:Modern paganism#Requested move 24 March 2023 – "Modern paganism" → "Neo-Paganism" (uppercase 'P')? Result: No consensus.
Talk:Ken Carson (entertainer) – If this is changed to Ken Carson (western music singer), should "western" be capitalized as it is in the Western music (North America) article? Result: Lowercase disambiguation "(country singer)" selected.
Talk:Korean wave#Requested move 2 March 2023 – Capitalize as "Korean Wave"? Result: Yes.
Talk:David Gilliland Racing#Requested move 16 March 2023 – New name styled as "Tricon" (three icons) or all-caps "TRICON"? Result: Tricon
Talk:Willow project#Requested move 16 March 2023 – Change "project" to "Project"? Result: No, withdrawn by nominator.
Talk:Ugly (Slowthai album)#Requested move 5 March 2023 – Use all-caps "UGLY"? Result: No.
Talk:SAviOr#Requested move 28 February 2023 – Remove the caps-lowercase mixture? Result: Yes, just make it "Savior (gamer)"
Talk:Suisse secrets#Requested move 27 February 2023 – Uppercase "secrets"? Result: Yes! This particular group of secrets is nearly always capped in sources (The Guardian notwithstanding).
Talk:Year of Three Prime Ministers#Requested move 26 February 2023 – Change to sentence case? Result: Yes (may have implications for other articles such as Year of the Three Kings).
Talk:NHL Conference Finals#Requested move 25 February 2023 – Yet another sports capping issue (collective term for the Western Conference (NHL) and the Eastern Conference (NHL) finals) – Result: No consensus.
Talk:Hierarchical File System#Requested move 25 February 2023 – Are the capital letters sufficient to indicate that this article is about a deprecated Apple-specific format? Result: No. Disambiguate.
Talk:Cocaine Bear (bear)#Requested move 24 February 2023 – Lowercase the first "Bear" for the article about the bear? Uppercase to disambiguate the film? Result: Not moved, remains uppercase.
Talk:Bigbang (Norwegian band)#Requested move 16 February 2023 – Change "Bigbang" to "BigBang"? Result: No. RM withdrawn after discussion of sources.
Talk:Moura Massacre#Requested move 17 February 2023 – Lowercasing of "Massacre"? Result: Yes, lowercase.
Talk:Pinot gris#Requested move 16 February 2023 – Uppercase "gris"? Result: No, consistent with recent RM for Pinot noir.
Articles about particular types of ministries – Use sentence case? Result: Yes, sentence case for all.
- Talk:Ministry of Justice#Requested move 17 February 2023
- Talk:Ministry of Finance#Requested move 17 February 2023
- Talk:Ministry of Foreign Affairs#Requested move 16 February 2023
- Talk:Ministry of Religious Affairs#Requested move 16 February 2023
Talk:Probe Incorporation Mediated by Enzymes#Requested move 14 February 2023 – Use sentence case (or an acronym) for the name of this method? Result: Moved to PRIME (labeling technique)
Talk:Peco#Requested move 13 February 2023 – Use all-caps like the company seems to do? Result: Use sentence case since it's not an acronym.
Talk:JURIST#Requested move 21 February 2023 – Drop the all-caps? Result: Yes.
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Africa#RfC: Name of the small country nestled within Senegal – Whether to prepend "the" and whether to capitalize as "The" ? Result: No consensus
WT:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles#Capitalization of romanized titles – Title case for pinyin titles? Result: Sentence case when inconsistent in the sources. Title case when consistently capitalized.
Talk:Modern paganism#Edit to lead – Related to recent RM and decision to lowercase
- Talk:Modern paganism#RfC Result: Consensus against uppercase mention.
Talk:Cameroon line#Requested move 8 February 2023 – Change "line" to "Line"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Hunter's chicken#Requested move 8 February 2023 – Change "Hunter's chicken" to "Chicken Chasseur" with a capital 'C'? (not the main focus of the discussion) Result: Lowercase
Talk:Mini–Mental State Examination#Requested move 14 January 2023 – Change to sentence case? Result: Sentence case
Talk:Jaw harp#Requested move 5 February 2023 – Change "harp" to "Harp"? (not the main focus of the discussion) Result: Lowercase
Talk:Pret a Manger#Requested move 3 February 2023 – Uppercase the "a", as "Pret A Manger"? Result: No.
Talk:Brescia Casket#Requested move 26 January 2023 – lowercase "casket" for five articles about particular caskets? Result: No (differing from Bimaran RM just below)
Talk:Bimaran casket#Requested move 8 January 2023 – uppercase "casket" for two articles for consistency with other article titles about particular caskets? Result: No consensus
Talk:Pinot noir#Requested move 31 January 2023 – Change to Pinot Noir? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Clinton Body Count#Requested move 31 January 2023 – lowercase for "Body" and "Count"? (not the main focus of the discussion) Result: Lowercase
Talk:Barrie Phillip Nichol#Requested move 26 January 2023 – Change to bpNichol? Result: Yes.
Talk:Ive (group)#Requested move 14 January 2023 – Move to all-caps? Result: No all-caps.
Final/final:
- Talk:AFL Grand Final#Requested move 11 January 2023 – 307 articles "* Grand Final" → "* grand final"? Result: No consensus (differing from VFL RM just below).
- Talk:1872 FA Cup Final#Requested move 5 January 2023 – lowercase "final" as per other recent examples? Result: lowercase.

