Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

LQ and nested quotations

What is the rationale behind the guideline "it is not conventional to change nested quotations inside quoted material to use logical quotation; preserve the original punctuation order"? It is being used as a rationale to maintain a comma inside a quoted song title; Here's the text in question:

In Rolling Stone, David Fricke wrote, "the alternate takes highlight Robert Plant's ripening vocal poise and, in a rough mix of 'Ramble On,' the decisive, melodic force of John Paul Jones' bass and John Bonham’s drumming."

This strikes me as totally irrational and pointless—it also looks "broken" when the entire rest of the article is in LQ, and when we don't preserve other elements of punctuation such as curly quotemarks, ALLCAPS, or single-vs-double quotemarks. Where did this guideline come from? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Plenty of publishers alter it the other way to achieve "harmony". But we need expert opinion on this particular issue. Tony (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Altering the punctuation of the internal quotation would seem to defeat the point of LQ. --Izno (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone activate our team of rabbis. EEng 06:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Rabbis or rabbits? --Izno (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Or rabies? EEng 12:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Izno: You'll have to explain—your point is not self-evident. The point of "Logical Quotation" is the "logical" bit, and—why would we alter virtually every other aspect of formatting but that? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

We're always being told that LQ respects the integrity of the quoted material. EEng 12:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Not with regard to formatting issues, which are not issues of "integrity". The MoS calls for the reformatting of ALLCAPS, spaced emdashes, etc—even "trivial spelling and typographic errors"—as I've already pointed out more than once. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

But whether punctuation is inside vs outside quotation marks is an issue of integrity? EEng 02:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

No. Per MOS:CONFORM:

"Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment provided that doing so will not change or obscure meaning or intent of the text; this practice is universal among publishers. These are alterations which make no difference when the text is read aloud ..."

To drive the bolded issue home: if a public figure gave a speech that were quoted in both the British and American press, the British source would use British formatting of the quote, and the American, American. The exact same quote would be available in different formatting, even different spelling (yes, the National Post quotes Trump in Canadian spelling), while the words used would be the same. "Integrity" applies only to the words used, unless the formatting or spelling have some special semantic importance. In the case of a quoted speech—people don't normally speak punctuation. This normally applies to the written word as well, as the text is most often at the mercy of the style standards of the place of publication—which means the same piece published in different sources may (and often does) have different formatting (the National Post, for instance, republishes Washington Post stories reformatted with Canadian spelling). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

But if whether punctuation is inside vs outside quotation marks is not an integrity issue, then what aspect of integrity is LQ protecting? EEng 03:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Same as it's ever been—things such as not inserting terminating punctuation into a quotation where the original quotation itself was not terminated (à la the common American Trout Mask Replica is the best album ever, but my mother still hates it. quoted as The Critic called Trout Mask Replica "the best album ever.") or logically terminable (The report'll be delivered by Friday. quoted as The manager said the report would be delivered "by Friday."). Etc. etc. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

things such as not inserting terminating punctuation into a quotation where the original quotation itself was not terminated – And what else? EEng 05:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You know what else, as it's been explained to you ad nauseam before. Game's over. I won't be responding to this attempt to derail the discussion again. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Your inability to discuss in good faith is what has derailed the conversation. You may now fulminate if you choose. EEng 13:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• It turns out it was SMcCandlish who made the change 2018-07-25. Could we get a rationale for this? None was given in the edit comment, nor in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 206#"Typographic conformity" section cleanup where he announced he was working on the section. Why on earth would we have (for example) quoted spaced emdashes conform to the MoS but not LQ? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

  I agree. That "It is not conventional..." note that was added there seems out of character for SMcCandlish, and outside what we do in most other cases. Maybe he was compromising with someone? Dicklyon (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  "It is not conventional..." Since when do British sources normally maintain US-style formatting in quotations & vice versa? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

To me, it seems that there is a significant difference between quoting material within the text (where the material 'becomes' part of the WP article text, and thus cannot without inconsistency have a different punctuation style) and displaying material within the article which is surely what a nested quotation (and perhaps a blockquote) is doing. I've observed the practice described in the guideline occurring in the English WP for many years (my first edit was in 2007) and I'm greatly surprised that it was only formalised a few months ago. (Full disclosure: it would seem that I was involved in the particular dispute that prompted the OP.) Re: "when we don't preserve other elements of punctuation such as curly quotemarks, ALLCAPS, or single-vs-double quotemarks" - this is a genuine point, but then I have seen at least some of those features preserved also, although far less frequently. Harfarhs (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Harfarhs: The MoS calls for preserving them when the semantics requires it—otherwise they are normalized to MoS standards, per MOS:CONFORM. Are you aware of a real-world style guide that recommends doing otherwise? And please consider how problematic this would be—for instance, we could have the same text quoted in a British and an American source, both of which will be formatted to their own style standards. Which would we prefer at Wikipedia, and (importantly) why? MOS:CONFORM gives us a rationale for ignoring outside styling practices in most cases, which I've already quoted above. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I've unarchived this to respond, since my judgement (or lack of it) was central the matter, but I was on a long wikibreak.

I only went that direction because I thought people would object if I did not, on the basis of the principle of minimal change (MOS:PMC). I agree that "... a rough mix of 'Ramble On,' the decisive, melodic force of John Paul Jones' bass ..." isn't actually helpful to readers and looks jarring when we're otherwise using LQ. I see everyone seems to agree, so I'm very happy to have a dispelling of my paranoia about LQ-haters and never-change-a-thing-about-quotations people rising up with pitchforks and torches. PMC's always been a loose judgement call anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish: nice to see you back, and good to see it was a wikibreak and not something more serious. Could you clarify what you're saying here?—are you saying the wording in the MoS should be changed? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, IT LIVES. (The marmot-faced ninjas in clown suits who sneak in at night have yet to be successful in assassinating me.) Anyway, yes, I'm saying that exception I worked in (which I was skeptical about to begin with) was a bad idea. I didn't realize it was still in there, so I just self-reverted it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

It looks like Ritchie333 reverted it long before this was even resolved. I suppose Harfarhs should be informed of the changes. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

"..when we're otherwise using LQ" - yes, we're using LQ, but we're displaying text written by people who didn't use LQ, so there's a fairly obvious issue with integrity. If you can get past that, good on you, but others will quite naturally have trouble with it. BTW thanks to Curly "JFC" Turkey for the ping. Harfarhs (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Harfarhs: "there's a fairly obvious issue with integrity"—no, and I've already addressed this point more than once in this discussion. Virtually every other style issue in a quotation is changed to conform with the MoS, so the "obvious" question is: why on earth would LQ be an exception? I've also given examples above as to why doing so would be problematic. Please address them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

If you mean the bit where you mention "a British and an American source", I don't see the problem—just use whichever format the source uses. Harfarhs (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Harfarhs: because you demand it, without even providing a rationale? Emphatically no. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, the whole point of LQ is to ensure that the meaning and intent of the author/speaker is properly maintained; only once this is ensured should consistency of style be a consideration. I think perhaps we are being too prescriptive with some of these guidelines, which tends to interfere with our primary mission. CThomas³ (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

a) I "demand" nothing, and it's a pretty spectacular misunderstanding to suppose I am demanding something. I'm suggesting a pretty obvious, pretty easy approach that requires no Procrustean behaviour. b) See my previous comments in this thread if you require a "rationale". Harfarhs (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Harfarhs: You've been given an awfully detailed rationale to which you've given no rebuttal. As the consensus is against you, the onus is on you to do something about it. You could start by rebutting any of the points I've made with something more substantial than "I don't see the problem". Until you make a good-faith effort to do so, you'll be unable to change the years-long consensus.