2022

Talk:1902 VFL Grand Final#Requested move 25 December 2022 – lowercase "grand final" on about 91 of these? Result: lowercase.
Talk:1930 FIFA World Cup Final#Requested move 12 December 2022 – Lowercase "Final" for 21 year-specific articles? Result: Lowercase
Talk:UEFA Women's Euro 1995 final#Requested move 19 November 2022 – Possible bellwether for future moves of football articles that capitalise "final". Result: lowercase.
Talk:Powdr Corporation#Requested move 24 December 2022 – Use all-caps as "POWDR" per "brand guidelines"? Result: No, moved to Powdr.
Talk:Tequila sunrise (cocktail)#Requested move 15 December 2022 – Is the lowercase 's' a factor in whether this topic is primary? Result: Moved to Tequila sunrise as the primary topic for the term.
Talk:First Ladies and Gentlemen of Kansas#Requested move 13 December 2022 – Lowercase 42 plurals of "First Ladies ... of XYZ"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Day of reckoning#Requested move 18 November 2022 – Uppercase "reckoning" for this disambiguation page? Result: No consensus, so no change.
Derbies and rivalries: Talk:Hell is Real Derby (moved to Hell is Real derby), Talk:South Texas Derby (not moved), Talk:Black Gold Derby (not moved), Talk:Texas Derby (moved to Texas derby), Talk:Hudson River Derby (not moved), Talk:905 Derby (not moved), Talk:Mountain State Derby (moved to Mountain State derby), Talk:Blue–Green Rivalry (moved to Blue–Green rivalry)
Talk:Biennial flight review#‎Requested move 25 November 2022 – Uppercase "Review"? Result: lowercase.
Talk:2020 Big 12 Conference Softball Tournament#Requested move 2 December 2022 – More tournament downcasing; somehow missed softball in earlier rounds. Result: lowercase.
Talk:2000 NCAA Division III Baseball Tournament#Requested move 29 November 2022 – More baseball tournament downcasings for TolBot to execute. Result: lowercase.
Talk:Public Access#Requested move 18 November 2022 – Does the capital letter distinguish this adequately from various "public access" topics? Result: No.
Talk:Haim (band)#Requested move 4 December 2022 – All-caps? Result: Not all-caps.
Caps for cocktails:
- Talk:Black Velvet (beer cocktail)#Requested move 14 November 2022 – Lowercase all but the first word in three cocktail article titles? Result: lowercase.
- Talk:List of cocktails#Requested move 23 November 2022 – Five more cocktail article titles – Result: lowercase.
- Talk:Bee's Knees#Requested move 30 November 2022 – Lowercase the "Knees" in this cocktail name? Result: lowercase.
- Talk:Hanky-Panky cocktail#Requested move 1 December 2022 – Lowercase the "Panky" in this cocktail name? Result: lowercase.
Talk:Skeleton Crew – Is the capitalization of "Crew" sufficient for disambiguation of this short story collection? Result: No.
Talk:OAD (Caste)#Requested move 26 November 2022 – Is all-caps appropriate? Result: Procedurally closed. OAD (Caste) and OAD (caste) were redirected to Orh. The discussion record is at Talk:OAD##Requested move 26 November 2022.
Talk:Passionist nuns#Requested move 16 November 2022 – Uppercase "nuns"? Result: No.
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive80#Lower casing of First team & Second team All stars. – Follow NHL's capitalization style, or WP's? – Was there a conclusion reached before that was archived? No.
Talk:4 Da Gang#Requested move 26 October 2022 – Mid-phrase capitalization of the definite article (alternative spelling)? Result: No consensus.
Talk:xx (album)#Requested move 16 November 2022 – Does the lowercase distinguish this adequately from various "XX" albums? Result: No, so further disambiguate the name.
Talk:David Gilliland Racing#Requested move 22 November 2022 – Should this become "TRICON Garage" with all-caps in "TRICON"? Result: Not moved.
Talk:Swabian Spätzle#Requested move 13 November 2022 – Lowercase "Spätzle"? Result: Yes (and change the spelling to "spaetzle").
Talk:Marcher Lord#Requested move 19 November 2022 – Lowercase "Lord"? Result: Yes.
Talk:ATOM (IFV)#Requested move 14 November 2022 – Drop the all-caps? Result: Yes.
Talk:So into You (Tamia song)#Requested move 1 November 2022 – Capitalize "into"? Result: Yes.
Talk:Chief mechanical engineer#Requested move 9 November 2022 – Uppercase "mechanical" and "engineer"? Result: No.
Talk:Investiture of the prince of Wales#Requested move 6 November 2022 – Uppercase "prince"? Result: No consensus.
Talk:SMART (advertising agency)#Requested move 12 November 2022 – Drop the all-caps? Result: Yes.
Talk:LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987)#Requested move 11 November 2022 – Change "LiSA" to "Lisa"? Result: Yes.
Talk:N.EX.T#Requested move 24 October 2022 – Simply format as the mixed-case word "Next" with diambiguation – e.g. "Next (Korean band)"? Result: Moved to NEXT (Korean band)
Talk:Great baths#Requested move 14 November 2022 – Uppercase "baths"? Result: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Great baths discussion resulted in deletion
Paganism-related discussions
- Talk:Modern paganism and New Age#Requested move 3 November 2022 – Uppercase "pagan" and "paganism"? Several articles proposed to be changed – Result: Not moved, since "Modern paganism" ended up in lowercase
- Talk:Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism#Requested move 28 August 2022 – Uppercase only for the first word? Result: Lowercase
- Talk:Modern Paganism#Requested move 23 August 2022 – Lowercase "Paganism"? Initially closed as lowercase 28 August 2022; relisted 31 October 2022 after a move review; closed again as lowercase 7 November 2022
- Talk:Neopaganism in Scandinavia#Requested move 14 August 2022 – Change "Neopaganism" to "Modern aganism"? Result: "Modern paganism" (lowercase)
Talk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother#Requested move 27 October 2022 – mid-phrase capitalization of the definite article again – Result: No consensus.
Should "T/the" be capitalized in "T/the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" ?
- Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Midsentence capitalization of the – Capitalize The when referring to he Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Result: No
  - Discussion originally started here: WT:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints#Capitalization issue
  - RfC later filed at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC on mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church – Result: Lowercase
"Trial" or "trial"
- Talk:Auschwitz trial#Requested move 3 November 2022 – Uppercase "trial" (four articles) or lowercase "Trial" (twelve articles)? Result: Withdrawn
- Talk:Einsatzgruppen Trial#Requested move 3 November 2022 – Capitalization of "Trial" for a series of 12 post-WWII trials – Result: Merged into discussion at Talk:Auschwitz trial#Requested move 3 November 2022
- Talk:Doctors' trial#Requested move 28 October 2022 – Doctors' trial → ? Result: Yes
Talk:Post-it Note#Requested move 30 October 2022 – Move to lowercase "note"? Result: Keep capped.
Talk:Mid-American Conference Baseball Tournament#Requested move 23 October 2022 – 700 or so case-fixing sports tournament moves (proposal for a bot) – Result: Lowercase both "Baseball" and "Tournament".
Talk:List of body men#Requested move 29 October 2022 – Use uppercase for the role title? Result: Lowercase List of personal aides to the president of the United States
Talk:NEXT (Chinese band)#Requested move 11 October 2022 – Drop the all-caps? Result: Yes, make it "Next (Chinese group)"
Talk:Vice-admiral of the red#Requested move 22 October 2022 (also Vice-admiral of the White) – Uppercase "admiral"? Uppercase "red"? Result: Lowercase "admiral", uppercase "Red".
Talk:Harrier Jump Jet#Requested move 18 October 2022 – proper name? Result: No. Lowercase "jump jet" in the title.
Talk:The Mink Case#Requested move 5 October 2022 – Should the title use capital letters for the killing of minks in Denmark? Result: Lowercase as 2020 Danish mink cull.
Talk:Hokey Cokey#Requested move 4 October 2022 – Lowercase "Cokey" or "Pokey" per MOS:DANCECAPS or uppercase as the name of the song? Result: Uppercase "Pokey".
Talk:Working Definition of Antisemitism#Requested move 16 October 2022 – Identify whose definition and use lowercase? Result: Lowercased.
Talk:Wild Turkey#Requested move 28 September 2022 – Does an uppercase 'T' indicate that people are probably looking for the bourbon rather than the bird? Result: No consensus, so uppercase title disambiguated.
Talk:Ape (1976 film)#Requested move 15 October 2022 – Move to all-caps? Result: No
Talk:In Search of...#Requested move 10 October 2022 – Should the "of..." become "Of..." because it is the last word of the title? (a two-article RM) Result: Retain lowercase since truncation of a longer title is implied.
Talk:Hidden Children#Requested move 29 September 2022 – Lowercase "Children"? Result: Yes (and add more words to clarify the topic)
Talk:MasterClass#Requested move 1 September 2022 – on small details including case and space. Result: No consensus (mostly a disambiguation discussion)
Talk:Allegro Non Troppo#Requested move 12 September 2022 – Lowercase since it's Italian? Result: No consensus (some ambiguity for the lowercase version, and English-language sources often use title case)
Talk:2022 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship Game#Requested move 22 September 2022 – Follow up on basketball stragglers, versus go back to capitalizing "Men's Basketball Tournament" and such – clear consensus to lowercase a bunch of articles and templates.
Talk:United States Naval Aviator#Requested move 22 September 2022 – to Naval aviator (United States)? Result: Lowercased as "Naval aviator (United States)"
Talk:UP Fighting Maroons Volleyball Team#Requested move 25 August 2022 – Change "Volleyball Team" to "volleyball"? Yes, moved to lowercase, no team.
Talk:Division Series#Requested move 11 September 2022 – Proper-name question for "Division Series" and "League Championship Series". Result: Uppercase retained
Talk:Major League Baseball Wild Card Game#Requested move 2 September 2022 – Case among other issues. Result: "Game" changed to "Series" (at least for now)
- Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 48#Wild Card (Game/Series) or wild card (game/series) – Discussion related to the above RM
Talk:Australian Aboriginal elder#Requested move 25 August 2022 – Capitalize "elder"? Result: Lowercase (at least for now)
Talk:Lorraine cycle#Requested move 13 August 2022 – Uppercase "cycle"? Result: Lowercase
- Talk:Crusade Cycle#Requested move 30 August 2022 – Lowercase "Cycle"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Registered Dental Nurse#Requested move 11 September 2022 – Lowercase "Dental Nurse"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Registered Apprenticeship#Requested move 10 September 2022 – Lowercase "Apprenticeship"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Ethereum#Uppercase currency name? – Lowercase "Ether" in running prose? Result: Apparent consensus for lowercase.
Talk:List of Cinemas in Chernihiv#Requested move 4 September 2022 – Lowercase "Cinemas"? Result: Yes. (article later deleted)
Talk:Registered Nurse Certified in Neonatal Intensive Care#Requested move 3 September 2022 – Lowercase this role description? Result: Yes
Talk:Scopes trial#Requested move 4 September 2022 – Lowercase "Trial"? Result: Yes
Talk:Therapeutic use exemptions#Requested move 1 September 2022 – Uppercase "use" and "exemptions"? Result: No
Talk:Mari Native Religion#Requested move 28 August 2022 – Uppercase only for the first word? Result: Yes
Talk:Aircraft Maintenance Engineer#Requested move 26 August 2022 – Lowercase? Result: Yes
Talk:Less Than Zero (The Weeknd song)#Requested move 22 August 2022 – Lowercase "than"? Result: Lowercase
- Talk:Less Than Zero#Requested move 24 August 2022 – Do the same for the other topics with the same name? Result: Lowercase
Talk:United Nations Convention against Torture#Requested move 23 August 2022 – Capitalize "against"? Result: Yes
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Over-capitalization – Lowercase men's basketball tournament, etc.? – discussion continued at
- Talk:ACC Men's Basketball Tournament#Requested move 23 August 2022 – Lowercase tournament names of the form " Organization Gender's Sport Tournament" to " Organization gender's sport tournament"? Result: Yes
Talk:Donkey punch (cocktail)#Requested move 21 August 2022 – Uppercase "punch"? Result: Lowercase for the cocktail, uppercase for the disambiguation page
Talk:IPA number#Requested move 21 August 2022 – Uppercase "number"? – withdrawn, leave IPA number
Talk:Openmatics#Requested move 15 August 2022 – Prefix with ZF and use all-caps? Result: Yes, for prefix; no for all-caps.
Talk:Great Belt Fixed Link#Requested move 8 August_2022 – Lowercase "fixed link"? Result: Moved to "Great Belt Bridge".
Talk:Ghost Site Mounds#Requested move 29 July 2022 – Ghost site mounds, or Ghost site maybe? Result: Ghost site
Talk:IKEA#Requested move 7 August 2022 – Change to "Ikea"? Result: No consensus.
Talk:American Indian elder#Requested move 30 July 2022 – Should WP capitalize "Indigenous"? Result: Capitalized
Talk:Black Power#Requested move 4 August 2022 – Lowercase for "Power"? Result: Yes
Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation#Requested move 8 June 2022 – The usual question relative to sources. Initially closed as move to lowercase civilisation
- Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2022 June#Indus Valley civilisation – Review the close. Result: Overturned to no consensus
Talk:Hadith of warning#Requested move 19 July 2022 – Uppercase "warning"? Result: No consensus
Talk:United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories#Requested move 14 July 2022 – Uppercase only the "United Nations" part of the title? Result: Yes
- Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2022 August‎#United Nations list of non-self-governing territories – Was that decision appropriate? Result: Closure endorsed
Talk:Free Territory (disambiguation)#Requested move 25 July 2022 – Lowercase for "Territory"? (Not the main rationale for the proposed move) Result: Yes
Talk:SHINE Medical Technologies#Requested move 21 July 2022 – Drop the all-caps for "SHINE"? (Not the main rationale for the proposed move) Result: Yes
Talk:Volcanic Explosivity Index#Requested move 30 July 2022 – Lowercase, like most sources? Result: Yes
Talk:Black is Beautiful#Requested move 26 July 2022 – Lowercase for "Beautiful"? Result: Yes
Talk:Lost Decades#Requested move 7 July 2022 – Lowercase "Decades", among other issues? Result: Not moved. The closer commented about primary topic status but did not comment about capitalization.
Talk:Girls Like You#Requested move 17 July 2022 – Lowercase "like"? This is a MOS:5LETTER discussion. Result: Uppercase retained as more prevalent in sources
Talk:Copper Hoard Culture#Requested move 5 July 2022 – Which words, if any, should be capitalized? Closed with Copper Hoard culture, as downcasing "Hoard" didn't find consensus
Talk:THEY.#Requested move 8 July 2022 – Move away from all-caps? Result: Yes
Talk:The dismal science#Requested move 11 July 2022 – cap Dismal Science? Result: No
Talk:UEFA-CONMEBOL memorandum of understanding#Requested move 29 June 2022 – Lowercase for "Memorandum"? Uppercase for "understanding"? – Moved to lowercase both "memorandum" and "understanding"
Talk:Shit Life Syndrome#Requested move 7 July 2022 – Moved to lowercase
Talk:European Single Market#Requested move 24 June 2022 – moved to lowercase single market
User talk:Snickers2686#MOS:JOBTITLES – "until applied consistently, which it isn't in this set of articles, then to me, it doesn't apply at all". – judges generally lowercased
Talk:Pyramid of Sahure#Why capping Pyramid in mid sentence? – Overcapping in featured article – pyramid moved to lowercase except for a few exceptions
Capitalisation of "battle of X" and "battle for X" in running prose: – generally only lowercase was supported for these:
- Talk:Battle for Brittany#Capitalisation of "battle" in "battle for Brittany" – whether "battle" should be capitalised in running prose?
- Talk:Battle of Mykolaiv#Capitalisation of "battle" in "battle of Mykolaiv" – whether "battle" should be capitalised in running prose?
- Talk:Battle of Volnovakha#Capitalisation of "battle" in "battle of Volnovakha" – whether "battle" should be capitalised in running prose?
- Talk:Battle of Kherson#Capitalisation of "battle" in "battle of Kherson" – whether "battle" should be capitalised in running prose?
- Talk:Battle of Donbas (2022)/Archive 1#Capitalisation of "battle" in "battle of Donbas" – whether "battle" should be capitalised in running prose?
- Talk:Battle for Baby 700#Capitalisation of "battle" in "battle for Baby 700" – whether "battle" should be capitalised in running prose?
WT:Redirect#RFC on NOTBROKEN interpretation – fix miscapitalization in piped links? – confusing discussion, without consensus on what's worth fixing
Talk:ATP Rankings#Requested move 2 April 2022 – Multi-article RM re 3 sets of tennis rankings; proper names? – lowercase rankings
WT:WikiProject Tennis#Case-fixup loose ends – more on case of tooltips and table headers in tennis articles – fixed to lowercase and/or sentence case
Talk:You Can Count On Me#Requested move 24 March 2022 – Lowercase for "On"? Result: Yes.
- Talk:Count On Me#Requested move 12 April 2022 – Multi-article RM (15 articles) – more lowercase for "On"? – no consensus
Talk:Chief Justice of the United States#Lede section – JOBTITLES again
Talk:Lunch Atop a Skyscraper#Requested move 27 May 2022 – Lowercase "Atop"? Result: Yes
Talk:INgrooves#Requested move 27 May 2022 – Lowercase the second letter? Result: Yes
Talk:Letters Patent (United Kingdom)#Requested move 20 May 2022 – Use lowercase for "Patent"? Result: Yes
Talk:Islamic State#Requested move 18 May 2022 – Is the capitalization sufficient to distinguish this topic from others? Result: Yes
Talk:Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast/Archive 1#Requested move 29 April 2022 – Use lowercase for "Oblast"? Result: Not moved. Capitalization not the focus of the proposal and discussion.
- Talk:Cherkasy Oblast#Requested move 12 May 2022 – Multi-article RM (24 articles) – Use lowercase for "Oblast"? Result: "absence of consensus"
Talk:DOS Navigator#Requested move 23 April 2022 – Change "DOS" to "Dos"? Result: No
Talk:Smokin Out the Window – lowercase "out"? Result: Yes
Talk:Imam Reza Shrine#Requested move 5 May 2022 – Use lowercase for "shrine"? Result: Yes
Talk:Caesar's Civil War#Requested move 1 May 2022 – Use lowercase for "civil war"? Result: Yes
Talk:Here Technologies#Requested move 24 April 2022 – Change "Here" to all-caps "HERE"? Result: No
Talk:off our backs#Requested move 21 April 2022 – uppercase each word in the title of this publication? Result: Yes
Talk:Tiananmen Incident#‎Requested move 29 March 2022 – 1976 "Incident" or "incident" (or something else)? Result: Year added; capitalization not an explicit part of the decision.
Talk:4 the People#Requested move 24 April 2022 – uppercase "The"? Result: No
Talk:List of U.S. National Parks by elevation#Requested move 16 April 2022 – lowercase for "National Parks"? Result: Yes
Talk:Habsburg Monarchy#Requested move 29 March 2022 – lowercase "monarchy"? Result: Yes
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Requested move 25 March 2022 – "Electoral results for the Division of X" or "... the division of X"? Result: Retain uppercase "Division"
Talk:Project CARS#Requested move 24 March 2022 – "CARS" → "Cars"? Result: No (arguing it is an abbreviation)
Talk:List of historic sites of Japan (Kōchi) (1 article) and Talk:List of Historic Sites of Japan (Aichi) (45 articles) – Uppercase or lowercase "Historic Sites" in the titles? Result: Lowercase for Kōchi; no consensus about the others (producing an inconsistent result)
Talk:List of Parliamentary constituencies in Lincolnshire#Requested move 28 March 2022 – lowercase "Parliamentary"? Yes (not much of a question, really).
Talk:Steam Gun Boat#Requested move 31 March 2022 – Multi RM re 3 boat types; proper names? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Norwegian First Division#Requested move 11 March 2022 – lowercase "first division" etc.? Result: No consensus, so remains uppercase
Talk:Black and Tan – Lowercase for "Tan"? Result: Yes.
Talk:Rainhill Trials#Requested move 22 February 2022 – "trials"? Result: use lower-case.
WT:WikiProject Tennis#Over-capitalization still – "Win–Loss" table heading? – abandoned
- And related at WP:ANI#Disruptive editing by User:Dicklyon – is this case-fixing work disruptive? – close as unproductive
- See renewed discussion at WT:WikiProject Tennis#Case-fixup loose ends.
Talk:Olympic Athletes from Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics#Requested move 16 February 2022 – downcase athletes, participants? – "no consensus whether those are team names, and thus proper names, or descriptive phrases"
WT:WikiProject Olympics#Standardizing spelling (upper-case or lower-case) in tables (medal by games) on case conventions for table entries -- lowercase for "did not participate", "as part of ...", "future event", and such annotations in table cells.
Talk:House system at the California Institute of Technology#RfC on capitalization of buildings – or complexes? Result: "north and south houses" should follow sentence case.
Talk:Snow Dozer – Move to lowercase? Result: Yes.
Talk:SA-Best – Move to all-caps? Result: No, suggestion withdrawn.
Talk:Foreign Secretary#Capitalisation issues – JOBTITLE question again
Talk:1912 World Hard Court Championships – Mixed Doubles#Requested move 8 January 2022 – Fix tennis subtitles to sentence case (in whole or in part); involves MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS, MOS:DASH, WP:NATURAL, WP:CONLEVEL, and other arguments – Decided to use sentence case for subtitles after dash in such sport article titles.
- WT:WikiProject Tennis#Are "Men's Singles" and "Women's Doubles", etc., proper names? – about headings, not titles; a related earlier discussion
- Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles#Dash in sporting event titles – Cap after dash in title? Is this a subtitle, or what? A related even earlier discussion.
Talk:Mau Mau Uprising#Requested move 26 February 2022 – six candidates: "U/uprising", "R/rebellion" and "R/revolt". Result: "rebellion".
Talk:United States Olympic Trials (track and field)#Requested move 11 February 2022 – lowercase trials? Result: Yes.
Talk:Iranian Plateau#Requested move 11 February 2022 – to lowercase plateau? Result: Yes.
- Talk:Mexican Plateau#Requested move 13 February 2022 – to lowercase plateau, as with Iranian plateau? Result: No consensus
Talk:Pokémon Legends: Arceus#RfC: Should Pokémon types be capitalized in sentences? Should Pokémon types be capitalized in sentences? Result: consensus against capitalization.
Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 31#Dark side of the Moon (discussion started 13 January 2022) – Does the lowercase "side" indicate a part of the orbiting object or part of the Pink Floyd discography? Result: The orbiting object.
Talk:Purex (laundry detergent)#Requested move 21 January 2022 – Is the mixed case sufficient to distinguish this from the PUREX process? Result: No, so use disambiguation for "Purex".
Talk:Gillard Government#Requested move 26 January 2022 – Lowercase "government"? Result: Yes.
Talk:Hibiscus Coast Busway Station#Requested move 31 December 2021 – Lowercase "Busway" and "Station"? Result: Yes.
Talk:Lost Cause of the Confederacy#Requested move 31 January 2022 – Lowercase as term of art per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS and usage in sources and possibly italicise title and first usage in article? Result: Not moved, since capped in most sources.
Talk:Zambezian cryptosepalum dry forests#Requested move 19 January 2022 – Uppercase for "cryptosepalum" (or some other approach)? Result: Different phrasing.
Talk:Exit Sign (song)#Requested move 28 January 2022 – Is the capital letter sufficient to distinguish this song from a physical sign? Result: No.
Talk:Decossackization#Requested move 27 January 2022 – Should the "C" be capitalized, as in "De-Cossackization"? Result: Yes.
Talk:MILCK#Requested move 12 January 2022 – Is all-caps appropriate for this stage name? Result: No.
Talk:National Historic Landmark#Requested move 18 January 2022 – Multimove to lowercase for "National Historic ", "National ", and "List of Historic "? Result: Withdrawn after near-unanimous opposition to the central principle based on the linguistic concept of a proper name, noting consistent capitalization in sources.
Talk:Judge Advocate General#Requested move 7 January 2022 – or "Judge advocate general" for this disambiguation page? Result: downcased
Talk:g-force#Requested move 7 January 2022 – "g-force" or "G-force"? Result: RM procedurally closed (made no difference) and usage in article prose already changed to "g-force".