Have you actually read MOS:CONFORM, by the way? It includes a rationale for these sorts of things. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia Manual of Style regarding commas

Here is a section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, about which I have a question.

The Manual of Style (WP:MOS#Commas) states:

In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element unless followed by other punctuation. Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year, unless followed by other punctuation. In both cases, the last element is treated as parenthetical.

Correct: He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands. Incorrect: He set October 1, 2011 as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma to meet his demands.

So, my understanding is that when entering a date, we place a comma both before and after the year. Hence, two commas are used. Also, when entering a location, we place a comma both before and after the state. Hence, two commas are used.

So, here is an example: The date of December 7, 1941, will live in infamy. There is a comma both before and after the year "1941". Another example: The population of Dallas, Texas, exceeds one million. There is a comma both before and after the state "Texas".

So, my first question: Is my understanding correct? My second question: Does this rule also apply (or not) to article titles? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a question there as far as I can see... - SchroCat (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Sorry. My questions should appear now. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the commas should be used in the manner you described. RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. So, then, ... does this rule also apply (or not) to article titles? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It should in theory, but you should expect resistance from certain quarters. RGloucester — ☎ 20:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to say which article you are asking about, rather than us trying to deal in hypotheticals. - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying, perhaps, that according to the above, we should title our article for Peoria, Arizona, as Peoria, Arizona, because a comma separates each element and follows the last element unless followed by other punctuation? I guess it does say that, but no one thinks that it should.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No, because it's not being used in a parenthetical manner, just as a title - SchroCat (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No, because titles don't end with commas. I really don't think that's what Spadaro is asking. Far more likely he wants to know if, for example, 2018 Schoharie, New York limousine crash should have a comma after York per MOS. My answer is the same as that from RGloucester above. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. This is the article (and title) that I am asking about: 2018 Schoharie, New York limousine crash. On the article Talk Page (located here ---> Talk:2018 Schoharie, New York limousine crash#Requested move October 7, 2018), I stated that two commas were needed. Another editor said "no" and gave an explanation that I did not quite understand. So, I came to this Talk Page. What should happen with that article title (2018 Schoharie, New York limousine crash)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x3 It seems, to me, that ambiguity and potential confusion increases with your manner of restating the guideline. If your focus is on a comma before and after the year, you could come to apply it as 15 October, 2018, for day-month-year formulations which would be incorrect. And it would be incorrect to assume that multiple levels of subordinate divisions will always conclude with a state as well. I would suggest that the last sentence in the linked guideline: "In both cases, the last element is treated as parenthetical." lends similar confusion and I'd be curious, otherwise, to know the intent and purpose for its inclusion. Among other things, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Notes says that MoS instructions about sentences also apply to items that use sentence case which would seem to mean that they should apply to article titles whenever said titles are given in sentence case (I also see examples where this is not applied in practice).--John Cline (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand the explanation given at the page... but I don't agree with that interpretation at all. The editor is making a distinction between when a comma-separated place name is used as a noun: She grew up in Victoria, British Columbia, but went to school in Nanaimo. vs. when it is used as an adjective: She grew up in a Victoria, British Columbia, household. – the idea being that, according to this distinction, the second example should be rendered as She grew up in a Victoria, British Columbia household.

I don't see how the guidance in the MOS makes that kind of distinction. Yes, the example given is where a comma-separated place name is used as a noun, but it doesn't state that the comma inclusion or treating that final geographic subdivision as parenthetical only applies in cases where the place is being used as a noun. In fact, the description of treating the final subdivision as parenthetical would suggest the terminal comma is required... because what we're really saying here is that She grew up in a Victoria household. but we're adding information to the "Victoria" part to clarify which Victoria. Similarly, if we were writing She often played with Matt, her neighbour, in the nearby park. we would never write She often played with Matt, her neighbour in the nearby park. (which actually changes the meaning of the sentence). You don't need to include the "her neighbour" part of the sentence, so it's set off in commas. Similarly, you don't necessarily need the "New York" in "Schoharie, New York limousine crash", so it should be "Schoharie, New York, limousine crash". IMHO. Of course, given the relative uniqueness of "Schoharie", the suggestion to just go with "Schoharie limousine crash" sidesteps the dispute effectively. 🙂 —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. The MOS example just happened to use a noun. But, that does not mean that the rule applies only when a noun is used. That was my feeling, as well. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with Joey here. The commas are important to meaning. With no second comma “Schoharie, New York limousine crash” links the name “New York” to the limo (indicating a "New York limo" as opposed to a "Connecticut limo" or "New Jersey limo")... With a second comma “Schoharie, New York, limousine crash” links the name “New York” to the town of Schoharie (as opposed to a Schoharie in some other state) - which is the intent. So... if New York is to be mentioned, include the second comma. Blueboar (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I second (third?) Joey's and Blueboar's interpretation. It is a parenthetical and thus requires the second comma, just as it would a closing parenthesis. I also agree that "Schoharie limousine crash" is probably sufficient for the title and avoids the comma issue; New York can be clarified in the lead paragraph. CThomas³ (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with reasoning above: don't mention New York or any other place if it's obvious from the context. As for comma, I'd treat it case by case, just as all writers must for many of their comma decisions. Avoid ambiguity, and if not ambiguous, consider the bumpiness a disadvantage. Tony (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Just as an FYI: The general consensus is that, when searching for this incident, most people will remember "New York". But, no one will know or remember the name of that small town (Schoharie). Hence, most have advocated to have the words "New York" and "limousine" in the title. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Ever heard of a redirect? RGloucester — ☎ 14:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree on the redirect. Additionally, we can have both versions of the redirect, so those who prefer the comma and those who don't can both have their preferred versions. CThomas³ (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Why not avoid the comma question and use parentheses instead: "Schoharie (New York)"? Jmar67 (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting approach. Thanks. But, I have never seen a Wikipedia article title use parentheses like that. Do you have any other Wikipedia examples of that? I imagine that that goes against some rule or another (for article titles). But I am not sure. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

There is... see WP:USPLACES. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This applies to the titles of articles on the placename (and in general to mention of it in articles). Schoharie, New York complies with it. However, I wouldn't interpret it as mandating this style anytime the town occurs in a title. As far as examples, I have seen parentheses used frequently in titles of musical works to disambiguate when more than one composer produced a work with the same name. It seems like a very reasonable approach. Jmar67 (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Another possibility: 2018 limousine crash in Schoharie, New York. Jmar67 (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Since I sort of indirectly triggered this, my point was this: All the cited examples from the MOS above, and at the article talk page, concern the use of CITY, STATE, as a noun. I asked, what happens when we use it adjectivally, i.e., YEAR CITY, STATE EVENT? There is nothing in the MOS currently on this.