2021

RMs on capitalization of "Attorneys" and "Ambassadors" (or rephrasing to avoid the plural formal title): – all downcased
- Talk:List of United States Ambassadors appointed by Joe Biden#Requested move 27 December 2021 – List of ambassadors appointed by Joe Biden
- Talk:List of United States Attorneys appointed by Joe Biden#Requested move 27 December 2021
- Talk:United States Ambassadors appointed by Donald Trump#Requested move 27 December 2021 (and prefixing the title with "List of") – List of ambassadors appointed by Donald Trump
- Talk:List of United States Attorneys appointed by Donald Trump#Requested move 27 December 2021
Talk:HARDTalk#Requested move 23 December 2021 – How about "HARDtalk"? – Yes
Talk:An Giang Province#Requested move 7 November 2021 – Lowercase "province" for that and Yên Bái Province? Result: Yes.
- Talk:Alborz Province#Requested move 24 January 2022 – Extend downcasing of "Province" to Iran? Result: Yes.
- Talk:Amnat Charoen Province#Requested move 2 December 2021 – Extend downcasing of "Province" to Thailand? Result: Yes.
- Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles#Chinese placenames – "province", "district", etc. – stale discussion; downcasing probably needed.
- Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Southeast Asia#Downcasing "Province" – Lowercase like we did for Vietnam provinces? – Yes for Laos, Cambodia, Thailand; include districts; no more countries there.
- Talk:Adrianople_Vilayet#Requested move 2 February 2022 – How about "vilayet"? Result: Lowercase
Talk:Focus Broadband – "Focus" or "FOCUS"? Result: Not moved
Talk:Fixed penalty notice#Requested move 27 December 2021 – Caps for each word, as "Fixed Penalty Notice"? Result: No
Talk:List of United States Congresses#Requested move 18 November 2021 – Lowercase for the plural Congresses? Result: No consensus.
WT:AT#RFC on dash-separated titles for sports events 2 January 2022 – Capping of "Men's Singles" and "women's doubles"? Result: No consensus to ban dashes, no consensus on capitalization; consensus that capitalization should be worked out at WikiProject Tennis.
Talk:Five Animals#Requested move 19 December 2021 – Rephrase without an uppercase second word? Result: Yes.
Talk:Frailty (the Banner album)#Requested move 19 December 2021 – Uppercase for "the" in the disambiguator? (or just remove "the"?) Result: Yes.
Talk:Third circle of hell#Requested move 17 December 2021 – Uppercase for "circle" and "hell" for Dante's first, second and third circles? Result: No (at least not for "circle").
Talk:GAVI#‎Requested move 8 December 2021 – GAVI or Gavi? (and other issues such as disambiguation) Result: Keep at GAVI.
Talk:Bohemian Crown Jewels#Requested move 13 December 2021 – Lowercase for "Crown" and "Jewels"? Result: lowercase.
Talk:National Security Council#Requested move 13 December 2021 – Lowercase since this is about councils in various countries rather than one specific council? Result: lowercase.
Talk:The Championships, Wimbledon#Requested move 2 November 2021 – Gentlemen's/Men's Singles or singles? Result: lowercase "singles"/"doubles", but uppercase "Men's"/"Women's"; this has led to a follow-on RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles#RFC on dash-separated titles for sports events
Railway line or Line – partially inconclusive
- Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Western Australia#Railway lines and services in Perth – Move to capped "Station" and "Line" in many cases? Maybe an RM would be a better way to handle this.
- Talk:Joondalup railway line#Requested move 8 November 2021 – Uppercase for "line" (and removing "railway")? No. Keep this batch of titles at "railway line".
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of The – 14 July 2021 – "The Bahamas" or "the Bahamas"? – no official close, but consensus seems to be lowercase "the" in the Bahamas and the Gambia.
Talk:COnnecting REpositories#Requested move 27 November 2021 – Should this be "CORE (something)" instead? Moved to CORE (research service) 4 December 2021.
Talk:POLYGON experiment#Requested move 26 November 2021 – POLYGON or Polygon? Polygon.
Talk:24 Hours of LeMons – or Lemons? Lemons.
Talk:Pretendian#Capitalized or lowercase? – In mid-sentence, should this be Pretendian or pretendian? Lowercase 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Armenian Highlands#Requested move 27 October 2021 – Lowercase for Highlands? Yes.
Talk:Model United Nations#Capitalization? – Uppercase for "model" in mid-sentence? Lowercase except in the names of specific organizations, as of 16 October 2021
Talk:House system at the California Institute of Technology#Capitalization – re "North Houses", "South Houses", "Rotation" and such Caltech terms – lowercase
Talk:Parkinsonism#Capitalization – Parkinsonism or parkinsonism? – lowercase.
Talk:New York City Subway#Requested move 14 October 2021 – Is subway capped in sentences, or only on map titles? – left at capped Subway (non-admin close of a long contentious discussion)
Talk:Member of parliament#Requested move 12 November 2021 – Uppercase for parliament? No. (previously discussed in 2014)
Talk:Whitehouse.gov#Requested move 14 October 2021 – Whitehouse.gov or WhiteHouse.gov? No consensus 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Seven & I Holdings#Requested move 8 November 2021 – Lowercase for "I"? No – 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Samsung S8300 UltraTouch#Requested move 6 November 2021 – UltraTouch or UltraTOUCH? – Kept UltraTouch
Talk:Beer Mixes#Requested move 5 November 2021 – Mixes or mix? – moved to lowercase singular
Talk:Principle of Coordination#Requested move 5 November 2021 – Coordination/Homonymy/Priority/Typification/Ubiquity or coordination/homonymy/priority/typification/ubiquity? – moved to lowercase
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Go#Add capitalization of Go to Guidelines – Is the board game go or Go? – consensus for Go – added to MOS:GAMECAPS 5 November 2021
- Talk:Four go houses#Requested move 8 November 2021 – another RM submitted 8 November 2021 citing new change of MOS:GAMECAPS as of 5 November 2021 – consensus for Go
- Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Add convention of capitalizing Go – consensus for Go – added to MOS:GAMECAPS 5 November 2021
- Talk:Mirror Go#Requested move 11 October 2021 – no consensus 27 October 2021
- Talk:Four go houses#Requested move 11 October 2021 – no consensus 27 October 2021
Talk:Environmental Racism in the United States#Requested move 29 October 2021 – Lowercase for "Racism"? Yes.
Talk:Apple silicon#Requested move 4 November 2021 – Uppercase for silicon? No.
Misplaced Pages talk:Principle of Some Astonishment#Requested move 30 October 2021 – Some Astonishment or some astonishment? – Not moved 6 November 2021 after irritation expressed over applying caps rules outside of article space
Talk:Swiss-model RM to move to all caps – no consensus
Talk:Major Arcana#Requested move 20 August 2021 – no consensus
Talk:Crisis of the Third Century#Requested move 30 August 2021 – result: not moved.
Talk:Deputy prime minister of Canada#Requested move 22 August 2021 – should the job title be capitalized in the article title? Yes.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography § Government bio infoboxes, should they be decapitalized or not.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#The capitalisation of "Internet" (referring to the global interconnected network generally used today) – February 2021 – no consensus.
Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem#Requested move 2 August 2021 – Should this article follow MOSCAPS's guidance on theories or not. – apparently not.
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Ebony and Ivory – Rehash of the recent RfC about "black and white", "Black and White", or "Black but white" (July 2021) – no new conclusion.
Talk:Afar Region#Requested move 28 May 2021 – no consensus about Region caps

Any objections to extending MOS:TIES to all nations and regions?

Currently MOS:TIES qualifies itself to English-speaking nations. However, in an increasingly multicultural world with English emerging as the lingua franca, at minimum in the Western world, why qualify this part of the MoS like that, ESPECIALLY when it also impacts on MOS:UNIT? For example, the European Union has 24 official languages, including English, and multilingualism is one of its founding principles.

Would it not make sense to extend MOS:TIES to nations (and regions) irrespective of whether they traditionally speak English or not? Because I can see how saying to someone that embraces multilingualism and values Europe's rich linguistic diversity wishing to contribute to an article on a topic with strong ties to their nation or region in the EU, where English is an official language, that in this case that tie doesn’t count (and someone else gets to decide) might be perceived as ... well ... rude and arrogant, which isn't just unnecessary but also unproductive. Would the article not benefit from including anyone with a strong tie to it?

I must note I would prefer if there was an established international variant, but I also find it practical not to have to waste time and effort trying to work out whether in a given article its meter or metre, organise or organize, or SI first and then imperial, or imperial first and then SI. Because getting it wrong just causes unnecessary consternation, especially if the article is inhabited by one or more "Shelobs". Elrondil (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of this idea. TIES is an exceptional case that should be used only when it's very clear; the main rule is RETAIN.

In practice I think this proposal comes down to "don't use American English in articles about Europe". I don't agree with that. --Trovatore (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Trovatore: The proposal doesn’t suggest it no longer needs to be clear, nor that that main rule is no longer retain. It simply proposes that MORE voices are heard.

As for the “don’t use American English in Europe” bit ... that would then only happen if most voices then want that. The solution surely isn’t “but I don’t like that, so let’s exclude them from the set of voices allowed to speak”. Fear not, they may choose American, who knows. Elrondil (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Also not in favor for the reasons cited by Trovatore. Doremo (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I do object to this.

Moreover, from what I understand it's a perennial suggestion, so I recommend perusing the last major flare-up of it from June, wherein I happen to embark on a journey from the exact wrong position all the way to the right one, filling your heart with hope for a better future as you follow my progress. Remsense ‥ 论 07:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

If it keeps coming up, perhaps there is something there.

However, you do highlight its more complex than I originally thought, so back to the drawing board 🤔. Elrondil (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Not a chance. The purpose of MOS:TIES is entirely, only, solely about English-language dialects that exist at a more or less national level and in a formal register suitable for encyclopedia writing. Under no circumstances would we accept an English pidgin/creole or some vaguely identifiable informal habits of English-as-a-second-language users in some country or region as a "variety of English" to accept for encyclopedia writing. If you encounter "Franglais", "Spanglish", "Deutchlish", etc., in any of our articles it should be normalized on the spot to whichever form of standardized English suits the subject best if there are strong MOS:TIES, or to the form that the article already most closely matches (British, American, Canadian, or some other dialect of a country with majority or official and large minority English usage in a formal register). Another way of looking at this: There is no strong tie between Finland and any form of English. Even the "Well, it at least shouldn't be American, but British, because the UK is part of Europe and the US is not" sort of argument fails, because there's more than one national dialect of English in Europe (Irish, for now, and probably Scottish if they have another independence referendum). If there's not a particular encyclopedia-appropriate variety/dialect of English in widespread use in a country, then that country by definition has no strong tie to any such particular variety. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Thank you for stating very clearly and firmly that the purpose of MOS:TIES is entirely, only, solely about English-language dialects, because THAT means my primary concern of how it relates to MOS:UNIT is a non-issue!

For the record, I did not, and still don’t, propose that “Franglais” and so on become accepted English variants. Because that would be insane, pointless and not useful. Elrondil (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

If this is something to do with promotion of crore and lakh in articles that pertain to India, there's already a big thread about that at WT:MOSNUM (again), and last I looked the consensus wasn't really changing: they're permissible as secondary units, but always need to be converted because they don't mean anything to anyone outside India and parts of its immediate neighbors (and of course among first-gen Indic diaspora). Maybe the tide has shifted in that discussion; I last looked at it about a week ago. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

No. I wasn’t aware of that thread. Elrondil (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The thread to which you refer is “RfC Indian numbering conventions”? Elrondil (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think there is any real overlap with the “RfC Indian numbering conventions” thread.

I also think MOS:TIES is a dog’s breakfast, but happy to leave it alone at this time.

Are there any objections then to apply the direction from SMcCandlish that the purpose of MOS:TIES is entirely, only, solely about English-language dialects to MOS:UNITS and decouple "respect the principle of 'strong national ties'" from MOS:TIES? For example, change it to "respect the underlying principle of strong national ties as also used in MOS:TIES but in a different context”, and then also qualify the following with only?

In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States only, the …
In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom only, the …
In all other articles, the …

Elrondil (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, you're been so vague about why you are asking these things, what rationale you could have for making up a new rule or changing any existing one, without any reference to an ongoing and important on-site problem, that all one has been left with is guesswork based on encounters with extant or recent discussions that seem like they could be pertinent. "Are there any objections"?: Yes., I can think of a number:

There is no clear rationale for what you're proposing, much less a consensus to do it. Substantive changes to policies and guidelines (WP:P&G) need consensus or they will not be accepted (unless they, rarely, hit upon something that needed to adjusted and no one else noticed until now, which isn't the case here).
There are strong rationales against it, most obviously:
A. Your implicit notion that units of measure have no connection to dialect (or "variety" as WP likes to say) is not correct.

B. Even if it were, it'd be immaterial. The next implicit idea in your proposal (quite central to it really) is that if P&G page X reiterates a general principle from another, Y, and cites the latter for the explanation, such that X applies that principle to X's circumstances because they are reasonably analogous to Y's, that this somehow creates a bureaucratic rules-chain dependency in which every aspect of the context of the cited origin of the principle in Y must also be applicable to the citing circumstances of X. Nothing on Misplaced Pages works that way at all. Cf. WP:WIKILAWYER: it's a mistake to try to interpret our P&G as essentially a legal system (or as something like a procedural programming language, or a chain of dependencies in building software from source code; more than one analogy works).

C. Because of point B, and because of the guideline's current "where applicable" wording (which is there for a reason and meaningful), your first rewrite idea, of tacking on a bunch of "respect the underlying principle of strong national ties as also used in MOS:TIES but in a different context" verbiage it entirely superfluous. The two versions convey the same meaning, because it is already understood that the principle (not the detail-by-detail contextual specifics) of TIES is being applied at UNITS. This is the way our entire P&G system operates. It wouldn't really be possible for it to be any other way. If UNITS was literally just restating TIES, down to the specifics of exactly what TIES covers, then UNITS would be redundant (in this regard) with TIES, and its wording about this issue would've been deleted long ago and replaced with a simple cross-reference to TIES without further comment. The kind of exemplary and contextual more-than-crossreferencing done at UNITS is entirely normal. And important: an editor looking for "what to do about units" is unlikely to instead stumble upon "what to do about national-level usage disputes", and so would be unlikely to find the TIES principles and then be certain how to contextually apply them (if at all) to units, without being basically an expert in our style guide the way some Tolkien fans learn Elvish.

D. The next bit of suggested rewriting is to inject "only" into two line items, but this change would have a nonsensical and undesirable result in two ways: It would make those items applicable under no circumstances to anywhere but the US and the UK, respectively (even to former UK colonies with English- and units-usage norms virtually indistinguishable from British in an encyclopedic register); and it would necessitate (to fix that new problem) expanding that into a long list of every country with anything that WP would consider a "national variety of English" with pertinent unit-usage norms. The purpose of those two examples is as examples (not as an exhaustive list) of how to approach these matters. The examples were chosen because they settled previously recurrent disputes. So, what long-term, recurrent, serious problem can you point to that you think your changes would resolve? The examples are not there to serve as the beginning of an ever-growing rulebook to address every imaginable case with a new micro-topical line item to thump. The purpose of giving a general principle and providing some prominent examples is to obviate the need to have a pile of micro-rules. (MOS:NUM is already too detailed as it is.)
The long-term stability of these guidelines is very important, because even small but meaningful/operative changes to them can affect many thousands up to potentially millions of articles, for reasons that almost always resolve to trivial and subjective peccadilloes. That cascading-wave-of-unneeded-changes problem (and all the fighting the endless trivial tweaks would generate) is never more of a danger than when a national-level and frequent usage matter is at issue (and literally millions of our articles do have measures with units in them). See also WP:MOSBLOAT: If MoS, after 20-odd years, doesn't already have a rule about something, then it needs to not have a rule about it, because it is not necessary for the project to do what it does successfully, and MoS is already way too long.
Your "I also think MOS:TIES is a dog's breakfast, but happy to leave it alone at this time" approach does not bode well. Our policies and guidelines don't exist as hills to die on. The purpose of these style guidelines is (aside from the main one of producing intelligible and consistent content for our readers) dissuading style-warring behavior. Arriving with the idea that the rules are broken and that at some forthcoming time you're going to fix them is antithetical to their purpose and to the needs of the community. It largely doesn't matter what any particular line-item in MoS sets out (except when there is objectively a reader-clarity improvement offered by one option over another), only that it sets out, and long-term retains, something that addresses a recurrent dispute pattern and brings it mostly (hopefully entirely) to an end, and/or that it produces better content for our readers – even if that "something" is arbitrary or is a compromise that can't please everyone. Just as a word to the wise, MOS:ENGVAR (including TIES) is pretty much the hardest-fought consensus compromise reached in MoS's history, and is also one of the oldest and most stable, so if you think you're going to make serious changes to it, you are very mistaken. It's like going to Canada and declaring your mission is to undo the country's approach to French and English as official languages.