One other editor believes the comma isn't necessary in that construction; he cites the fact that when we use full dates as event descriptors, we don't generally put a comma after the year (I think the idea is that we don't put commas after adjectives generally).

I see the point above that the second element could easily thus be seen as a descriptor for any noun in the event, but I don't think most native English speakers will understand it that way.

Frankly, I do agree that we can moot the whole issue with "Schoharie limousine crash": the year isn't currently necessary, there are no other Schoharies in the U.S. and using just the state would lead to the frequent conflation of the state and the city. I should add that a number of events that occurred in specific locations within New York City itself—transportation disasters such as July 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment, December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment and Kew Gardens train crash—use the name of the neighborhood, not even the borough, in which they occurred, without any further distinction seen as necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we do always put comma after the year if there's one before, and after state if there's one before, whether there's every example in MOS or not. Many style guides explicitly say to do so. I think they've been reviewed before; maybe we can find that discussion or review them again. Dicklyon (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

E.g. the lastest Chicago Manual of Style (17th) section 6.17: "Commas in pairs. Whenever a comma is placed before an element to set it off from the surrounding text (such as "1920" or "Minnesota" in the first two examples below), a second comma is required if the phrase or sentence continues beyond the element being set off. ..." Their examples are also noun phrases, not adjectives, but the "whenever" seems clear enough. Dicklyon (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright, that seems pretty clear, although if I were a regular user of the CMS I'd ask them to consider whether this applies to paired commas in adjective phrases as well, and state so explicitly, as there does seem to be an increasing trend towards dropping the second comma in that usage (which, of course, may just be laziness, but laziness has led to many linguistic changes in the past, so let us not knock it). I looked in my old copy of the AP Stylebook, but it has nothing to say AFAICT. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: This website isn't a major stylistic guide, but it seems to be drawing on them. It suggests using commas after the year when dates are used adjectivally. However, it notes that this is still in a state of doubt:

When a date is used as an adjective, most authorities require a comma following the year. Yet at least one significant authority (Bryan Garner, in his third edition of Garner's Modern American Usage) omits it. Given the uncertainty, it is best to recast the sentence.

Example: The July 10, 2011[,] meeting was canceled due to a hurricane watch. Revised: The meeting scheduled for July 10, 2011, was canceled due to a hurricane watch.

I think this also applies to placenames. Unfortunately we do not have the luxury in article titles of recasting it this way (at least I don't think so), which is all the more argument for just using "Schoharie" without the state, to me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dicklyon and Joseph A. Spadaro: OK, I have done further research and found just what Garner has to say. He, as it happens, is about the only authority I've found who speaks directly to this issue (i.e., the adjectival use of comma-separated placenames) and I think that website's characterization of his position as "omits it" is too mild. Here's what he has to say about this in The Oxford Dictionary of Modern American Usage and Style, from about 2000:

The practice of using as adjectives place names having two or more words is generally to be resisted. But it is increasingly common. Although California home and Austin jury are perfectly acceptable, Sacramento, California home and Austin, Texas jury are not. To make matters worse, some writers place a second comma after the state. Thus, using a city plus a state as an adjective disrupts the flow of the sentence—e.g., "Farmland's president, Marc Goldman, hired sleuths who traced the missing containers to an Elizabeth, N.J., warehouse he says is filled with discarded bottles of designer water." (Wall Street J.) Such constructions contribute to noun plague, lessen readability, and bother literate readers.

Well okaaaaay, Mr. Garner, do let us know what you think ... actually I think he makes some very good points, and we should strongly consider not only their applicability to this discussion but appropriately amending the MOS so it, too, recommends dealing with this by avoiding the comma and recasting the sentence so the second element, if necessary, is introduced in some other way, much like we do if you find yourself beginning a sentence with a number that should be spelled out. Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Garner is unique (and uniquely American) in that respect, I think. I do agree it's good advice to avoid such constructions; omitting states is often fine, and European-style dates are often OK, so that takes care of some cases. But when something is set off by a comma, omitting the second one is "not acceptable" as Garner says, even if he thinks including it is even worse. Dicklyon (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

What's the counterargument, though? That we're weakening the general rule regarding appositive phrases?

And I'd like to see if say, any Australian or Canadian stylists have weighed in on the question (I think the former country, in particular, has the similar issue as the U.S. with multiple states have a community with the same name). Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I did some more research, and Garner actually outlines his thinking about this in greater detail when discussing the use of full MD,Y dates as modifying phrases in the 2016 version of Garner's Modern English Usage, critiquing the arguments for its use in the process. I find this argument equally applicable to the comma after the adjectival state:

The idea of the comma after the year, as it has commonly been taught, is that the year is in apposition, so the comma is required. But if that year is an appositive, it's unlike other appositives; it certainly isn't interchangeable with the noun (the date) that precedes it. The more plausible argument—supporting the absence of the comma after the year—has two parts. First, the comma is really just separating two numerals, so if a second comma isn't syntactically required, then it doesn't belong <a November 17, 2001 meeting>. Second, the comma after the date marks a nonexistent pause; when a full date is used adjectivally, a knowledgeable speaker of the phrase marches toward the noun instead of pausing after the phrase. An adjective represents a surge forward, while a comma represents a backward-looking pause. It makes little sense to punctuate a forward-looking adjective with a pause at the end of it.

Res ipsa loquitur. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Garner makes great points. But his opinion is uniquely in contrast to "as it has commonly been taught" as he says. So yes let's work to avoid the issue, but still if we put a comma before we need one after, according to essentially all grammar authorities. Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: OK, fair enough, if the consensus is, even by omission, for the second comma.

But nonetheless, we could perhaps certainly add some mention of this issue to the MOS, discouraging the use of the comma-separarated date or location as a modifier but calling for the second comma if that use is unavoidable? Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the MOS is fine, as is. But, I would not object to the clarification you propose. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Is my understanding correct?" Yes. "Does this rule also apply ... to article titles?" Yes, absent some special-case reason it would not (the most common being that we wouldn't change the title of a published work, such as a book named December 7, 1941 and the American Entry into World War II). — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 07:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Possessive of "United States"

A question arose today on the possessive of "United States". It could be interpreted as a singular (country name) or plural form. According to MOS:POSS, if singular the possessive would be "United States's"; if plural it would be "United States'". What is correct? I would like to see this addressed in the MOS as a special case of a plural construable as singular. Jmar67 (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Preferably, you would avoid this problem altogether by writing 'American'...if for some reason that is distasteful to you, the headlinese 'US' is an option. RGloucester — ☎ 20:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Having now looked at the specific problem you faced, I realise that I was slightly off the mark. Still, however, the answer is to rewrite the sentence, as opposed to using a clunky possessive. In other words, write 'the largest university in the United States', or equivialent. The usual answer to these sorts of problems is a rewrite. No matter where you put that apostrophe, it won't read nicely. RGloucester — ☎ 20:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree with RG... phrasing such as “... of the United States” or “... in the United States” almost always works better than an apostrophe. Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)′

United States' is correct. You don't add an S if the name or item you're trying to show possession on ends in an S. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