This might all come off as harsh, but WP:Policy writing is hard, and the vast majority of proposals to change any P&G are off the mark. There are many devils in many details (thus the length of this), with a lot of nuanced interrelations between different rules (or advice or best practices or whatever you want to call them). Most of the real kinks were worked out long ago. Those that remain are subject to long-term dispute that hasn't produced a workable compromise. There is no such dispute about the material you want to change. And there are sometimes severe costs for making changes that are not vital to make.PS: I've tried hard to find a "yes" to put into this pile of "no", and there is one! Namely, your version is correct that the "scare quotes" around strong national ties shouldn't be there. I just went and removed them, so thanks for that. Otherwise, no element of your draft appears to be clearly an improvement. Here's the original wording: The choice of primary units depends on the circumstances, and should respect the principle of strong national ties, where applicable. Here's yours (presumably also keeping the original's first 10 words and the link): respect the underlying principle of strong national ties as also used in MOS:TIES but in a different context. Mentioning the other guideline by name is redundant with linking to it, and all our P&G pages are fairly (not entirely) consistent in, when practical, using plain English with links around pertinent terms rather than injecting page names. Mentioning it by shortcut in particular is "newbie-unfriendly" and wrongly presumes memorization of our shortcut strings. "Underlying" is a puff word and doesn't serve a concrete purpose in the sentence. (And underlying what? It has no clear downstream referent.) "As also used in" is more redundancy; if we're linking to TIES as the locus of the principle, it's already automatically understood that the principle is applied at the place we're linking to. "But in a different context" is a combination of redundancy with the implication of the link again, and quite odd wording: Why is there a "but" in this? (What it is contrasting against?) "Different" from what? Different in what way? And "context" is conceptually misused in this construction, in that the general principle at TIES is a meta-context, of all usage/style disputes pertaining to national-level English dialects, while use of units is a subset of that, a sub-context, not a conflicting/alternative context. Finally, unit usage is only sometimes a subset of the usage in a national variety of English, thus the original's "where applicable" – a key point that your version drops, despite it seeming to be central to the bee in your bonnet. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Introducing Scottish as an additional form of English would cause mayhem - or at least a shedload of future editing - here. We’ve already had a nationalist-driven push towards replacing ‘British’ with ‘English’ or ‘Scottish’ in bio articles, usually uncited and based purely on supposition or the subject’s birthplace. Fortunately, Scottish Independence appears to be receding as a prospect, at least in the short to medium term. MapReader (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree (and we had a real template at {{Use Scottish English}} in 2013, with an attempt to re-create it in 2016). Several years ago, I tried to get rid of all the "Use Foo English", and related, templates declaring "national varieties" that, in reality, are completely indistinguishable from general British English in an encyclopedic register, and could all collectively be covered by a "Use Commonwealth English" template. ENGVAR only applies to national (not subnational) varieties, and only those dialects that exist in distinct forms and with a formal register (by definition: if you can't write encyclopedia-appropriate material in a dialect, then it doesn't belong in our articles for any reason, so ENGVAR cannot be used to "protect" it from edits). But nationalistic sentiments won out in the end, and we still have all that claptrap, with ridiculous results like articles being tagged with {{Use Jamaican English}}, {{Use Singaporean English}}, etc. (Likewise we have no use of American-splitoff variants, either, like "Use Guam English", etc.) Too many editors who should know better and should think just a tiny bit harder have utterly mistaken the purpose of these as something like "national pride" flags to put on articles, in a verging-on-WP:OWN manner. These tags absolutely do not resolve to "write an article about Nigeria using colloquialisms and grammatical oddities found only in the informal speech and writing of English in Nigeria, which will be confusing to everyone else in the world". If someone tries that crap in response to such a template, rewrite the material per MOS:COMMONALITY and MOS:TONE. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

MOS:NOTGALLERY

At another talk page, I was writing an explanation of why articles should not be swamped in a plethora of images, planning to cite MOS:NOTGALLERY. Fortunately for once I checked first and found that it is just an alias for WP:NOTDB, not a statement that article spaces should not be mirrors of Commons.

Given that the majority of visitors do so on mobile phones, is there a case for an explicit policy that says that curation is essential, less is more?

Or would it be enough to change the target of NOTGALLERY to MOS:IMAGEREL (which might need a little expansion because right now it just says Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting. At least a reference to WP:ARTICLESIZE? (which is expressed in terms of word count, not megabytes, so would also need work). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think IMAGEREL would be a better redirect target. I want this to point to guidance that images should be included selectively rather than overwhelming articles with images. NOTDB instead seems to be guidance that images should be relevant and accompanied by text, which is not enough to prevent big indiscriminate galleries. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I've had second thoughts about this one. It is probably not wise to make NOTGALLERY an exception to the general rule that WP:NOTaaaaaaaa shortcuts all redirect to WP:Misplaced Pages is not. So the better plan is to add a short sentence to the current target to say that Misplaced Pages is not a database of images or a catalogue raisonné; those are among the functions of Wikimedia Commons. Image use in Misplaced Pages articles must comply with MOS:IMAGEREL. I will do that now.

IMAGEREL needs some work too, to make it even more explicit that to bury an article in a mass of images is sure way to ensure that nobody reads it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

While some types of "galleries" should be avoided, articles on certain visual topics do benefit from many visual examples. I also do not think we should explicitly outlaw the catalogue raisonné model while allowing many other bibliographic lists. One size does not fit all, and such a change would need to be debated with the folks curating WP:NOT and those who work on visual topics. —Kusma (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Pending further discussion, I have removed the reference to catalogue raisonné from my amendment (so that it now reads simply Misplaced Pages articles are not a repository of images: image use in Misplaced Pages articles must comply with MOS:IMAGEREL. to item 4, "Photographs or media files".

I agree certainly that, in an article about an artist or an artistic movement, it is essential to illustrate the phases of their artistic development. That to me is clearly in keeping with IMAGEREL and wp:localconsensus can determine relevancy. But to include an image of every work in an artist's oeuvre? How is that a valid exception to NOTDB? (and likely a COPYVIO too). And why not show every putter manufactured by ACME Golf Inc? every locomotive made by ACME Rail Inc? every postage stamp (including all misprints) produced by the Austro-Hungarian empire? We have articles so swamped in pointless images that they have become essentially unusable to visitors on mobile. How does that make any sense? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I would definitely oppose including every work in an artist's oeuvre in an article on the artist, but I want to make sure we do not outlaw List of paintings by Edvard Munch, where the images are perfectly encyclopaedic and just as relevant for identification as the images in List of members of the 19th Bundestag. Tables in such long lists are often not great for small screens, but that is a separate issue from the number of images. Generally, lists are not the same as other articles in their use of images, so the rules should reflect that. —Kusma (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that. Clearly the application of IMAGEREL should (and would) be different between a list article v a fairly broad concept article. To take your example, it would be entirely reasonable to include every image we have in the list article, provided that we use small thumbnails (upright=0.2); conversely (IMO) the bio article about Munch should be curated so that it has just one carefully chosen image to illustrate each phase of the development of his style , with maybe one or two especially notable examples that he did . Surely we don't want to replicate Commons? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Please, let's not compromise the full extent of the encyclopedia by limiting what has always been one of its main features. Images and galleries define and describe just as much as text. That many choose to "read" Misplaced Pages on tinier gadgets should not dictate the coverage and image-styling of encyclopedic content articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem we have at the moment with some articles is what David Eppstein describes above as "big indiscriminate galleries" and rote copying of everything in Commons for no evident informative purpose, a form of visual clutter. As IMAGEREL begins, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding". Without curation, the information gets buried in the woodpile.

I am not proposing a principle that we must minimise the number of images, period. My proposal is that we provide a policy basis that editors can use to say "that point is already adequately illustrated, another image adds nothing new" or "this article had become so bogged down in images that it no longer navigable". I am talking about edge cases here, in most articles it is not an issue. But some have become swamped in an uncritical replica of Commons. This is not to enable wikilawyering, it just makes it easier to explain the rationale. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

As an example of the sort of burying articles in galleries that I would object to, see hexagonal prism, where (at least in its current version) four of its six sections are entirely image galleries (in some cases hidden in collapsed templates, with much of their content peripheral to the main article topic).

We do need wording that distinguishes this case from List of paintings by Edvard Munch, where the galleries are entirely appropriate, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

But as far as I can see, the List of paintings by Edvard Munch (and similar lists by artists) already complies with IMAGEREL, because the use of images in that article is proportionate and entirely relevant to that context. Conversely, to put all those paintings in the Munch bio article as a giant gallery would not be proportionate (IMO).

So to focus this discussion, can anyone suggest another sentence we can use to amplify the point made in the opening sentence of IMAGEREL? ("Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding".) How about

Consequently, each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose: for guidance, see less is more.

AFAICS, that responds to and respects both the Munch examples above. (FWIW, very few if any of the visual arts articles suffer from this swamping problem. The issue affects high profile articles like Swastika.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It is entirely enough that we have the MOS:IMAGEREL shortcut. A proposal to retarget WP:NOTGALLERY to that would almost certainly fail, because it's part of a very long-standing set of policy (not guideline) WP:NOTFOO shortcuts to sections of WP:NOT, and such a change would both confuse editors today and render archived discussions of policy misleading. "Ain't broke; don't fix it." — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Audio video guidance

Hi there, I'm noting a lack of guidance for Audio video content, I've mentioned this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images. It seems people just edit MOS rather than run through large discussions, but I'm reluctant to start plunging in before getting some help. Here is what i think is needed:

Something explaining that the guidance at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Images applies to Audio-video content in most cases, eg regarding relevance, image quality, textual information, offensive images, placement, size, location, availability. Nearly all of the page is relevant, in fact.
The download advice might need to be different. Do videos or audio need a warning that they are large files? This is not assumed, it seems.

There is a case for some separate AV guidance, regarding:

Length: should inline videos be shorter where possible? Does this apply to audio clips?
Language: if audio or video is original language, should subtitled content be preferred rather than recording originals? Should songs be subtitled where possible? What are the requirements for validating translations (what are the relevant WP policies on translation of original source material that apply?)
Rendition: historical accents and historical musical performances might be very rare. Should we say that modern standards are fine, in the absence of authentic reconstructions?
Public domain renditions: if audio or video is a rendition of a public domain source, for example a work by Mozart, or a speech by Caesar, what are the requirements for source validation (these should reference WP's general guidelines, but these are mostly focused on secondary sources).

Jim Killock (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Elsewhere, someone asked whether an RfC would be needed to add guidance on this topic. I think not -- while discussion will be needed on details, I can't see anyone objecting to clarifying that multimedia beyond everyday images should follow similar guidelines to those for image. The question is where to say that. We don't want to duplicate guidance on contextual significance etc., because that creates two things that need to be kept in sync. Probably the best thing is to expand MOS/Images to explicitly cover other multimedia. See BTW Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Music_samples, which has a contextual significance section. E Eng 20:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks very much (and yes that was me!) I agree that MOS:Images would be best, especially to get this started.

The contextual significance contains much about in-copyright works. That is in general very helpful. In-copyright video samples feels like something rather complex that might need an RFC, and might be best parked until there is a little more in place. Jim Killock (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
@EEng Would it be helpful if I draft up something on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images and ask for feedback? Jim Killock (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I suggest you wait a while so that the experienced editors gathered here can lend their thoughts. After that, you might take the conversation back to Talk:MOS/Images, but since that page has 1/5 watchers of this one, and you've already put a pointer there to this thread here, it might be better to continue here as you begin to draft. There's no hurry to this, so the slower you take it, and the greater the extent to which others can get their thoughts in, the smoother it will go. (I'm afraid I'm really tied up IRL so the time I myslf can contribute is limited.) E Eng 21:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy to wait. I made a stab at below, but I can wait for further thoughts / feedback here. What I've provided relates to historical source content, as most of the AV I've been dealing with falls into this category; I have guessed at some other considerations but it is currently narrower than it should be. Jim Killock (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Audiovisual content can also be used for illustrative purposes. Most of the guidance on images above applies to audio visual content. Additionally, consider:
Length: inline videos or audio that is shorter will be easier for users to watch. Consider clipping long form content, and linking to the original on Commons, or elsewhere. Longer videos (eg, over 10 minutes) may be more suitable for links than inline video, unless they are highly relevant to the page's subject.

Rendition: historical accents and historical musical performances of content may be very rare. Modern renditions are fine, where authentic reconstructions are not available, and may be preferred, where there is uncertainty about the original performances.

Musical, poetic and literary content: aesthetic considerations are higher for these kinds of content. Where possible, the performances should be considered good by other editors. Where editors find performances are poor, content should generally not be included.

Language: where audio or video is in the original language, subtitles should generally be preferred rather than translated versions, as this reflects the original more closely and text files are easier to correct than mistakes in audio-visual content. Where possible, songs should be subtitled. Original language versions should be made available where where possible for artistic content.

Translations of subtitles should be verifiable, but as with other Misplaced Pages content, competent editors can create them. While academic translations are preferred, where subtitle translations are longer than 10-20 words, use of academic translations is likely to constitute copyright infringement. Here, a Wikipedian's translation should ideally be verifiable against an academic translation. (See Non-English sources for further guidance.)

Public domain renditions: if audio or video is a rendition of a public domain source, for example a work by Mozart, or a speech by Caesar, the original sources must be valid. The performance should be comparable and follow the original. Where possible, include links on media file pages so that editors can make checks.

Sourcing: as with images, sourcing of audio-visual content needs to be copyright compliant. Sources of CC video and audio can include Youtube, Flickr and CC search tools. Care should be taken to ensure the licensing claims appear to be valid.

See also: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Music samples

Jim Killock (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The "Language" point is a bit unclear to me. Is it asking for subtitles to be in English or the original language? If the phrase "rather than translated versions" is referring to the spoken or written material, that seems to contradict the phrase "where audio or video is in the original language". Which is also a weird way to say it because the "original language" could be English. Given that this is English Misplaced Pages, an English version should be provided whether or not there is a non-English version.

Subtitles should be provided for all videos with an audio track, to make them accessible for readers who cannot hear or find it difficult. There are additional guidelines at MOS:ANIMATION.

Not sure the "Sourcing" point needs to be made, as this is explained in detail for images generally.

The "Length" point should probably link to the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Music samples and point out the copyright issue when displaying here under fair use. It should say "video" not "videos" to be grammatical.

I would drop the "Translations of subtitles" point and just link to WP:NONENG for guidance on translations.

The "Public domain renditions" point does not make any sense to me, and I would just drop it.

I'm not sure whether the "Rendition" point needs to be made, but if it does, it's confusing. I think it's supposed to be recommending that historically accurate renditions of older works are preferred, if available. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't, depending on what the purpose of inclusion in the article is. Might be better just to leave this point off; I don't see any similar guidance for audio samples of music. Page editors can decide which samples are best out of those available.

Another point probably worth making is that a video should be considered an optional part of an article. In other words, any content vital to reader understanding should be included in the text and not be omitted on the assumption that reader will watch the video. Many readers will not be able to view video due to technical limitations, such as using a web browser that is not configured with a video player, or reading an article in another medium such as an app, paper printout, or text-to-speech system (including those who cannot see or find it difficult to read text). There is more specific guidance against putting text in images at MOS:TEXTASIMAGES.

It's fine for a video to re-explain something that's already explained in the text if having a moving image clarifies substantially, but it seems wasteful for embedded videos to effectively repeat or rephrase the text.

-- Beland (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much!

Regarding language, this was meant to be about non-English content, think Bach or Mozart in German or Latin; or Goethe's poetry.
On Sourcing, the section on images does not include YT, which is significant for CC video.
On translation, the situation for subtitles is a bit different, as usually you cannot use academic in-copyright translations, so this mention is retained.
On public domain renditions, this was the subject of a long and unclear discussion recently. Does that help? Take a file such as File:Queen Elizabeth I's Reprimand of an Insolent Polish Ambassador..webm. There is some need for verification, even tho it is not being used as a citation? I've edited it for clarity.
On style of renditions, this has come up a few times in discussion, including at the link above, where a user claimed only a Catholic priest could do a Latin audio recording; also at a parallel discussion on LA Misplaced Pages about accents and delivery, preferring a modern standard over historical guesses. I figured the same principle might apply to say reading Shakespeare, or using 16th century instruments; it simply shouldn't be a consideration, but sometimes editors think it should be.
I've added the points on (1) text as images, (2) subtitles for EN content, (3) optionality of AV content

VERSION 0.2

Audiovisual content can also be used for illustrative purposes. Most of the guidance on images above applies to audio visual content. Importantly, audio-visual content should not be an essential part of a page, which is necessary to understand the whole. This is because not all readers will be able to download or access the content, for example because of technical limitations or relying on text to speech tools. With audio and video just as with any content, relevance is paramount; consult WP:DUE for further context. There must be a clear reason for including the content on the page.

Additionally, consider:

Length: inline videos or audio that is shorter will be easier for users to watch. Consider clipping long form content, and linking to the original on Commons, or elsewhere. Longer videos (eg, over 10 minutes) may be more suitable for links than inline video, unless they are highly relevant to the page's subject.
Rendition: historical accents and historical musical performances are not required. Modern renditions of audio are acceptable. For example, there is no need to read Shakespeare with an Elizabethan pronunciation.
Musical, poetic and literary content: aesthetic considerations are higher for these kinds of content. Where possible, the performances should be considered good by other editors. Where editors find performances are poor, content should generally not be included.
Subtitles for comprehension: In English language videos, an English language subtitle track should always be provided for accessibility. See MOS:ANIMATION for more details.
Subtitles for translation: where audio or video is originally in a non-English language, for example a Goethe poem, subtitles should generally be preferred over than translated audio, as this reflects the original more closely and text files are easier to correct than mistakes in audio-visual content. Where possible, songs should be subtitled. Original language versions should be made available where where possible for artistic content.
Translations of subtitles See Non-English sources for guidance. Note that longer subtitle sequences may need to be translated by Wikipedians rather than obtained from academic sources to avoid copyright infringement.
Embedding text: As with images, rendered text should be avoided in video content. See MOS:TEXTASIMAGES for more information.
Public domain renditions: if audio or video is a rendition of a public domain source, for example a work by Mozart, or a speech by Caesar, it must be possible to check the original scores or texts. An editor should be able to compare the performance with the original. Where possible, include links on media file pages so that editors can make checks.
Sourcing: as with images, sourcing of audio-visual content needs to be copyright compliant. Sources of CC video and audio can include Youtube, Flickr and CC search tools. Care should be taken to ensure the licensing claims appear to be valid.
See also: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Music samples

Jim Killock (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be related to situations such as Talk:Niccolò_Machiavelli#RFC_on_video_inclusion, where a video consisting of a person reading a letter aloud was included in an article, one example of a series of such edits. It is not clear to me that we need a bunch of guidelines about the best form for this sort of application because it is not clear that it is desirable to include such videos in the first place - the cart is being put before the horse. MrOllie (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly would like to clear up some of the misapprehensions that regretfully appeared in that discussion. It's a discussion I will deeply regret getting involved in for some time.

I'll be clear about the other discussions and examples of this content for context:

List of poems by Catullus; Poetry of Catullus no debate and no questions occurred
Neo-Latin; no questions raised (I am the main editor for this page but plenty of people make edits)
Frederick the Great; video suggested and included as a link after discussion with editors
Samuel Johnson; video suggested but not included after discussion with editors
Latin; readings included; no discussion or objection
Martin Luther; reading of his disputes with no objections raised
Henry VIII; reading of his defence of Catholicism; posted and no objections raised
Elizabeth I; video flagged as a possible addition as a link; no response yet
Immanuel Kant and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel; early work added; an editor has asked me to check whether these are sufficiently relevant; I've agreed to do so and remove the videos if WP:DUE is not met.

@MrOllie I hope you can at least see that normally I try to be as collaborative as I can be. there's not much point going further into why that discussion became hard for me. However, policy is the place where we make guidelines to avoid disputes and lack of clarity.

What meets WP:DUE overrides any other consideration, to my mind so I have added that to the draft text. (With audio and video just as with any content, relevance is paramount; consult WP:DUE for further context. There must be a clear reason for including the content on the page.) Jim Killock (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

As regards the other articles where there was no discussion, just because there was no dissent at the moment doesn't mean there wont be in the future. What happened at the Machiavelli article could just as easily happen in the other ones

I am also asking you kindly to please stop making the issues with that RfC bigger than what they are. Plasticwonder (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

We can take this discussion in two ways:

We can either construtively discuss the principles behind what video content should be allowable; or
We can decide that emotions are too high for it and pause it

I do need this guidance, because there are divergences of opinion on some of the points, and it's important to me to be able to resolve them. But my guess is that if the three of us are just going to rehash the RFC discussion, then that would a terrible use of other people's time and energy. A break off would make sense, in my view. Jim Killock (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

No one's emotions are high but yours, judging by your rather relentless snipes against my character and the fact that you have so much as admitted it in the RfC. You have also stated that the RfC "needed to die" (quite strong words) when I gave you a chance to change your mind, and now you want to pause now that the discussion is nearing a close?

I do not get what you are trying to accomplish here, to be fair. Plasticwonder (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not needed to rehash the RFC here, but I did feel that fresh eyes on this talk page should have enough context to understand what the proposal is about. MrOllie (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that as a valid concern. Does the change regarding WP:DUE help, or do you feel more is needed? For context, other points raised in the RFC such as regarding the need to be able to validate translation is also included. Jim Killock (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I dropped the video from Henry VIII; it seemed like excessive detail. It's already on Defence of the Seven Sacraments where it's a bit more appropriate. But even there, it seems like it violates the video equivalent of MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. Same for Martin Luther and On the Bondage of the Will.

I also posted that the video for Elizabeth I should probably just be kept on Commons; there's already a general link to the topic there.

I agree it's not clear that videos of performances of works should generally be included, so I would also be hesitant about specifying anything in particular about those. Uploaded videos cover a broad variety of subjects, including scientific phenomena, buildings, and specific events. -- Beland (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to understand MOS:TEXTASIMAGES a bit more, especially regarding accessibility in particular, as this is certainly an overriding concern. What makes the text subtitle files inaccessible and not regarded as text? Jim Killock (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Subtitles are, of course, text. They are less accessible than the text in an article because some readers will have technical or logistical difficulty watching video and thus reading subtitles or listening to audio narration. For readers that do watch a video (which presumably has an animation or something which illustrates the subject of the article in a way a still image cannot), it increases accessibility by allowing people who cannot hear or find it difficult to know what is being said or what sounds are happening in the video. -- Beland (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Image use policy already says that for user-created diagrams, etc., a source for the underlying data must be included. To me, this applies straightforwardly to videos that are presenting public-domain content. A citation to the original work is kind of implied, but a reference to a specific version or even better an online copy, should suffice. YouTube videos that we're importing into Misplaced Pages as on-article videos are no different than diagrams or maps or explanatory videos uploaded by random Misplaced Pages or Commons users, assuming an appropriate copyright license. The reliability of YouTube is not really in question, any more than the reliability of any given Misplaced Pages editor is, when they are just repackaging information from a different underlying source in a more digestible way. That's different than citing a YouTube video as a reliable source for the information itself.