That's if you're under 45 or went to public school; if you're over 45 and went to private school, you add 's. EEng 21:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The "no apostrophe" only applies if the item ending in S is actually a plural itself, as MOS:POSS states. We've gotten lazy over the years and have begun to leave it out, but technically it should be "Thomas's", "Massachusetts's", and "the United States's" (as awkward as that may now look). I also agree that the best call would be to rewrite the sentence to avoid the possessive. CThomas³ (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The rule that I was taught (not sure if this is generally accepted or not though) is to add the 's' if you would actually make the sound when speaking aloud. So when pronouncing the possessive form of "United States", I would say 'United States', so I would not add an 's' on the end of that and just go with "United States'". But for the possessive form of the name "Jess", I would say 'Jesses', so "Jess's" is how I would write that one out. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Amaury: That's true only if you pronounce States' with one syllable. If you pronounce it with two, then States's is correct. The idea that you should drop the s in all such situations is a persistent myth born from confusion over the dropping of the possessive syllable in cases such as "Jesus' son". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Come on, people, ending with s is not the key thing here. It's about plurals. Here, I'd treat "States" as plural (as opposed to treating "United States" as singular). So no s after the apostrophe. The OP posted a good question, and most of the responses here simply don't address it. RGloucester's does: better to rewrite and avoid the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Should be treated as a plural noun, as we would the Phillipines or the United Nations. Unless you write it out as "The United States of America" e.g. "The United States of America's population is a million." . (Though obviously bad form) --Masem (t) 02:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

All awkward, though sometimes unavaidable. The abbreviation is often preferable, used as an epithet, so no clumsy possessive marking: "US population growth"; "US interference in Chile's politics"; "US vulnerability to climate change is ignored by the Murdoch press". Tony (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Those aren't plural nouns though. They don't take plural verbs. The Philippines is an archipelagic country in Southeast Asia. The United Nations is an intergovernmental organization... If it takes a singular verb (is), it must be a singular noun. Whether it ends in an S or was derived from some phrase that was once treated as a plural noun doesn't matter. In the here and now, it is singular. The United States is a country composed of 50 states.... We all agree that United States's is ugly as hell. If we get tired of recasting every single sentence to avoid that form, the solution is to change the MOS's requirement that all singular nouns, regardless of spelling, must take 's. No sane style guide acts like this. Modulus12 (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Chicago does. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I have often felt that the written form should be optically acceptable (usually avoiding "s's") but that its pronunciation should be left to the speaker. Conversely, the widespread pronunciation of an additional "s" should not require it to appear in the written form. That is just a personal rule for me and not based on any particular style guide. I may have heard it in school once. I would write "United States'" but likely pronounce it with a second "s" for clarity that it is possessive. Jmar67 (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Which is just the most bizarre rule. Why would you leave unwritten what is pronounced? What would make s's "optically unacceptable"? This is one orthography myth that I found infuriatingly distracting in how obnoxiously it draws attention to itself. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

A workable rule starts to appear when we divide English words that end in S into two groups: (1) Words where the final S is etymologically part of an added English morpheme: states = state + s or McDonald's = McDonald + 's. (2) Words where the final S is part of the basic word (or a foreign language morpheme): Jones, James, gladiolus. For group 1, the spoken possessive form is the same as the common case, and the written form adds an apostrophe but no s, or nothing at all if it already has an apostrophe. Even when the word or phrase is semantically singular. "The United States' biggest axe." "McDonald's newest kosher cheeseburger". For group 2, the possessive adds an apostrophe S. "Jones's waggon." "The gladiolus's stem." Certain styles guides have exceptions and nuances, but this broadly works. Indefatigable (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that could work. My AP Stylebook gives this category a succinct name, "Nouns plural in form, singular in meaning." Examples: mathematics' rules, measles' effects, General Motors' profits, and the United States' wealth. I like it. Modulus12 (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not actually the same thing as what Indefatigable is talking about—neither MacDonald's nor gladiolus are "plural in form". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was only talking about his Group 1, which are nouns plural in form, singular in meaning. His Group 2 seems like it should be a separate discussion, as this one only concerns words like United States. Modulus12 (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

MacDonald's is in Group 1. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't be. If we're talking about the restaurant, it is a separate but especially small category of words (all proper nouns?) that already include an 's. I think sentences containing words like McDonald's will just have to always be written in a way that identifies possession through other means besides an ' or 's, because McDonald's already has those. Modulus12 (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Those would be "possessive in form, singular in meaning," and we can't really construct a proper possessive form with something that always looks possessive. Just write the sentence another way. Modulus12 (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that the proper form, for a formal register (per Chicago Manual of Style and our own MoS) is "the United States's", because "the United States'" implies the states acting as independent entities not as a unitary nation. I also agree with the repeated suggestion to just rewrite to avoid it because it's ugly. An occasional non-ideal result is almost inevitably the case with every style rule about everything. The "just recast the sentence" solution is virtually aways the answer. It's really just irrelevant that the AP Stylebook ignores the problem with "United States'" and advocates that style. It's a style guide (and one that only American journalists and PR flacks follow, and only some of them do) for a completely different kind of writing, driven almost entirely by two concerns: reading speed, and compression to save column space. It's a style that dispenses with accuracy, precision, nuance, and much else – things WP does not throw out. Some further analysis: Consider this sentence: "The roadies complained about having to cater to the band members' strange backstage demands". The band members are independent, not a combined entity. The United States do not operate that way (not since the states agreed on a constitution and a federal government over two centuries ago). Contrast with this: "The record company did not agree to the band's demands." The same group is acting as a single legal entity under contract law. It's semantically distinguishable, and directly comparable to "the United States's demands". — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 07:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Age range

I made an RFC while back here to change the format "(age X–Y)" to "(age X or Y)". Thoughts? Hddty. (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Wait, so it's just to change examples which are immediately adjacent? So "45–46" to "45 or 46", but leave every other possible age range as ""X–Y"?

Yes, only for adjacent age range. Hddty. (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The case posited is that wherein we know that X was born in 2000; on any given date in 2018, therefore, X is 17 or 18 years old -- or I suppose you could say they're 17–18. (Technical note: Actually, on December 31, 2018, they can only be 18.) But turn it around. Suppose we know that on some particular date in 2018 the person is 18 years old; we infer therefore that they were born in 1999 or 2000. How awkward, however, to phrase that as "born 1999–2000", which makes it sound like this person's mother had a very, very prolonged labor! EEng 19:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Not that anyone's suggesting using that phrase. This is just about a template used in infoboxes, right? EDIT: NO, I guess the template doesn't actually specify infoboxes. Is it really used that much outside of them? --tronvillain (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• At first glance I thought that "or" might be clearer for the cases I mention above, but looking at the RfC there was little support for that, plus there's this pesky "Asian age reckoning" which can lead to a 3-year range, apparently. So I don't see where this is all going. The idea of using "or" seems dead. EEng 04:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps "Born circa 2000" ?  Stepho  talk  22:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

That's more imprecise than it needs to be. EEng 00:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

And it won't work with age-calculation templates. The RfC concluded against the proposed change, anyway. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 07:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Meh... nothing says we have to use the template. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Changes regarding apostrophes on singular possessives

Back in December 2017, there was an RFC at WP:VPPOL on simplifying the rules for using apostrophes with possessives. That was closed as support, and then used to make this edit. I found this out in the process of discussing some recent edits, and it has given me a little heartburn.

First of all, the RFC attracted relatively few comments – even fewer than the talk page discussion that preceded it – and almost all of those who did had already commented there. This does not seem to comport with the higher standard for consensus that ARBCOM indicated should be used for policy changes. Considering this is a debate that has re-occurred at least 50 times, a change as somewhat radical as that deserved to have a solid consensus behind it.

While I am normally loathe to risk tearing open old wounds, I fear that leaving this as an uncontested fait accompli may set a bad precedent, and could lead to collateral issues down the road. I do not take a strong stance on what the guideline itself should say, but only that it should have the support of the community behind it. --Ipatrol (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I am normally loathe to risk tearing open old wounds – See WP:Diffusing conflict#Casting_dispersions,_inciteful_comments,_and_so_on. EEng 04:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I was told that WP:VPPOL would be the place to get the most participation on policy and guideline issues. So did at RFC there. If you want to re-open this, where would you stir up more interest next time? Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(unindent) I too would like to see some resolution/consensus on this. At present the WP:MOS#Possessives section only has:

For the apostrophe character, see § Apostrophes.

For thorough treatment of the English possessive, see Apostrophe.

Clicking the first link takes us to WP:MOS#Apostrophes which includes "*For usage of the possessive apostrophe, see WP:MOS#Possessives." meaning it loops back to where we started. Clicking on the second link takes us to Apostrophe. The lead of that article includes:

• The marking of possessive case of nouns (as in the eagle's feathers, or in one month's time).

and the body has a section on Apostrophe#Possessive apostrophe which starts out with:

See also: English possessive

Could we at least have this article use:

For thorough treatment of the possessive, see English possessive.

For the apostrophe character, see Apostrophe § Possessive apostrophe.

What I'm proposing is to:

1. Flip the two {{For}} lines around so that the line about possessives, the topic of the section, is first and the line about the apostrophe is second.
2. Change the link for the line about possessives from Apostrophe to English possessive which seems more directly applicable to the topic.
3. Change the link for the line about apostrophes from WP:MOS#Apostrophes to Apostrophe#Possessive apostrophe which is also seems more directly applicable to the topic and gets rid of the loop that provided no useful information for readers.

Ideally, the WP:MOS#Possessives section included some WP:MOS specific guidelines, particularly about words that end with an "s," but I know that area is a battleground. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Huh? That section says "For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending with an s, add 's". There's nothing wrong with that guidance. It's simple, succinct, and consistent. DrKay (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Marc seems to have not noticed that the section on Possessives contains subsections that have the content. Dicklyon (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I also agree. The RFC was well argued on the basis of extensive research of authoritative contemporary style guidelines. The simplification resolves a lot of edit warring. And I don't have much sympathy for an editor that unhelpfully re-opens an issue without any argumentation on the substance of the matter and whilst simultaneously claiming not to care very much! MapReader (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep. The wording is fine, as was the process that led to it. There does simply seem to be a "not noticed that the section on Possessives contains subsections that have the content" PEBKAC error. :-) It happens (yesterday I was writing a #Templates section for a wikiproject page without noticing that it had an entire Templates tab and subpage that has already been there for years).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Foreign-script terms in article body

So I had noticed this a few times before, but it only really caught my eye in the stub article Maqam Ibrahim: terms of foreign origin that are each written successively in multiple ways in the body text, e.g. "Ibrāhīm (إِبْـرَاهِـيْـم‎, Abraham)". It really stands out in a short text like this, where such spelling "variants" take up maybe a quarter of the entire article. I recall from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Using Japanese in the article body that if a foreign term has its own article, there is no need to provide the original script/transliteration as that is given in said article. Does this also apply to other languages? --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• It certainly should, and more so for non-Japanese articles. Japanese text is appropriately included in Japan-related articles more frequently than others because it is impossible to reconstruct the original orthography of Japanese terms from their Roman transliterations, and many (especially names) can be extraordinarily difficult to track down. Even in Japanese articles this ideally would be kept to a minimum. None of those in the Maqam Ibrahim (except for Maqam Ibrahim himself) are appropriate. If the original can be reconstructed faithfully from the romanization, then even the one for Maqam Ibrahim himself may be inappopropriate. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Mmm... thought so. Depending on the transliteration method, it is possible to completely reconstruct Arabic from its romanisation. Mind if I take this as a free pass to get rid of these overtranslations? --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    • HyperGaruda: Go ahead—per WP:BRD, you're fine; if someone objects, they'll have to explicate those objections on the talk page. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• I have to agree with CT on this. Well-reasoned analysis. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 08:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Citations

Should the title be using 'Title' or Title (italicized) in citations? On the links (as they appear in that source), titles are ‘Title’.

• — Lbtocth^talk 18:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

References

• Standard convention is to italicize titles of works in all cases; quote marks (double quotes or " ") are used for smaller articles within a larger work. I would use Speechless and Dateline there. --Jayron32 18:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand the issue is that some websites may use single quotation marks for show titles instead of italics, but per MOS:CONFORM, text formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text (such as titles of works) should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment provided that doing so will not change or obscure meaning or intent of the text.— TAnthony^Talk 18:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

And it's important to do so: Imagine an article discussing both Paranoid and "Paranoid", which then quoted an article with different styling from Wikipedia's—we'd quickly lose track of whether we were talking about the album or the song. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Use the italics. Even the citation templates' documentation say to do it (it's one of the "codified" exceptions to the instructions to avoid wikimarkup in |title=, |chapter=, and certain other parameters). — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 08:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Names of sports venues

Tried searching, but cannot tell if this has been raised before. There is inconsistency across Wikipedia regarding the use of commercially sponsored names for sports arenas. Sometimes we do. Sometimes we don't. I find the use of the sponsored names problematic, and against the spirit of the project. They change frequently, with the changes being reflected here somewhat randomly. They often remove geographic location from the name of a venue. Do we have a guideline? HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The guideline is, as always, WP:COMMONNAME, as this is really more an article titling question. Keep in mind WP:NAMECHANGES, as well, as sources from after an announced name change should be given more weight when deciding what the most common currently used name is. Many venues have never had a geographic tie in their name anyway. And, frankly, I find avoiding a sponsored name just because it's sponsored to be a false neutrality. That is, it itself is a POV, one that sponsored names are not valid. That's more problematic than actually following sources and using the current most common name as used in reliable sources. oknazevad (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with this. Many (most?) newer arenas have never been known by anything other than their sponsored names (Safeco Field, Levi’s Stadium, etc.). It would be quite difficult to impossible to try to find a non-sponsored name for them without making one up. Best to stick with what the most commonly used name for the arena is, even if that usage changes over time. CThomas³ (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no issue with arenas that have never had a non-commercial name. Clearly the sponsored name makes sense then. But there are many here in Australia where both the historical, and the modern, sponsored name seem to be used interchangeably. Deciding on "most common" would be a great source of argument here on Wikipedia. Interestingly, our favourite, reliable source for many matters in Australia, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, has a rigid policy against using sponsored names. That might bias the argument somewhat. HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

In these cases I would think, absent a clear consensus to change it, that the traditional name might prevail. WP:TITLE says to use the name that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize, and unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. Given this, I would think that the name that has been in use longer, and will likely be in use even after the next name change, would be the proper choice if the traditional name is still in widespread use alongside the new sponsored name, even if usage is fairly evenly split. Note that I don't believe that sponsored/unsponsored should tip the scales in either direction, but rather which name has been in use consistently for a longer period of time. CThomas³ (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Related issue:

I frequently see editors update links in articles after such name changes, rather than leaving the old name (which of course redirects to the article with the current titled (name) of the venue). I think articles should we written with the name in use at the time, which would aid in verifying with the sources. But some editors seem to not like linking to a redirect. MB 14:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I would generally agree with that... historical names should be used in historical contexts. For example, if some musician or band held a notable concert in “MegaCorp Arena” but the venue was subsequently renamed to “BigCo Arena”, the article on the concert should continue to use the old n (“MegaCorp”) name when discussing the venue - with perhaps a parenthetical giving the new name. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed (though just linking obviates the parenthetical, as long as the old name is also in the article at the new name). — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 08:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I have to concur that this is a WP:UCRN analysis. That those sometimes turn into lengthy and grumpy debates is just how it is. It has a {{Policy}} tag on it, so the community kind of insists on it, whether it's actually productive or practical. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 08:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorting the Scots and the French?

I could have sworn we had some guidance on how to sort (e.g.) O'Connor (O vs. C), MacDonald (M vs. D), and de Quincey (d vs. Q), but now I'm unable to find it. Do I misrecall, or could someone point me in the right direction? Context is a bibliography / list of works / references.

My instinct is to sort O'Connor as C, de Quincey as Q, but MacDonald and McDonald as M. But I really don't trust my instinct on this, so any pointers would be appreciated. --Xover (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this is covered in the WP:Category material? I'm not sure it's an MoS matter, though it wouldn't hurt to mention it briefly, I guess. If we don't have a "rule" about it, this may take some research. Find out what is most commonly done in vaguely comparable works (scholarly databases, encyclopedic works and biographical dictionaries that use entries in the form "Surname, Given Name(s)", and so on, to see how the majority of them sort. I think Xover's guess is probably correct, based on my own general sense of how this is done. But lower-register works, like telephone directories, tend to always use the first letter. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 08:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@AReaderOutThataway: Thanks, that was just the pointer I needed. It seems the guidance we have is that for sorting in categories, with the main section's shortcuts WP:NAMESORT / WP:LISTAS, and the subsection of most relevance to my issue at WP:MCSTJR.

For the examples above, the net result is that O'Connor sorts on O and ignoring the apostrophe for sorting purposes (O'Neill and Oneill are equivalent), MacDonald sorts as M, and there is no real general rule for de Quincey as it depends on everything from geography, time period, culture, to personal preference. As this guidance is for sorting of articles into a category, it assumes you can make the determination based on intersections of those factors for the article plus the category. As this is not the case for in-article bibliographies, this will effectively have to be a per-article determination considering some combination of the factors as they apply to the specific article and the same as they apply to the particular author, with weight, presumably, given to consistent sorting for the whole list. i.e. de Quincey and de Grazia should probably either both or neither sort under D in a single given article.

I think this is the sort of guidance that is useful to have in general, so if anyone feels the calling to do something about it, rewriting WP:NAMESORT as a general guideline that both WP:CAT and WP:MOS can point to would probably be a good idea. Any takers? --Xover (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

While I don't care for that particular sorting system very much, as a personal-preferences matter, I can see why we ended up with it, and would not "fight" it. It's also better to be consistent than to have a different sorting system in articles versus in categories. The simplest way to effectuate this would probably be to add a single line-item at MOS:LISTS about surname sorting, pointing to WP:NAMESORT, and saying to apply the same algorithm to list sorting as is used for categories. Then we would not need to rewrite NAMESORT (other than maybe adding a cross-reference saying MOS:LISTS also uses this sort order), nor duplicate or even summarize any of NAMESORT in MOS anywhere. If there's somewhere else in MoS that gets into DEFAULTSORT stuff, it could also cross-reference to NAMESORT (and vice versa, if a back-link would be helpful). It's probably not something that needs to be in the MoS page, since it's only a technical/arrangement quibble for a particular kind of list. If WP:MOS itself said anything about it at all, just "Lists arranged by surname should follow Wikipedia's sorting order." ought to be sufficient.

However, I did see one "failure to provide actual guidance" problem in NAMESORT's current wording, and have proposed a revision. I also let the regulars over there know that MoS peeps are considering it for incorporation by reference into MoS advice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

YYYY-YY date ranges (again)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Our advice on this keeps getting muddled and unhelpful, after successive and sometimes poorly discussed edits are made. I've opened a thread – at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Clarifying date ranges in YYYY–YY format – about re-clarifying it, especially to avoid the "2002–05 looks like 2002-05" problem, and to thwart "it's permissible so I can force it" wikilawyering.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for square brackets around language markers – [fr], etc. – in Template:Interlanguage link output

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Template talk:Interlanguage link#Use square brackets. The case is made that WP (like other publications) consistently uses square brackets for editorial insertions, not round brackets (parentheses), which are the template's current output.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Clarification regarding selected works

Hi, what actually constitutes a selected work/publication/film/etc? Many articles have them but very few are prefaced with why each entry is there, and even fewer are sourced. My questions are:

1. What works are put onto these "selected" lists, and is it up to personal preference by the lead contributor (which is how it sometimes looks)?
2. Do these sections need to be referenced to an external list with all of them on it, does each entry have to be referenced in some way or another, or can these sections be left unreferenced if the work is wikilinked?
3. In relation to question two, can these sections be tagged or removed if they lack references (assuming they preferably have references)?
4. Also assuming they preferably have references, should these sections prevent an article from going through DYK, OTD, or any other main page-based venue if they lack references?

I wasn't able to find any guidelines that cover these questions, so if I'm asking them at the wrong place, let me know. Cheers, Anarchyte (talk | work) 14:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a guideline related to this at WP:LISTCRITERIA, which covers embedded lists as well as standalone list pages. I'd say that "Selected X" sections should only be included if some third party source has done the selecting,and preferably the criteria is spelled out. Even in prose we might lost one or two particularly important works associated with someone but again that should be because secondary sources have identified those things as important not on the whim of an editor.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of "published" as the book equivalent of films' "distributed", as in "X has been published in more than 30 countries"?

Our article Marie Kondo uses the word this way, and it kinda bothers me. The book was only published ("made public") once, and has been translated presumably into several languages, with those translations each being sold by one or more international publishers. The phrase It was a bestseller in Japan and in Europe, and was published in the United States in 2014 seems especially weird. Not sure if it applies to the article in question, but back in Ireland, most of the commercially available books were actually printed by UK-based publishers, so if a book is sold by one publisher in both the UK and Ireland, does that mean it was "published in two countries"? Presumably this is also the case with ... well, probably most countries worldwide.

"Printed" would address the former issue but not the latter, and is awkward; would "sold" be a reasonable solution? I'm not sure, so I brought it here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Both are perfectly normal English usages:

• "published in more than 30 countries" — the book has entered the national book trade in more than 30 countries.
• "bestseller in Japan and in Europe, and was published in the United States in 2014" — the book was available through the trade in Japan and Europe in 2011, but in the US it would have been a private import until 2014 when the trade carried it.

Terminology may need to change with the growth of international online booksellers, but publishing is the act of offering the book for sale in a particular country. The case of Ireland is a little different, I suspect that the Irish book trade behaves as a part of the UK distribution system due simply to a numbers game. Also, bear in mind that subsequent editions are also described as being published when they reach market. I have picked up the nearest paperback and on the back of the title page are the legends: "This edition published by Harper Perennial 2005" and just below it "First published by HarperCollinsPublishers 2004". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Wait a minute—so you're saying a book published by an American publisher and distributed in both the US and Canada is said to be "published" in two countries? I'd like to see a source backing that up, as I doubt most Canadians or Americans would buy that. When Seattle-based Fantagraphics publishes a new book by Jim Woodring, and I pick it up from The Beguiling in Toronto (who probably get it from a Canadian distributor), I can't imagine anyone saying it was "published" in Canada. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know enough about how the book trade in Canada and the US operates, but I'd guess that like Ireland/UK it operates as a single entity. The book is published in both countries, but I suspect that it would be a single act. There are a number of reasons publishers might not want the same edition published in different countries. For instance Schindler's Ark was first published in the UK and later retitled as Schindler's List for its US publication. Copyright may also play a role; many older works of fiction in the UK bear the legend "For copyright reasons this edition is not for sale in the U.S.A". My copy of The Crucible has: "First published in the U.S.A. 1953. Published in Great Britain in 1956. Published by Martin Secker & Warburg 1966. Published in Penguin Books 1968". That's four publication dates for a single play! More modern works can also have an extended publishing history; Cussler's Sahara (2017 paperback edition) claims: "Previously published in paperback by Grafton 1993. First published in Great Britain by HarperCollinsPublishers 1992". [OT: I love going back over old books. The Crucible had a cinema ticket from the 1996 release used as a bookmark and the lighting script from when I lit a performance in the 1980s!] Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The numbers game remark is weird, since probably the majority of countries throughout the world have either a larger or smaller neighbour (the problem applies to both) with the same official or majority language that "shares" its books. The US and Canada is another example (which I didn't want to make without a Canadian doing it for me, since I wasn't sure); France and Belgium, Switzerland and several of its neighbours; all of Latin America outside Brazil (and maybe Mexico?); I would imagine most African countries have most of their books published in one or more of the "official" languages which few natives have as their first language but which is shared with a lot of other African countries. If I publish a book it means ... well, I'm publishing it, I don't know how to put it in simpler words beyond "making it public", which I already said above. Unless a book is banned and all copies of it taken out of circulation, I'm pretty sure books aren't "published" more than once. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

A book is published in two or more different countries if: 1. the publisher publishes it in different countries (often for example US & UK) - in this case it says so on the publication information page. Sometimes the same publisher may publish the same book in different editions in different countries - with different artwork, or even a different title. 2. if a publisher sells or trades the right to a foreign publisher who then publishes it in that country - either in the original language or in translation. And yes a book can be published any number of times. In different editions or printings for example. Distribution has nothing to do with it. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I would have thought that "publish" referred to the physical act of publishing the book, and so can be used for any new printings but would not apply to simple re-distribution. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Martin of Sheffield: Yes, I'm totally aware of books being put out in different editions in different countries (many or most books available in Canada are from elsewhere). That does happen in Canada & the US as wel—many large publishers will publish similtaneously in Canada and the US. These books state so explicitly in the indicia. That's not the same as the Canada/US or UK/Ireland examples being given, though. Distribution makes books available in different countries, but distribution is not publication. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to lowercase mid-sentence use of "act", "bill", etc. except for proper names

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Expand MOS:INSTITUTIONS to cover 'act', 'bill', 'resolution' and other items of legislation?
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that would be consistent with the way we deal with caps more generally. It is not the way favoured by lawyers, but thankfully we don't write WP in legalese (wheretofore, hitherto ... and no commas). Tony (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed example addition

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Example addition
This is a small but potentially important strife-reduction proposal (would not change any advice in any way, just clarify).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Clarifying that COMMONNAME is not a style policy

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Clarifying that UCRN is not a style policy. WP:AT and the naming conventions guidelines that cover style (e.g. WP:NCCAPS) have many cross-references to MoS. This is a simple (non-rules-changing) proposal to add one to WP:UCRN to reduce confusion and verbal conflict (especially at WP:RM).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Gender-neutral pronouns: guidance

A couple of IP users have recently edited at Ezra Miller, changing male pronouns to they/them/their. Apparently the subject of the article does not identify as any particular gender, and prefers to use pronouns interchangeably. I can't find any specific guidance about this in MOS, what is the current consensus on how to approach this? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 19:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

If the subject does not care which pronouns are used, then neither should Wikipedia. Perhaps we can follow what Miller does, and use them ALL ... interchangeably (if we explain that this is what the subject does early in the article, the reader will understand). Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You're looking for MOS:IDENTITY. RGloucester — ☎ 20:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

We discussed use of singular they last year; see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 198#Singular they. If we are to use it in our biography articles, I prefer to use it sparingly and instead use the surname as much as possible because singular they has confused our readers. But it's used in a few of our articles on genderqueer (non-binary) people. Like the aforementioned discussion notes, what we won't use are genderqueer pronouns such as "zie" and "s/him." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer22 Reborn, that's really helpful. I'll point them that way. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"because singular they has confused our readers"—this is an extraordinary claim that is not backed up by anything in that discussion, and is contradicted by the singular they's universal usage by native speakers of all backgrounds in everyday speech. Where it becomes problematic is in the recent usage of it to refer to known subjects (such as Miller), which is a case that has not come into universal usage. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I watch and work on some LGBT articles. Yes, singular they usage has confused readers and has been subject to debate on Wikipedia. I'm not going to sit here and point to all of the cases, or all the talk pages, where I know its usage has been debated, such as at Talk:Emma Sulkowicz. As for the discussion I pointed to, we can see that not everyone agrees with using singular they, and that I'm not the only one who noted that its use can be confusing. And considering that singular they is still subject to debate among academics, as made clear in the Singular they Wikipedia article, it's not surprising that singular they is still not as widely supported as you would like. That its use is cautioned against by a number of reliable sources is made very clear in the Singular they Wikipedia article, which, yes, I know you've edited. That article is on my watchlist. I know that you support singular they, but the usage can clearly be a problem. An entire Wikipedia biography article using singular they, especially without specifying that the person prefers to use singular they for their gender identity? Yeah, that can be confusing for readers. Even today, with more transgender representation in the world than just a few years ago, MOS:GENDERID transgender cases such as Brandon Teena still confuse a number of our readers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"singular they is still subject to debate among academics, as made clear in the Singular they Wikipedia article"—the Singular they article "makes clear" no such thing. You also seem to have read only half my comment. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, we are reading a different Wikipedia article. The one that I'm reading, with all of the "avoid when possible" and "use cautiously" or similar talk, must be in an alternative universe. I did not read only half of your comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

No, we're reading the same article you're misquoting: "Garner's Modern American Usage (2003) recommends cautious use of singular they, and avoidance where possible because its use is stigmatized."—this recognizes that there are people ignorant and obnoxious to kick up a fuss (as there are with regards to the so-called "split" infinitive), and that one can avoid engaging with this nonsense by avoiding its use. This is not even remotely as it were "subject to debate among academics", which the article does not support (and in fact contradicts with studies—the source cited calls it ["https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=Lijcg3vt9yAC&pg=PA94&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=nearly%20universal&f=false "almost universal in speech",] and backs it up with data and history, as does the article). Problematic use of singular they is restricted to its 21st-century use with known antecedents; in all other cases it goes unnoticed by almost the entire native population. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

First, the link you provided me with shows nothing, on my end of the Internet anyway. And, yep, clearly reading a different Wikipedia article. No misquoting at all, since I was not quoting anything from the article. I was paraphrasing, and the paraphrase isn't inaccurate in the least. Regardless of how you interpret things about the use of singular they, we clearly have sources like the Associated Press's Stylebook, stating, "They/them/their is acceptable in limited cases as a singular and-or gender-neutral pronoun, when alternative wording is overly awkward or clumsy. However, rewording usually is possible and always is preferable." Use of singular they is criticized and cautioned against, especially in the United States. We note in the lead of the Singular they article that its use "has been the target of criticism since the late 19th century." So given that, and what the sources in the article state, I fail to see how stating that the use has been "subject to debate among academics" is inaccurate. A simple Google search shows that there is a singular they debate. So let's not act like it doesn't exist. You can call the criticism "ignorant and obnoxious" as much as you want to, but reliable sources disagree with you. That everyone uses singular they at some point is not in dispute. I use it at times. No one here stated that singular they is always problematic; what people have noted is that singular they can be problematic and confusing, which is a fact. Writing an entire Wikipedia biography article using singular they is an issue; it certainly requires care. So it's good that you at least noted "problematic use of singular they." I'm not going to keep debating you on this; I am well aware that you always get worked up any time someone notes that singular they can be problematic and/or confusing, is cautioned against, etc., and I know that you can keep a debate going. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID

Could we look at adding some words to the MOS:GENDERID to "Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources" to overlook self-designations made as a joke or for mischief. We have just seen an edit war on changing the gender from male to female and back again on Barry O'Sullivan following some political banter where he declared himself to be a woman saying nobody would question his right to have an opinion on abortion if he became a woman. He had previously made similar remarks saying he would become a woman so he could use women's toilets. A number of people (whether well-intended or mischievous) justified changing the pronouns in the article using MOS:GENDERID on the basis of this "self-designation". Could we add some words to say if the self-designation is suspected to be not genuine (e.g. a joke or mischief), consensus should be established on the relevant Talk page before embarking on gender changes in the article or edit warring over them. In this particular case, the Senator's own web page was at no time updated in relation to the senator's self-identification and continued to use male pronoun. Kerry (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

careful... we do not want to open the door to Wikipedians passing judgment on the “validity” of someone’s identity. The fact that O’Sullivan’s webpage has not been updated (yet) is telling... however, what do we do if it is eventually updated? Even if an expression of gender is politically motivated, I think we would have to respect the subject’s wishes, and use “her” desired pronoun. Blueboar (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

All the more argument for waiting and seeing how the matter unfolds before rushing in and misleading readers (as per WP:BREAKING). Kerry (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Dangerous joking for a politician from Queensland. EEng 02:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Kerry. Clearly not a genuine transgender case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This issue has arisen previously with similar political stunt by Lauren Southern (see discussion). Contra Blueboar, Wikipedians absolutely should question the validity of this kind of transphobic provocation. Maybe an explicit clarification is warranted, but I don't think that any reliable sources actually took O'Sullivan or Southern seriously, so editors who were citing MOS:GENDERID were probably misinterpreting those policies. Nblund ^talk 04:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Hyphenation should not be prescriptive

I recently ran across an editor who was moving pages to add hyphens to their titles, citing their belief that the compound modifier concept described in MOS:HYPHEN is an "objective" part of the English language. However, the moves contradicted the real hyphenation practiced by people who use the names of these groups and concepts products. For example, they desired to move "free software movement" to "free-software movement" and Tesla's "Standard Dual Motor AWD" to "Standard Dual-Motor AWD." I believe this prescriptive approach is inappropriate because it is not Wikipedia's role to tell outside groups that they have "various grammatical errors in their English pages."

For a more complete description of both sides to this debate, you can look at the DRN discussion. It fizzled on my end because of my personal issues last week, but the moderator pointed out that an RFC leading to a clarification of WP:HYPHEN is a better forum for this discussion anyway.

In short, I think Wikipedia's MOS should reflect its descriptive nature in order to prevent further controversy. One way to formalize this would be to add a section to MOS:HYPHEN that says something to the effect of Some names (in these examples, concepts and products) are treated by their constituents as essentially proper nouns although they remain not capitalized, and that usage should be respected by Wikipedia. If the common usage is to not hyphenate, Wikipedia should not hyphenate. For example, the "free software movement" should not be the "free-software movement," a "public domain novel" should not be a "public-domain novel," and the "Standard Dual Motor AWD" should not be the "Standard Dual-Motor AWD" That said, synthetic constructions from these names such as "public-domain-equivalent license" should be hyphenated.

Thoughts? lethargilistic (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia's style should be consistent across all words and phrases. If we hyphenate compound modifiers that are not proper nouns - I mean actual proper nouns - we should do it for all of them. Preventing controversy comes from establishing consistent rules - if we say the hyphenation rule is different for each phrase, we're setting up for endless controversy, with a separate debate over each phrase.

I also don't think there is a distinction in compound modifier hyphenation between modifiers. I think people who hyphenate free-software movement hyphenate all non-proper-noun compound modifiers and people who don't don't.

I can't think of another case where our punctuation varies according to the common usage for the particular words being punctuated. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I think these are valid points, though I don't think it's as black-and-white an issue as a choice between those who do hyphenate compound modifiers and those who don't. It probably has more to do with domain knowledge, which I would liken to articles like Doctor Who using British English as a variation from the typical MOS even if a distinct national dialect has an obviously higher priority over a subculture's spelling. Similarly, there's the nuance to WP:DATE that allows different date formats on different articles as long as it's consistent within the article. Most any dispute over hyphenation could be solved with a quick survey of the literature of that subject, as it is likely handled currently in the absence of one rule.

I also want to get ahead of one thing for other people reading this: my specific terming of them as "essentially proper nouns" is just how I thought the idea made the best sense as a first draft. I'm not married to that description. Simply "hyphenation varies according to the common usage" is probably a better way of putting it that doesn't potentially confuse terms. lethargilistic (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

And do you think the uniform rule, if adopted, should also apply to specifically named products? lethargilistic (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Merge discussion: MOS:ELIST into MOS:LIST

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists#Propose merging WP:Manual of Style/Embedded lists into WP:Manual of Style/Lists
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)