I'm not sure I have enough examples to make a guideline about video length. Ten minutes seems way too long for download on a mobile phone, and most videos I would expect to be under a minute. Perhaps there are exceptions, but I'd want to survey how videos are being used now. In the meantime, I would trim the 0.2 version down to reduce scope and reduce overlap with other pages and rephrase and retitle:

----

Video content (v. 0.3)

The guidelines on this page also generally apply to videos.
Many readers will not be able to play videos, because of technical limitations of their web browser, because they are seeing article content on a different web site or app, or because they are using a different medium, such as paper or text-to-speech system. Some readers cannot see or find it difficult. Videos should be used as a supplement to article material, to concisely illustrate the subject in a way that a still image or text cannot do. Videos should not replace article text, and articles should remain coherent and comprehensive when video playback is not available.
Similar to MOS:TEXTASIMAGES, for accessibility and file size reasons:
- Videos that simply show text should be replaced with text.
- Videos that simply show a sequence of still pictures should be replaced with an image gallery.
- Videos of text being read aloud should be replaced with text, or if the sound of words is being demonstrated, audio files (with the text being read in the file caption or in closed captioning).
- Videos of text and narration with should be converted to article text.
The copyright and other guidelines on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Music samples also apply to video samples.
The policies on Misplaced Pages:Image use policy also generally apply to videos.
Accessibility guidelines at MOS:ANIMATION apply.

----

-- Beland (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Videos has additional suggestions; not sure if it's appropriate to link there from here. -- Beland (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

With your commentary, this makes a lot of sense. I would point out that there was a lot of heat generated over YT reliability in the aforementioned RFC, so it would be good to point that it can be used. YT is not mentioned as a source for images in the images section above; an alternative would be to add it there in the list of common sources, but that also seems odd. I know one can point to the archive discussion, but that is not generally available knowledge for anyone looking at the guidance in future. Jim Killock (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I added a clarifying note at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for YouTube; hopefully this will not be controversial. -- Beland (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately that has been reverted as "unnecessary". It might make more sense here, because this is about video as illustration, and there is parallel advice for images above about CC content sources. Perhaps it should be parallel advice to this, eg mentioning that YT has a search facility for CC content (and there isn't anything else AFAIK). Jim Killock (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Imported YouTube videos. -- Beland (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - quick observation that we have lost that the guidance for illustrative audio content would also generally derive from the images guidance. The music samples page linked is wholly focused on samples from copyrighted material; there is a lot of PD / CC music material on WP, especially for classical music. Sometimes this could do with subtitling, etc, care in positioning, checks for relevance, etc. Jim Killock (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, what are you suggesting? -- Beland (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I think, where appropriate, add audio, eg "The guidelines on this page also generally apply to videos and audio files"; maybe "where appropriate, for instance non-English language audio files should include subtitles". I'm not sure there is much else. Jim Killock (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

And where would you find that addition to be appropriate? -- Beland (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I would amend the title to "Video and Audio content"; I would amend bullet one to "The guidelines on this page also generally apply to videos and audio files". Under "Similar to MOS:TEXTASIMAGES, for accessibility and file size reasons:" I would add "where appropriate, for instance non-English language audio files should include subtitles". The accessibility guidelines could move to be bullet two, in order that audio and video advice is at the top. Jim Killock (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks to me like hardly anything on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Images applies to audio files, and it seems like the wrong place to go looking for style advice about them. -- Beland (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

For example:

pertinence
quality
text as sound?
Location in article
References from article text
Placing files inline
Making images available Uploading to commons, recording information about files, changes in editing and download size etc

These seem pretty substantially helpful guidance to me, and pretty similar level of relevance as to video files. Jim Killock (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the material in those sections is not relevant to audio. I'd say if you feel strongly that guidance is needed for audio generally and not just music samples, we should create a new page. Editors shouldn't have to read through a whole page about images just to pick out the occasional tidbit on audio files, if they're only interested in the latter. -- Beland (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I've posted the 0.3 draft for now, since that wouldn't be changed by adding an audio page somewhere else. -- Beland (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the v 0.3. On audio, I would think about this from a few user perspectives:

There is currently no MOS advice at all on audio files and approaching general layout, pertinence, etc. What would the user do? Currently, MOS offers them nothing, so they must either guess or work off examples on other pages.
If a user asks for advice, where would they be pointed? (my guess: MOS:Images as closest match.

IMO, it would be better to offer them something, even apologetically ("There is currently no detailed advice on MOS regarding use of audio files, but the basic principles of WP:DUE and some considerations at MOS:Images may be helpful.") This could be placed at a page relevant to other audio usage files, for example. Jim Killock (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to propose a draft if you like. It's also possible no particular guidance is needed, if people are able to figure this stuff out using common sense and regular editorial judgement, and if disputes arise, turn to the various policy and guideline pages on topics like due weight. -- Beland (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Given the small amount of material to include about this, and the redundancy that would be required with MOS:IMAGES if "MOS:VIDEOS" were its own page, and given the short nature of the audio samples MoS page, I think the most sensible approach is to merge all of this into a WP:Manual_of_Style/Images_and_multimedia page with a top MOS:MEDIA shortcut (which I'm surprised doesn't already exist as an internal disambiguation page), then MOS:IMAGES, etc., going to sections. We have too many separate MoS pages as it is, and this is an ideal merge of two of them and a proposed third. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, that's a reasonable alternate approach. I think it would work if we put the things that apply across all three at the top, and then make it clear with section headers which those interested in a specific media type should look at without having to read inapplicable guidelines. -- Beland (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

+1 to both of these observations. Jim Killock (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeps. If we hammer out a videos-related section, I'll be happy to do the work (most MoS merges and the like are done by me because I kind of have a database in my head of all the rules and how they interrelate, and 19 years of observing how misinterpretations, lawyering, and other problems can be avoided by careful wording. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think what we could agree on for videos has been added. -- Beland (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

misleading text in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Dashes

The text on keyboard entry of dashes in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style § Dashes is misleading. The text or on a Windows keyboard implies a technique specific to windows when in fact it is valid for any OS. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

True. What it should say: "on a Windows keyboard enter them manually as Alt+0 150 (on the numeric keypad) for en dash, and Alt+0 151 for em dash." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Wrong on two counts:

No. It should not say anything at all, per WP:NOTHOWTO.
And even if it does, those alt codes are only valid for code page 1252 and related. They don't work if the user has a different default code page installed.

Delete it completely. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I doubt that NOTHOWTO is meant to apply to the MOS. It's surely helpful for editors and hence should stay, reworded if needed. Gawaon (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Gaewon is correct: NOTHOWTO applies to articles only. MOS is littered with how-to stuff, as is should where the ratio (editor confusion and time saved)/(WP:MOSBLOAT) seems sufficiently high. However, if this starts getting into weeds of code pages and such, it may be best to relegate the whole thing to WP:How to make dashes, with a pointer to that from MOS. E Eng 20:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

So why not simply recommend {{mdash}}, {{ndash}} and {{snd}} rather than advise keyboard callisthenics? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have always advocated symbolic representations (templates such as you list, or html escapes such as —) of the various dashes (and in some cases, even hyphens), rather than having them appear literally in the wikisource, so that editors can see at a glance that the right character is present. But even though EEng is pretty much always right, I can't seem to get people on board with this. E Eng 20:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I am happy typing the dashes on my Apple keyboards but also happy with recommending the templates rather than giving keyboard-specific advice. What I would like to avoid is warring bands of gnomes going around changing unicode dashes to templated dashes and vice versa. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit conflict: yes, different route to the same answer. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

JMF's policy understanding is mistaken above. WP:NOTHOWTO only applies to article content (and other reader-facing content, like portals and the front page features). If it applied to internal documentation, then we would have to delete the entire "Help:" namespace and about 95% what is in "Misplaced Pages:" namespace. However, the technical point JMF raised is entirely correct, and we should not be telling editors to use keyboard codes that will do the wrong thing (or nothing) if they don't happen to be using the "right" code page. To simply recommend {{mdash}}, {{ndash}} and {{snd}} is the sensible approach. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's just direct people to Misplaced Pages:How to make dashes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

It's a policy, our naming conventions policy, which largely doubles as our policy on article titles. Generally, for a given thing there's no reason to use a different name in the prose of any other article than one would use in the article about the thing itself, if that makes sense.Remsense ‥ 论 14:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the naming convention says we should change article text in a case like this. The article in question indicates both names are common (A straight-four engine (also referred to as an inline-four engine)). This is also reflected in the two name changes over the years. I don't see where the naming convention says we should favor the target article name vs what the individual article sources are using. Consider a hypothetical, I'm created a Wiki article about the new "CarX". My RS source that says, "CarX uses an inline four engine". Why would I not follow the source vs use the title of our straight four article? This is especially true if if the hyperlink is added later by a different editor. Also, until 2022 the title of the article was "inline". A consensus of 3 editors changed the article name. That's fine but the result is many changes to other articles. If a new consensus of 5 editors reverses the change do we flop back? I think it's less disruptive (makes articles more stable) if we avoid article text changes in cases like this. However, I am interested in knowing what guidance might apply here. Springee (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm interested in understanding this. My motivation in making the edits came down to a suspicion that there was some type of penalty incurred by linking through a redirect page, or that the redirects imposed a maintenance overhead. I hadn't read the naming convention, but if there's no real reason to reduce the number of redirected links, and recognizing that the target page could just as easily be renamed again in the future, I'll stop doing these edits. (Personally, I prefer "inline" to "straight", but I can see how the renaming would help organize the associated pages.) Thanks. Kumboloi (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

My reasoning is WP:NC stresses how we are required to name things, as we are un all editorial decisions, based on WP:V and WP:NPOV (in many cases this boils down to the result of WP:COMMONNAME). It has provisions specific to the article title and not the body, but much of it is expressing how to apply V and NPOV in deciding what to call things.

If we take alternative names as such—e.g. that, all else being equal, we do take inline four and straight four to be synonyms, truly referring to the same thing for our purposes—it makes very little sense to "wall off" which names are used in a particular article, as there are no clear limits on how strictly this would have to be observed. Am I allowed to use any synonymous nouns, verbs, or adjectives in my synthesis that don't happen to appear in my three best sources? On the other hand, naming according to a generalized scope is surely more coherent for a hyperlinked encyclopedia providing tertiary analysis instead of merely refactoring and reshuffling the specific language of our secondary sources.

Of course exceptions abound, much of the time alternative names and redirects should be freely used according to syntactical and contextual concerns—but I believe this to be correct mindset to assume by default. I don't think any given article that uses First World War needs to be changed. However, in cases like these, I feel it pays dividends to use terminology consistently between pages. If readers are encountering technical or domain specific language for the first time, we create the most helpful and coherent tertiary analysis for them if we zoom out a bit. It makes no sense to prefer Sassanid to Sasanian just because the book we're citing prefers the former—e.g., in an article about a specific battle, or a broad conceptual article not specific to the Sasanians—our deliberately preferring Sassanid simply does not aid the reader in becoming familiar with whatever additional context they're going to go to Sasanian Empire for in order to better understand our other article.

If I wake up and find this totally incoherent, I apologize. It's hard to speak clearly about naming and reference, though it's one of my favorite things to think about. Remsense ‥ 论 16:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN clearly says: "Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace ] with ]." So if a link already leads to the correct article, but using an alternative name that redirects, that's absolutely fine and nothing more needs to be done. I realize that you're probably not talking about piping, but about changing the link text and link target together – but that too is unnecessary if the existing link target works fine (by redirecting). Gawaon (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Kumboloi, thanks for that explanation. It reaffirms my believe that you were acting in good faith (I hope you took my revert that way as well). Springee (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a good reason to not use the article title in text (and they do exist), and that can be discussed on a per-case basis at the relevant article (or other) talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Remsense ‥ 论 17:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Just so long as it is realized that THERE RATHER OFTEN IS A GOOD REASON! National language preferences for one thing. Busywork drive-by changes should be strongly discouraged. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Goes without saying! Remsense ‥ 论 19:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I just thought I'd drive by and agree with that. E Eng 22:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The answer the the OP's question is "More or less yes", in the form of MOS:STYLEVAR. Remesense's idea above that article titles policy and its dependent naming-conventions guidelines and essays (which actually defer to MoS on style questions) somehow dictate in-article content. They absolutely do not, or we would simply merge them. However, agreement with the page title can actually qualify as a good reason for a text change under STYLEVAR a lot of time, such as when a old page title (and our mirroring of it in the text) was a misnomer, unhelpfully ambiguous, obsolete, or obscurantist. When such problems don't apply, then having more than one way to refer to the subject is a boon to editors and readers, since it allows us to write less repetitively. But the lead should almost always agree with the title, and start with the term/name in the title and secondarily provide any noteworthy alternative(s). Some exceptions of course apply, such as when a term/name in the title is a colloquialism and used for WP:COMMONNAME purposes in the title but is not the best way to introduce the first sentence (this is especially common at biographical articles, in which we often give the full "Elizabeth" or "Robert" name of someone more commonly called "Liz" or "Bobby" and given that way in the page title). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think they must dictate in-article content to a degree at least—it would make no sense to use a particular name in the title and initial definition (I've been assuming congruence throughout, e.g. no disambiguators considered) and then never again. Remsense ‥ 论 03:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a correlation/causation mix-up. What you're talking about is just WP:Common sense (to the point of "Don't be intentionally perverse as if with a goal of confusing readers as much as possible") and a matter of MOS:BETTER. It's not an element of title policy or of naming conventions, which do not address article content (except a few of the worst-written NC pages have a statement or two in them about body content that needs to move out of those pages; I've been cleaning those up as I run across them). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I've been racking my brain trying to articulate exactly what I mean here, but I do not think it is merely correlative. Hopefully that is a useful thought inasmuch beyond just the trivial truth that the language one is exposed to affects the language they go on to use and think in terms of. Remsense ‥ 论 19:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Legibility of thumbnails at default size

Moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Images § Legibility of thumbnails at default size

I am surprised there is no direct statement along the lines of If possible, the selection, placement, and sizing of images should allow readers to fully decipher what they are intended to illustrate; thumbnails should be legible with the default base size of 220px without requiring readers to expand them. It seems like much of the guidance has this as an unstated goal, but there are cases where it is slightly less intuitive that this is a principle that editors should heed. My one worry is hypothetical quibbling over what any given image is intended to illustrate—is the specific text written on a street sign important for illustrative purposes?—but I feel like that's totally explicable in each instance via editor discussion. It's clear that some appropriate images cannot be legible at thumbnail size in context, either because they are visually intricate or the placement context simply won't allow it, but it seems helpful to state that editors should make an attempt when it is possible. Remsense ‥ 论 16:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: Can you give an example? Magnolia677 (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Clicked around until I found one: at Crony capitalism#In sections of an economy, it's not really possible for me to discern the field of figures as men sitting at desks rather than just noise. This image should be displayed at a slightly larger size, and maybe cropped a bit.

Another class of examples is insignia and coats of arms, where arguably key details that would be legible in the original contexts are illegible at thumbnail sizes in infoboxes, especially in cases where there are especially elaborate versions that editors sometimes opt for out of a misplaced sense of completeness (I guess). Remsense ‥ 论 17:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

They're everywhere. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

That is something that gives me pause: this seems like a common-sense guideline to me, but either it's so obvious that it shouldn't be a guideline (?) or it's not nearly as obvious to others. Remsense ‥ 论 21:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I've always found it odd that we don't have a minimum size recommendation. Can't tell you how many times I see collages or galleries that have teeny mini images that lack accessibility for all. Moxy🍁 03:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do to print articles out (or otherwise have them in a format where the thumbnails are all you get), also. Remsense ‥ 论 03:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I do worry my criterion above is too loosey-goosey to be a good guideline; I don't think there's a problem with speaking in terms of minimum size as such, maybe it's better getting the intended point across? Remsense ‥ 论 03:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Definitely better getting the intended point across. If we try to impose a numeric min. size, people are going to argue about it until the end of fargin' time, based on the behavior of their preferred devices and browsers, and so on. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC); rev'd. 13:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you think about the potential phrasing first presented—i.e. if at all possible, what images are being used to illustrate should be fully legible when scaled according to the default base size Remsense ‥ 论 03:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Lots of unnecessary words. When possible, images with text should be legible when ... I'm not sure what "according to" the default base size means. Is it really the default base size? Are more than handful of editors reading this going to understand what "base size" means? I thinking there must be a clearer way to get the point across, but the goal seems right. (Speaking of "getting the intended point across": ironically, my previous message had an extraneous word, "than", in it – in a position that reversed or at least badly confused my meaning, so I've removed it.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to phrase it. It's not just images with text either, it's all images that are added but cannot actually be deciphered without expansion. Remsense ‥ 论 04:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Commas around incorporated businesses' names

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

Mumumu Inc. is a company ...
Mumumu, Inc. is a company ...
Mumumu, Inc., is a company ...

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

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! I cannot wait for someone to say that Inc. is an "appositive", and therefore the commas have to come in pairs. E Eng 01:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Is that the cool way of saying that you don't think it is one? Primergrey (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
There is a lengthy discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (companies)#Use of comma and abbreviation of Incorporated. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 09:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
@Redrose64 thank you so much for your link and oh dear it really is long. Juwan (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

An editing policy question

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

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

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

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

It's fine, really. This is one of those things the MOS exists to obliquely neutralize—i.e. this is a pretty conjectural position and not worth getting into all-in or all-out discussions over. Remsense ‥ 论 17:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

“Obliquely neutralize” — there’s a new one for me! 😅

I just thought it would help lighten the bureaucratic tone of these articles to dial down the legalese, as many editors feel increasingly on edge with all the rules and regulations they discover the more they wade into Misplaced Pages. Augnablik (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Genuinely, I apologize that I can't talk normal when the situation would benefit from it. Take that how you will. Remsense ‥ 论 17:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Or shall. E Eng 17:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

😂 Augnablik (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Am losing the will to live here, mate. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The classic rule is that, in the first person (I/we) the unmarked form is "shall", whereas "will" connotes a deliberate choice, but in the second and third person, the unmarked form is "will", whereas "shall" connotes a demand based on the speaker's authority.

There are two good ways to remember this. The classic one is the English canard about the Irishman in trouble in the lake, who said "I will drown and no one shall save me", so to respect his wishes, they let him drown.

The other one involves Tallulah Bankhead. I shan't repeat it here. I expect anyone who wants to can Google it. --Trovatore (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Just be aware that you’ve entered the purview of a global encyclopedia, and that means you will encounter forms of English that aren’t necessarily common locally to wherever you live. MapReader (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Is this one of those rfc:2119 situations where we should stick to a limited number of modal verbs on a sliding scale (must > should > may)? --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@MapReader, Although I’m aware of different styles of English in different parts of the world, the shall/will issue I’ve raised here is more about how Misplaced Pages wants to show officially expected actions in particular situations.

Not like , “Today I shall go to the beach” … but like, “Administrators shall hold discussions on the matter for one week before reaching a decision.” Augnablik (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Nevertheless, ‘shall’ is still reasonably common usage in formal, official or legal written texts, in the UK, in a way that I don’t think you can say for the US (but willing to be corrected…), and is not considered particularly user-unfriendly. Your observation to the contrary above is therefore pitched from the perspective of a particular Engvar, which was my original point. MapReader (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@MapReader, you're probably right about "how official" shall sounds to UK and US readers of official documents. And frankly, that word is still used from time to time in official documents in the US, even though much more rarely these days. Even so, here's a thought: if will would work equally well as shall in Misplaced Pages policy and guidance documents, why not use it consistently here so as to make "official stuff" sound a bit less bureaucratic but at the same time affirming of expected behavior?

Though I'm American, I doubt that any of our UK cousins across the pond would feel affronted if Misplaced Pages consciously adopted will in its policy and guidelines. Wouldn't it simply be one more example of Misplaced Pages's intentions of providing as welcoming and user-friendly environment as possible in which to work, while in no way demeaning other varieties of writing?

Alternatively, to avoid the whole shall/will issue, there are still other ways wording could be done. For example, instead of "Administrators shall hold discussions...,” we could say, "Administrators are to hold discussions ....” Augnablik (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

More rules about how rules should be written could be one step forward, two steps back. E Eng 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Onbiously, you're free to edit how you want, but as a general rule, surely it isn't WP's object, nor that of the MoS, to try and enforce general language preferences on our editors? MapReader (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

You state the onbious. E Eng 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, @MapReader, I think it’s time for me to gracefully bow out of the discussion now. My only Intent in making my suggestion was far from an attempt to enforce, though I see how it might be interpreted that way.

Instead, I was trying to make a case for a slight change in wording that seemed to me could help Misplaced Pages accomplish its very positive goal of creating an open, light, friendly ambience — just as seniors helping in the Teahouse and elsewhere are asked to do with those who ask questions. I know that as some editors get involved with Misplaced Pages, they come to feel weighed down by many rules and regulations and even become fearful they might make a slip and face serious consequences.

It was this I hoped my suggestion might help prevent in the long run, with the flip-side benefit of editor retention. Augnablik (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Archimedes § MOS:'S (redux)

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

Specifically, input would be appreciated regarding the treatment of derivative proper names (e.g. Archimedes' principle) in running text versus the titles of dedicated articles. Thanks! Remsense ‥ 论 07:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Just for the record, I detest and/or, which the MOS backs me on, but (besides ... instead of the clearer in quotations) I also detest Archimedes's. Can't we just use the Latinate genitive Archimedis? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

As someone who does not particularly despise Archimedes's, I would cast my even less ramified ;vote for that. Remsense ‥ 论 05:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on American football bio leads

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

Usage of historical place names in infoboxes

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

When are words being used as-words?

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

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

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

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

“

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

”

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

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

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

Order of explanation for placing ref as per MOS:REFPUNCT

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

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

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

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

No, you don't have to wait for punctuation to place a reference. The current wording is fine. Gawaon (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It clearly states that we do, in the current wording - "references are placed after adjacent punctuation" Chaosdruid (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it's saying that if there is adjacent punctuation, the ref goes after, but it does not preclude placing a ref immediately after the relevant text when there is no adjacent punctuation. Schazjmd (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I've always understood the part about punctuation to mean only that if the text to which the footnote applies ends in a punctuation mark, treat that mark as part of the text you're footnoting and put the footnote after it. There's no implication that you have to defer placement of the footnote to the next punctuation mark that appears. And certainly not to the end of the sentence: the guideline covers commas as well. Largoplazo (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Upgrade MOS:ALBUM to an official guideline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly I think we should use "persons" as the unmarked plural of "person" Misplaced Pages-wide. Encyclopedic writing is a very formal register, and "people" has other baggage, often not intended.

That said, what sort of article is this? Are these city articles, or what? --Trovatore (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

There has been no negative intent on my part when using 'people', but so it goes.

These articles have been on various communities and I have made such changes for years, but till now have never had any editor state that grammar is immaterial. Hushpuckena (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Some section headings are either by guideline, like WP:ELORDER for "External links" or MOS:NOTES for "Notes" and "References" etc., or by tradition and common usage, like "Notable people", "Awards", "Published works", written as plurals, even if there's only one entry. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed; keep it plural, also like "Languages" in the sidebar (even for only one language) and like "Media" in the Commons template (even for only one file there). Doremo (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: