Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
User:JohnFromPinckney, do not rearrange others' posts like that
Line 952: Line 952:
::You are wrong. I was thanked by [[User:Veverve]] for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subreption&oldid=prev&diff=1032823219 this] and [[User:Bermicourt]] agrees that etymology [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weser_Renaissance&diff=1033275043&oldid=1033274872 is] the proper term. [[User:Catchpoke|Catchpoke]] ([[User talk:Catchpoke|talk]]) 18:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
::You are wrong. I was thanked by [[User:Veverve]] for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subreption&oldid=prev&diff=1032823219 this] and [[User:Bermicourt]] agrees that etymology [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weser_Renaissance&diff=1033275043&oldid=1033274872 is] the proper term. [[User:Catchpoke|Catchpoke]] ([[User talk:Catchpoke|talk]]) 18:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
:::I am wrong about what? You need to reach consensus and cease reverting to your version. If you find others that agree and consensus is reached (and keep in mind it's not a simple straw poll), then that's fine. But you don't have that right now and your "nope" comment addresses nothing that was actually said. If you want to convince people I suggest being less condescending, dismissive and argumentative. The onus is on ''you'' to convince the rest of us. [[User:Freshacconci|<b><span style="color: #000000;">freshacconci</span></b>]][[User talk:Freshacconci|<span style="color: #FF0000;"> (✉)</span>]] 18:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
:::I am wrong about what? You need to reach consensus and cease reverting to your version. If you find others that agree and consensus is reached (and keep in mind it's not a simple straw poll), then that's fine. But you don't have that right now and your "nope" comment addresses nothing that was actually said. If you want to convince people I suggest being less condescending, dismissive and argumentative. The onus is on ''you'' to convince the rest of us. [[User:Freshacconci|<b><span style="color: #000000;">freshacconci</span></b>]][[User talk:Freshacconci|<span style="color: #FF0000;"> (✉)</span>]] 18:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
⚫
::::Freshacconci: You don't want to read the pages so it does seem like a simple straw poll. [[User:Catchpoke|Catchpoke]] ([[User talk:Catchpoke|talk]]) 18:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
⚫
:::::Currently there seems to be no policy that would support the replacement of every Wikipedia occurrence of "origin of..." with "etymology" (or vice versa). Both are acceptable and so we shouldn't be doing any mass changes. I think it would make sense to have a guideline for naming ''section headings'' of this type (as opposed to article text), as the origin of an unusual word quite often forms part of the article. HTH. [[User:Bermicourt|Bermicourt]] ([[User talk:Bermicourt|talk]]) 19:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
⚫
::::::What do you mean as opposed to article text? [[User:Catchpoke|Catchpoke]] ([[User talk:Catchpoke|talk]]) 19:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Catchpoke}} I thanked you for that, because I believed you when you wrote it was a MOS standard. If it is not, then in the case of the content of the section of [[:Subreption]] I think "Origin of the term" fits better, as there is no analysis of the composition of the word, but there is a historical explanation. [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 18:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Catchpoke}} I thanked you for that, because I believed you when you wrote it was a MOS standard. If it is not, then in the case of the content of the section of [[:Subreption]] I think "Origin of the term" fits better, as there is no analysis of the composition of the word, but there is a historical explanation. [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 18:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
::::At least the one you were thanked for, at [[Subreption]], actually ''is'' an etymology section, with details of the Latin origin etc, though I don't believe that means it has to be called that. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 18:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::At least the one you were thanked for, at [[Subreption]], actually ''is'' an etymology section, with details of the Latin origin etc, though I don't believe that means it has to be called that. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 18:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::[[user:Johnbod]]: You quote WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS so should I quote it too in response to your contradictory reasoning? [[User:Catchpoke|Catchpoke]] ([[User talk:Catchpoke|talk]]) 18:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
::::{{ec}}[[User:Veverve]]: There is no guidance or policy on which word/phrase to use but "etymology" is far more common than "origin of the term" or "origin of the name". All of you need to read up on the articles I've linked. "etymon" is the origin of a word. If there is a discussion of the methods and/or etymon, there is an etymology. [[User:Catchpoke|Catchpoke]] ([[User talk:Catchpoke|talk]]) 18:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
::::{{ec}}[[User:Veverve]]: There is no guidance or policy on which word/phrase to use but "etymology" is far more common than "origin of the term" or "origin of the name". All of you need to read up on the articles I've linked. "etymon" is the origin of a word. If there is a discussion of the methods and/or etymon, there is an etymology. [[User:Catchpoke|Catchpoke]] ([[User talk:Catchpoke|talk]]) 18:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
⚫
:::::[[user:Johnbod]]: You quote WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS so should I quote it too in response to your contradictory reasoning? [[User:Catchpoke|Catchpoke]] ([[User talk:Catchpoke|talk]]) 18:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
⚫
:First of all, Catchpoke, ''etymology'' is strictly applied to ''words'' only, not phrases; and to their ''origin'', not the way they may be applied in novel modern ways. So, for example, the word ''disc'' has an etymology: the phrase ''disc drive'' does not (though its origin, in the context of computing, can be traced). Recently the community has had to rein in a spate of not-as-smart-as-they-think-they-are knowitalls; [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility_between_Autodidact1_and_The_Rambling_Man|This guy]] has just barely escaped an indefinite block (for now) but if you keep this up I predict you won't be so lucky.{{pb}}And let me educate you on another point. A section headed ==Origin of the term==, in the article [[Silver Age of Comic Books]], does not "redundantly refer back to the subject of the article", as SECTIONSTYLE warns against, because the subject of that article is the Silver Age of Comic Books, not the phrase ''Silver Age of Comic Books''. Now cut it out. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 19:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
::[[User:EEng#s]]: you are completely wrong. Etymology has a [[Etymology#Types_of_word_origins|number of pathways]]. The pages which have "origin of the ..." have etymologies. Read the material again. I won't use that edit summary again. [[User:Catchpoke|Catchpoke]] ([[User talk:Catchpoke|talk]]) 19:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::Freshacconci: You don't want to read the pages so it does seem like a simple straw poll. [[User:Catchpoke|Catchpoke]] ([[User talk:Catchpoke|talk]]) 18:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
⚫
::::::Currently there seems to be no policy that would support the replacement of every Wikipedia occurrence of "origin of..." with "etymology" (or vice versa). Both are acceptable and so we shouldn't be doing any mass changes. I think it would make sense to have a guideline for naming ''section headings'' of this type (as opposed to article text), as the origin of an unusual word quite often forms part of the article. HTH. [[User:Bermicourt|Bermicourt]] ([[User talk:Bermicourt|talk]]) 19:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
⚫
::To [[User:EEng#s]]: Maybe you came to the bottom and didn't read [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weser_Renaissance&diff=prev&oldid=1033275043] which I posted above. [[User:Catchpoke|Catchpoke]] ([[User talk:Catchpoke|talk]]) 19:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
⚫
:::::::What do you mean as opposed to article text? [[User:Catchpoke|Catchpoke]] ([[User talk:Catchpoke|talk]]) 19:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

⚫
*First of all, Catchpoke, ''etymology'' is strictly applied to ''words'' only, not phrases; and to their ''origin'', not the way they may be applied in novel modern ways. So, for example, the word ''disc'' has an etymology: the phrase ''disc drive'' does not (though its origin, in the context of computing, can be traced). Recently the community has had to rein in a spate of not-as-smart-as-they-think-they-are knowitalls; [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility_between_Autodidact1_and_The_Rambling_Man|This guy]] has just barely escaped an indefinite block (for now) but if you keep this up I predict you won't be so lucky.{{pb}}And let me educate you on another point. A section headed ==Origin of the term==, in the article [[Silver Age of Comic Books]], does not "redundantly refer back to the subject of the article", as SECTIONSTYLE warns against, because the subject of that article is the Silver Age of Comic Books, not the phrase ''Silver Age of Comic Books''. Now cut it out. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 19:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
⚫
'Etymology' is certainly used for lexicalized phrases. (That's one of the pathways, though not mentioned in the article you linked to.) I'm not aware of the word ever being used for a transparent phrase like 'Jesus of Nazareth'. I suppose I could speak of the 'etymology' of my WP user name in the sense of the pun involved, but if my parents had actually named me 'Kwami Kagami', it would be extremely odd to speak of the 'etymology' of my name (as opposed to the reasons my parents chose it), and if I did in a paper for publication I suspect the editor would correct me. Speaking of the etymologies of the individual names ''Kwami'' and ''Kagami'' (or ''Jesus'' and ''Nazereth'') would be a different matter, and entirely appropriate.
*:[[User:EEng#s]]: you are completely wrong. Etymology has a [[Etymology#Types_of_word_origins|number of pathways]]. The pages which have "origin of the ..." have etymologies. Read the material again. I won't use that edit summary again. [[User:Catchpoke|Catchpoke]] ([[User talk:Catchpoke|talk]]) 19:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

⚫
*:To [[User:EEng#s]]: Maybe you came to the bottom and didn't read [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weser_Renaissance&diff=prev&oldid=1033275043] which I posted above. [[User:Catchpoke|Catchpoke]] ([[User talk:Catchpoke|talk]]) 19:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
⚫
But even if you wish to be pedantic and insist that a transparent phrase like 'Toyota Camry' has an etymology distinct from the etymologies of its components, the issue here is whether it's ''useful'' to our readers to label headers that way. That is, whether you have discovered the Truth that the rest of us have missed is beside the point, and not a good argument for what you are doing. And saying 'I'm right and you're wrong, so eff you' is a good way to get blocked. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 20:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
⚫
*::'Etymology' is certainly used for lexicalized phrases. (That's one of the pathways, though not mentioned in the article you linked to.) I'm not aware of the word ever being used for a transparent phrase like 'Jesus of Nazareth'. I suppose I could speak of the 'etymology' of my WP user name in the sense of the pun involved, but if my parents had actually named me 'Kwami Kagami', it would be extremely odd to speak of the 'etymology' of my name (as opposed to the reasons my parents chose it), and if I did in a paper for publication I suspect the editor would correct me. Speaking of the etymologies of the individual names ''Kwami'' and ''Kagami'' (or ''Jesus'' and ''Nazereth'') would be a different matter, and entirely appropriate.
⚫
*::But even if you wish to be pedantic and insist that a transparent phrase like 'Toyota Camry' has an etymology distinct from the etymologies of its components, the issue here is whether it's ''useful'' to our readers to label headers that way. That is, whether you have discovered the Truth that the rest of us have missed is beside the point, and not a good argument for what you are doing. And saying 'I'm right and you're wrong, so eff you' is a good way to get blocked. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 20:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:17, 12 July 2021

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

Welcome to the MOS pit

Style discussions elsewhere

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

Current

(newest on top)

Capitalization-specific:

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Current.[edit]

Move requests:

Other discussions:

Pretty stale but not "concluded":

Concluded

Extended content
This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Concluded.[edit]
Capitalization-specific:
2023
2022
2021

Non-breaking spaces with written-out units

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

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

  • I really, really wish people would stop jumping straight into a project-wide RfC before working with other editors to frame the questions to be posed. I urge you to withdraw this. And MOSNUM is probably the right place for this. (Main MOS vs subsidiary pages is a longstanding problem.) EEng 01:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where else would you suggest discussing this, seeing as its outcome is not specific to the articles for which this was discussed, and the question is pretty straightforward from these discussions? If it can be held elsewhere, I will withdraw; however, I don't think that place is MOSNUM because this issue pertains to MOS:NBSP, which is not its own MOS sub-page. I'm open to ideas. ComplexRational (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest discussing it right here (or at Talk:MOSNUM, but since ultimately it's an aesthetic, not technical, issue I guess here is fine.) There are plenty of people here who have thought a lot about formatting issues, and many have outside professional experience, and with their participation I suspect the issue can either be resolved or boiled down to a clearcut question. Open-ended RfCs like you've started, which pull random people from all over into an unstructured discussion, just end up a mess. EEng 03:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I withdrew it as an RfC. Let's play it out as a regular discussion now; I apologize for being unaware of this potential complication. ComplexRational (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ping to prevent archiving. EEng 12:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the "jumping into an RfC" that EEng is referring to here. I do see a reasonable description by ComplexRational of a MOS detail to be clarified somehow. Do I miss some invisible redacted editing? Please clarify. As it stands now, the OP is correct and relevant to me. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously, like the OP said: he had set this up as an RfC but later withdrew it at my urging. EEng 00:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, that 'obvious' part is not visible then?, like in an talk edited afterwards (ouch)? Must I do homework research to see it? -DePiep (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ, the OP wrote, just above here: Okay, I withdrew it as an RfC. 01:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the point that is puzzling both DePiep and me is there seems to be no trace of the !RfC for us to see what issues had been raised. Starting an RfC and then withdrawing it should surely leave something in a history somewhere. There are no links, nor anything in contributions that I can find. What am I missing? --RexxS (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent diff before I withdrew upon EEng's suggestion was [1]. All that changed since then was removal of the RfC template; the content of my original post is the same now as it was then. ComplexRational (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • something something ... a distance of 15
    km

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

  • something something ... a cost of $5
    million

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

  • something something ... a distance of 15
    kilometres

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

  • something something ... a squad of 24
    football players

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

  • Use a non-breaking space ({{nbsp}} or &nbsp;) between a number and a unit symbol, or use {{nowrap}} ...
  • ... and a normal space is used between a number and a unit name.

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

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

NBSP for numeric followed by words

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

The guideline gives patchy and somewhat conflicting advice on this entire subject. I'm going to give you what I think will be useful guidance, but we must brace ourselves for people to leap out at us from all corners of the project to denounce what I say as at best the product of unfathomable ignorance, and at worst detrimental to the moral fiber of the nation.
There are two (maybe more, but two I can think of offhand) things we're trying to prevent:
  • (1) You don't want tiny fragments that look odd alone stranded on the start of a line. Thus World War{nbsp}2 and Henry{nbsp}VIII.
  • (2) You don't want two things separated by a linebreak if the reader, seeing just the first part, will be momentarily misled and have to back up and rethink when he sees the bit on the next line. Thus $2{nbsp}million, because if the million goes on the next line the reader first thinks "Two dollars", and then when he sees the million he has to back up and think "Oh, wait, Two million dollars". (This is a peculiarity of the fact that money symbols go at front of quantities rather than at the end as with other units. Can anyone think of a similar example not involving money?)
(3) Notice that the logic of (2) doesn't arise with normal quantities like 15 seeds or 2 million dollars (i.e. no nbsp used in these cases) because as the reader scans "15<linebreak>seeds" there's nothing misleading about 15 alone at the end of the line, and the same for scanning "2<linebreak>million dollars" or "2 million<linebreak>dollars". When you think about it, if you required nbsp in constructions like that, then you're pretty much saying every number anywhere must be followed by an nbsp, and that can't be right. So I would not put {nbsp} in your examples.
(4) Units of measure are a special case. By the logic of (3), there's no {nbsp} in 10 kilometers. However, I think the guideline does recommend an {nbsp} in the case of 10{nbsp}km, because at the start of a line km looks weird in a way kilometer doesn't. (km is what's called a unit symbol, whereas kilometer is what's called a unit name, and there are several other ways in which unit symbols and unit names are treated differently, so there's nothing odd about treating them differently here.)
Perhaps the principles laid out above can be the start of a revival of this thread. EEng 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps not. In the meantime, here are some other places I think (comment invited, of course) nbsp would be needed or not needed. Probably some or all of these are give by others in the posts above but I want to get them down while they're on my mind.
Needed:
  • In DMY dates e.g. 28{nbsp}May or 28{nbsp}May 1935, because at least some readers will find separation of the day-in-month from the month odd. (Further explanation on request as to why this is different from the case of 10 kilometers.)
  • In MDY dates e.g. May{nbsp}28, 1935, because "28, 1935" looks ludicrous at the start of a line.
  • He responded, "Better you than{nbsp}I." or The smallest reading was{nbsp}5.
  • 9:30{nbsp}a.m. because I think it's somewhat analogous to a unit symbol (see above); and definitely 9:30{nbsp}am, because "am" alone and separated from the "9:30" could cause the reader to trip and fall.
  • several{nbsp}.22 shells, because starting a line with a . looks weird
  • <certain image caption situations, details to be supplied (centered captions, left-aligned captions)>
  • Ellipsis or other fragments at the start of a quotation: He listed them as "1.{nbsp}Good goals, 2. Good planning, 3. Good execution; or The torn fragment read, "...{nbsp}for the love of God!"
  • July{{nbsp}}28, 1942 ????
Not needed:
  • 123 Main Street
EEng 00:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ask people here: how often have you struck a dangling numeral at the end of a line? Me: not that I can recall. Tony (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    By struck do you mean "run into/happened to find" or "struck out/had to get rid of"? EEng 16:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could see having a summary section somewhere (hopefully not in the main page, maybe in MOS:TEXT) about "Appropriate uses of non-breaking spaces" or some heading title like that, in which we could suggest these sorts of cases, without implying that they're required. People already rankle at the currently fairly-strongly-recommended ones in MOS:NUM and a few other places. So, there's opportunity to cry "WP:CREEP!" here if this discussion produces more rules, rather than optional tweaks for polishing up text for maximum usability.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely for FA-level polishing, mostly, but there's one situation where I've found it worth the trouble to apply nbsp/nobr fairly liberally: in image captions, because their short line length means bad breaks do occur now and then unless you prevent them. EEng 03:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something from somewhere else

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

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

  • in compound expressions in which figures and abbreviations or symbols are separated by a space (17 kg, AD 565, 2:50 pm);
  • between month and day in dates that are not autoformatted (August 3, 1979);
  • on the left side of spaced en dashes; and
  • in other places where displacement might be disruptive to the reader, such as £11 billion, 5° 24′ 21.12″ N, Boeing 747, and the first two items in 7 World Trade Center.

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

Hi,

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

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

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

So, there are three options here:

  • (A) Capitalise the word internet whenever it refers to the global interconnected network most commonly used today
  • (B) Don't capitalise the word internet in any case
  • (C) Per-article consensus on the matter, as it is now

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

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

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

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

Survey

Option A (Capitalise when name; lowercase when term)

  • Capitalize the proper noun name of our favorite network of networks, (also known as internets): The Internet or just Internet. As noted below, I don't know why it didn't get a nice name like everything else. Talking to someone who actually wrote the book about Ethernet (which is also capitalized as a proper noun), it seems that no-one thought about naming it before it was too late. Gah4 (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Right-pointing arrow This comment has been responded to in the Discussion subsection: link to response.
  • Capitalize when used as a proper name, otherwise lowercase. Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalise if we're talking about the medium in which users can communicate globally. Otherwise, standard all-lowercase works for talking about the kind of network. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalize in reference to the Internet; lowercase when referring to generic technologies (usuable on an intranet). We've been over this again and again and again (and the "give me lower case or give me death" folks really need to stop WP:FORUMSHOPping this again and again and again in hopes of getting the answer they want). It does not matter that various newspapers and bloggers and so forth are too ignorant to know that the Internet is a proper name and that an internet is not, and that they are not the same subject. Wikipedia knows better, and our job is to be factual and to communicate clearly, not to immitate lazy, confusing style found in other publishers with lax standards. For those not aware of it, an internet is an (i.e., any) inter-network, what is more commonly called a WAN (wide-area network) today. This question also applies to [W|w]eb: Use Web when it means the World Wide Web. It's fine to lower-case both terms when used as modifiers and as generic technology descriptors, since they can refer to protocols from the Internet and the Web usable in an isolated intranet circumstance: "internet-technology server", "web developer", etc. When fully compounded, also use lower-case: website, webpage, internetworking (these terms are not proper names so should not be capitalized). Remember also that Internet of Things is a proper name. As a subset of the Internet, it would not be a proper name if the Internet were not one itself. And some modifier cases will remain capitalized, because they refer to (and may be definitional of) proper-name the Internet: "the Internet protocol suite", etc. See also Internet Standard, which is a proper name (a formal IETF spec); this is distinct from "an internet standard" a vague term we should not use which could mean "any standard pertaining to internet technology").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC); revised 10:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Right-pointing arrow This comment has been responded to in the Discussion subsection: link to response.
  • Capitalise is correct for The Internet and lowercase is correct for a general internet. However, Wikipedia is not about being correct — it is about reporting the sources — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 13:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Right-pointing arrow This comment has been responded to in the Discussion subsection: link to response.
  • Capitalize. It's fallen out of favor (AP Style shifted to never capitalize a decade or so ago), but it still strikes me as wrong and potentially confusing to treat it generically instead of as a proper name for the global network. Carter (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalize, in particular, because it continues to be used as a name: on the Internet, and because it refers to a specific technology and a set of protocols. -Mardus /talk 07:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalize.. This is one of a handful of issues on which I fully concur with User:SMcCandlish. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalize per SMcCandlish. It's been some twenty years since I had studied Evi Nemeth and those O'Reilly's books that are considered the most reliable textbooks on the system administration. They all define it clearly: the Internet (historically DARPA Internet) is the global network, and an internet might be any local TCP/IP network, roughly a synonym to intranet. This terminology is still in use, there were no major changes in this field, AFAIK. — Mike Novikoff 22:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalize the one, true Internet per SMcCandlish and obvious, well-known well, they used to be well known rules of English. There is one and only one Internet, that special arrangement of infrastructure following on ARPANET's development. Sure, there are other internets, but I believe in practice, people rarely talk about them. Most of our articles will be about, relate to, make mention of, or depend on resources available via the Internet. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Right-pointing arrow This comment has been responded to in the Discussion subsection: link to response.
  • Capitalise. It's odd to me that many people pretend that the Internet is just "an internet". And although technically that's true, the Internet is so much more than that because of its size, the way it is used, its applications (combined with the World Wide Web) and its significance culturally and historically. There is only one Internet. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalise when proper name. It can get decapitalised when Internet shall had been renamed Earthnet (proper name), a subnet of Solsysnet (proper name), which shall be a subnet of Galaxynet (the Galaxy, meaning the Milky Way galaxy, proper name, and not a galaxy in general, which shall be of type "galaxynets" and not to be capitalized... ). And that shall be a subnet of the Universenet (to be continued through multiverse(s)).
Then there shall hopefully be a general agreement all mentioned are internets (term, not capitalized).
Of course, when there shall be the Centauralfanet (proper name), which shall be a solsysnet (term), which shall be colliding with existing Solsysnet (proper name); and when there shall be the Andromedanet (proper name), which shall be a galaxynet (term) and colliding with Galaxynet (proper name), our descendants shal continue this discussion about decapitalizing or not decapitalizing Solsysnet and Galaxynet, with all new passion.
They'll hopefully still agree they are all internets (terms), but we might wish to preemptively rename Sol (proper name) and Galaxy (propername) to something else, to prevent this possible future disambiguation problem ;-). --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I saw below mentioned, as the reason to decapitalize, concordance with most common use, and majority of manuals of style (which also seem to follow common use). Much of common (mis)use of language is advertising, which also massively influences general public use off a language. The goal of (much of) advertising seem to be miscommunication (in such a way that the advertiser can't be sued). If you look into amount of different aspects of the SPAMware "industry", that also (used to be, I am retired now and not up to date) significant portion of digital web content, but should we follow that?
I somehow had the idea that the only legitimate reason for trying to regulatie use of a language should be improvement of - when possible, clear and concise - communication. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option B (Lowercase always)

Option C (Per-article consensus)

  • Per-article It really depends on the usage. For example, I do a lot of work on video game articles from an historical perspective and it is important to talk about the arrival of the capital I Internet (the global network), as well as the fact the video game consoles gained access to lower case "i" internet functionality. I would agree that if we are talking in the present tense in all sense, the lower-case "i" internet makes reasonable season, but the historical aspect needs to be considered. Hence, per-article consensus needs to be reviewed. --Masem (t) 04:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Right-pointing arrow This comment has been responded to in the Discussion subsection: link to response.
  • Hell no. This will just cause "slow-editwar" and WP:CIVILPOV activity by obsessives who want to eventually force all uses to lower-case or all of them to upper-case, and we'll have the same squabble break out page after page after page. The second purpose of MoS (after consistent and professional-looking output for readers) is forestalling repetitive, time-wasting editorial disputes over style trivia – not generating a perpetual stream of them. This really has nothing to do with what page the term appears in, but rather the contextual meaning. If what is meant is the the Internet then that is a proper name. If what is meant is internet-technology networking in general, including on an isolated intranet, then lower-case is appropriate. Same goes for [W|w]eb; if you mean the Web, then it's capitalized. If you mean web technology like HTML and CSS and HTTPS and whatever, then lower-case is fine. I.e., distinguishing between name and description, between the global network and the technologies that enable it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many publications are switching to lowercase as someone mentioned above, so I think that should be the default. Just be consistent within the article. I would only distinguish the two (Internet v. internet) if it is absolutely necessary for the subject matter (I don't know, say talking about the early days of the internet and what people called it). Otherwise the distinction is likely to be distracting. Fredlesaltique (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear God, why? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For maximum flexibility. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Right-pointing arrow This comment has been responded to in the Discussion subsection: link to response.

Discussion

People should search before making proposals. 2020, more 2020, more 2020, 2019, 2012/2014, 2010, 2008, 2004 (eesh on that last). --Izno (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's the exact same editor as a half dozen of those discussions. Popcornfud, that you're still having this issue and across multiple pages doesn't look too good for you. Please stop pushing it until there is an actual consensus on the point. --Izno (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Half of a dozen of these discussions"? I think one - maybe two? edit: OK, three (though those were kind of all the same discussion).
I am not the one who is pushing anything; DesertPipeline wants to make this change to an article. Per the lack of consensus I see no reason to deviate from the WP:STATUSQUO. If a consensus emerges to change it (on that article, or at a MoS-wide level) then I will follow that consensus. Popcornfud (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for starting another discussion on this when there's been so many; Popcornfud did mention that it's been brought up here before but always ended in no consensus. I guess discussing it so soon after the last time is probably not going to result in anything different? Also I'm not sure if I'm at the right indentation level and in the right place here to be replying to User:Izno... sorry, I still don't really know how talk page threading works exactly :( DesertPipeline (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Struck last part as I'm now at the right indentation level – I hope :) 05:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I skimmed the struck-out text and initially misread it as I'm not sure if I'm at the right indignation level ... to be replying. Pelagic ( messages ) – (17:46 Sat 27, AEDT) 06:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't downcase it when I come across the cap, because I don't like complaints; but in my view it should be lowercase; and where some subset of the internet is intended, that should be clear from the context. Few readers appreciate the significance of the I vs i, anyway. Tony (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's not that the Internet is "a subset of the internet"; the article Capitalisation of Internet explains it quite well – "the Internet is an internet, but an internet is not the Internet". I do realise that nowadays most people don't care about this sort of thing, but I don't feel like we should lowercase the "I" in a context where it should be capitalised just because that's how most people do it. My opinion on this is that as an encylopedia, which should strive to get things correct as much as possible. To me, it would be like Wikipedia writing "COVID-19" in lowercase simply because most people do that nowadays, and fortunately we aren't doing that. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be sure, even though it says right in the Internet article, an internet is a network of networks. That is important for the scaling of network architectures, such that each host doesn't need to know the path to all others, but just to a router that knows which way to route it. Many large companies have their own private internet, and many are worldwide. Some companies need the security of not connecting their internal internet to the Internet. Many companies will name their internal network after the company. What does seem strange to me is that the Internet doesn't have an actual name other than Internet. Gah4 (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What does seem strange to me is that the Internet doesn't have an actual name other than Internet. The Internet used to be also called the World Wide Web, but I think that name has fallen out of use a few years ago. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the Internet and the World Wide Web are two very different things. It is true that there are commentators who lump them together, but they don't understand what either is. The WWW is an application that uses HTTP over IP, and no more the Intenet than Gopher, NNTP or SMTP. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was actually able to think of a much better reason for capitalisation thanks to Gah4's comment. "Internet", referring to the Internet, is a name; "internet" is a term. Would anyone say that provides a better case for standardising capitalisation? Also, I've added a discussion subheading and a survey subheading. DesertPipeline (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: I also have to wonder if the sources that Popcornfud linked which recommend not capitalising the word don't realise that it is a name, rather than simply a term in all cases. I haven't read them though, so I'm just speculating here :) DesertPipeline (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "the Internet is an internet, but an internet is not the Internet" I don't see how that means that "the Internet" is a proper noun. Seems pretty parallel to the statement that "the atmosphere is an atmosphere, but an atmosphere is not the atmosphere". --Khajidha (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, that quote isn't that great, because the Internet is definitely not in the same category as any other internetwork; because of its size, its significance, its everything, it's become a completely unique thing. (That's unlike an atmosphere though, because many planets have an atmosphere and the Earth's isn't that unique.) ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Like Microsoft naming their word processor Word, our favorite internet is named The Internet. It might have had a fancier name, but it seems not. Gah4 (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And even LibreOffice fell victim: They called theirs "Writer" :) DesertPipeline (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also have to wonder if the sources that Popcornfud linked which recommend not capitalising the word don't realise that it is a name, rather than simply a term in all cases. I haven't read them though, so I'm just speculating here
    Yes, the history of the term as a proper noun is discussed in those sources (here are some of them again: NY Times, Wired, New Republic, the Verge).
    I have to say that the fact that you didn't bother to read these - which I provided because you asked me for an explanation - and are now typing things to the effect of "I wonder what those sources arguing against my position say? guess we'll never know!" is sort of causing me to faceplam. Popcornfud (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, Popcorn :( The reason I didn't read the sources you provided is that I feel paranoid about visiting websites I haven't before – and I know the ones you linked are trustworthy, but my fear is just irrational. I thought you might be frustrated if I said I didn't read them, but I didn't want to act as if I knew – because I don't. I could read them with Lynx, a terminal-based browser, if you'd like me to (although my paranoia is such a problem that I even hesitate to do that, despite the fact that I installed Lynx specifically for situations like this). DesertPipeline (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DesertPipeline, OK, that sounds tough. If you're curious, I would be happy to summarise what those articles say on your talk page, just let me know. Popcornfud (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't mind doing that, then sure, and thank you :) DesertPipeline (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lower case per Capitalization of Internet#Usage examples. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, would you mind putting this in the Survey subsection above and adding (B) to the beginning of your comment? Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, added it there as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks :) I also decided to add subheadings for each option so hopefully things will be more readable. I moved your comment to the corresponding subheading (Option B). DesertPipeline (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging everyone who participated in the discussion so far (except Gah4, because I mentioned it on their talk page and was intending to do that for the other participants but then realised it was way less efficient than just doing it here and using pings): User:Izno, User:Tony1, User:Tenryuu, User:Chatul (I think that's everyone). If you don't mind, can you add which option you're in support of to the survey? :) If you already gave your explanation in this section, you can just say something like "see my comment in the discussion section". I just want it to be clearer for whoever closes this what option each participant was for :) Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lower case always since I can't see any uses that I would think of as proper names. Like radio, television, and the mail, it's a medium through which businesses and individuals communicate globally. So what? No particular reason to ignore our own style guidelines on this one. Dicklyon (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    I wouldn't really say that radio, television, and mail are good comparisons – they're not words that can either be a term or a name. In this case, though, "Internet" is the name for the global internet we're using right now – and "internet" is just a term meaning "interconnected network". As someone (me? I can't remember) said previously: "The Internet is an internet, but an internet is not the Internet" :) DesertPipeline (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do understand that you want it to be a name. But I disagree that it is ever that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be honest: I don't understand why you think it isn't a name. I'd like to know why you think this way. Do you think you could explain to me? Thank you, DesertPipeline (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And I don't understand why you think it is. A lot of things have names, like the Internet Engineering Task Force, Internet Protocol, ARPANET, but this thing we call the internet is just the agglomeration of everyone's networks. Nobody named it; they just took to capping it to indicate that if you're not on it, maybe you're on some other internet. That's a use of caps that's outside the uses that WP's and many others' style guides recommend. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'll admit... I thought I read somewhere that someone had officially named it Internet, but... apparently that's not the case, at least according to the article on Internet :) Still though, language is just something we invented of course, so we could say "its name is Internet now because people call it that, even though it wasn't officially named that". Then again, maybe humanity should have a vote to decide on an official name, like... well, I don't even know what it could be called, but I guess it'd be less confusing if it wasn't called "Internet" :) DesertPipeline (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think humanity did take a vote. Or least the part of humanity that issue style guidelines has pretty much converted on lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue that the most likely reason style guides usually recommend lowercase nowadays is that they don't realise that it is a name (or at least that some people consider it a name)? I'm not sure though :) DesertPipeline (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't think they looked long and hard at the issue before changing their guidance? They just don't "realise that it is a name"? Yeah, that must be it; probably a bunch of new grads running that department now. Dicklyon (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ...But would you be so shocked if that was the case? ;) DesertPipeline (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per-article It really depends on the usage. For example, I do a lot of work on video game articles from an historical perspective and it is important to talk about the arrival of the capital I Internet (the global network), as well as the fact the video game consoles gained access to lower case "i" internet functionality. I would agree that if we are talking in the present tense in all sense, the lower-case "i" internet makes reasonable season, but the historical aspect needs to be considered. Hence, per-article consensus needs to be reviewed. --Masem (t) 04:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

    If I'm reading this right, I think you may actually be in favour of option A? I agree with you that it should be capitalised only when referring to the Internet and uncapitalised when referring to any other internet :) DesertPipeline (talk) 05:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he's saying that there may be historical contexts in which that distinction might still need to be represented via caps, but that most current stuff not. I'm not sure I get why, though. I don't know what video game consoles gained access to lower case "i" internet functionality means. Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to suggest that I can read minds (that would probably make life a little easier :D) but I think what's meant is that video game consoles gained access to internets in general – i.e., any interconnected network :) Maybe you're starting to see why some consider the distinction between capitalised I and uncapitalised I important now? ;)[note 1] DesertPipeline (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say anything about it not being important; just not capitalization relevant. But what internets did videogames have access to? Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, any :) If a computing device can connect to a network, then it can connect to any internet, including the Internet, although some manufacturers of video game consoles might try to prevent connection to internets they don't authorise – P.S. I'm not an authority on this subject if it wasn't already obvious, so my explanation isn't very good, sorry ;) DesertPipeline (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"It behooves us" – Neigh!
Bees don't have hooves, silly!
But they apparently have the best knees.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 
They have bee feat.
"A shetland pony,
a bee, and a beefeater
walk into a pub...."

  • Capitalize in reference to the Internet; lowercase when referring to generic technologies (usuable on an intranet). ... — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC); revised 10:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    One quick question SMcCandlish: Is it then correct to say "Web page" (as opposed to "web page")? When I see "web page" I usually change it to "Web page" – although I do feel like "webpage" sounds better :) DesertPipeline (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The fully compounded "webpage" has been the most common since the early 2000s, maybe even the late 1990s. I don't think anyone's arguing for retaining the capital letter when it's used in a combining form like this. If one were to write it as "Web page", then the "W" would arguably belong, but this seems a bit archaic at this point (in Internet time, anyway). Same with "website" and "Web site", etc. Various terms like "web development" can probably go lower-case, because they are about web[site] technology in general, and equally pertain to intranet websites, not just the [World Wide] Web. Used in a generic enough way, even "web page" and "web site" would work for that reason, though again "website" and "webpage" seem to be the dominant spellings now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    S, I never proposed "death" as the alternative, but it seems to me that treating "Internet" as a proper name is out of step with most modern style guides, so it behooves us to discuss when/whether to re-align with them. Dicklyon (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I never proposed "death" as the alternative – But those of us following this thread are openly pining for it. Oh sweet release! EEng 04:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Admit it, EEng – you're just envious that I made a joke in this section before you, aren't you? ;) DesertPipeline (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Au contraire. It delights me to see other editors taking up the jokester's banner. EEng 05:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Another task ticked off the bucket list – "checkY Have work approved by EEng" :) DesertPipeline (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Congrats. All I got from him was some pix to mock my verb choice; et tu. Dicklyon (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I have standards to uphold. EEng 07:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dicklyon, I seem to recall you being among those of us who regularly point out that "is a proper name" and "is capitalized in some proportion of publications" is not a 1:1 relationship. We know news-writing style in particular takes a large number of liberties with capitalization (mostly dropping it at every chance, even when the results are confusing, e.g. "Nato" and "the Aids virus", and lately "Covid-19" or even just "covid"). It's one thing for a eponym to lose capitalization when it becomes "divorced" from the namesake ("our platonic relationship", "draconian workplace policies", "french fries"), but nothing like that has happened here. The Internet is no less the Internet now than before, and if anything it's more: more a prominent part of our lives, and more the Internet, as it grows to integrate with our phones, our watches, even our refrigerators and doorbells. I'll repeat what I've said in several other variants of this debate: if we decide this has somehow become "the internet", then we're also going to have to down-case Internet of Things. This is a very good example of why not to trust newspapers when it comes to style questions. They'll happily drop a capital letter from a common proper name, to save a sliver of typing time, then insist on capitalizing something simply because it seems new and important (MOS:SIGCAPS). Can't have it both ways. When the very same sources directly contract themselves on whether to capitalize [I|i]nternet, and do it only when used as a modifier (i.e., the exact opposite of actual trends in English usage, which is to start decapitalizing modifier usage, which may or may not then spread lower-case to the noun form), then they are not reliable sources for the style question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree completely with SMc here honestly – just because other style guides are getting it wrong it doesn't mean we should follow in their footsteps ;) DesertPipeline (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone mentioned universe, which it seems is not capitalized and not a proper name. There might be some astronomers who disagree, (that is, that we live in one particular Universe), but it reminded me of Earth and Mars, which it seems are proper names, though earth (synonym for dirt) is not. It might be that mars is a synonym for dirt if you are Mars. I don't see any discussion for capitalization in talk:Earth, but instead whether it is Earth or the Earth. Somehow that question was avoided here. In any case, I still believe that Internet is the proper name for out favorite internet, like Earth for our favorite planet. Gah4 (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes I see "earth" when it really means "Earth" (in an article where it was capitalised before) and I usually correct that. I've heard that in casual usage, people will just type "the sun", "the earth", "the moon" (etc), but weirdly enough I don't think that's done in the case of the other planet/celestial body names. I wonder why that is? P.S. I fixed the indentation of your comment :) Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Sometimes I see ..." – Yes, we know. There is not a single line-item in MoS (or any other style guide) that you can't find some people ignoring (on-site or in RS material). That really has no bearing on the matter. MoS is not about what "is" "correct" (English doesn't have a set of hard rules governing it); it's about what to do on WP, so that we have consistent and semi-formal output for readers, and a reduction internally in tedious strife over style trivia.

    "I wonder why that is?" It's because "earth", "moon", and "sun" have many figural usages ("to till the earth", "When the moon hits your eye / Like a big pizza pie", "shining in the sun") and pre-date common understanding of celestial bodies. Most of our other astronomical bodies were named much later, after thing that were in and of themselves proper names (mostly mythological figures), and do not have much in the way of figural/metaphoric usage.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to do some refactoring with the discussion. The intent was that the Discussion subsection would be for any replies, including to replies in the survey section, for better readability, but even I forgot to do that at first :) I'm going to try and organise all the (initial) replies to bullet points in the Survey section by time posted when putting them in this section. Someone have a mop ready, because I can't guarantee that this will go smoothly... but I'm going to try my best :) DesertPipeline (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Refactor complete. If anyone else wants to check to make sure everything that existed before still exists now, I'd be grateful, because this stuff makes my head hurt :) DesertPipeline (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lower case I'm from the networking world and know that technically "Internet" is correct to distinguish the world-wide internet from all the others. However, it's a lost cause as explained at Capitalization of Internet and it's time to follow common usage. Johnuniq (talk) 2:10 am, Today (UTC+0)
    User:Johnuniq: I'm curious as to why you think it's a lost cause. Could you elaborate on that? As said before, many people get it wrong nowadays, but at Wikipedia, we don't have to get it wrong as well. In my opinion, considering people are getting it wrong consistently nowadays, I almost feel like it's Wikipedia's duty to get it right – an encylopedia is supposed to be educational, after all, and we could induce some positive change by capitalising it when it should be capitalised in all cases, perhaps. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Johnuniq: ...I really seem to be having trouble getting pings to work lately :) At least, the notification system isn't telling me it sent. I hope it isn't silently doing it so I'm double-pinging people. DesertPipeline (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    By lost cause I mean that the tide of common usage has risen and trying to oppose it will not be successful and will only make us look like pedants. For readers, there is no difference between Internet and internet except that the former looks like someone inadvertently pressed the Shift key in the middle of a sentence. Johnuniq (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Johnuniq: Would you disagree that if we don't take that attitude, there's still hope? Think about it this way: If we do nothing, then yes, the correct capitalisation for the Internet will probably cease to exist at some point. However, if we do do something, then there is at least a chance that things can change for the better. Even if it's a small chance, I think it's worth it, especially considering it requires little effort on our part. DesertPipeline (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. Popcornfud (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Microsoft doesn't capitalize [2]. Nor does Google [3]. Nor does Apple [4]. I guess all these companies are wrong too - it's up to Wikipedia to lead the way now! Popcornfud (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Popcornfud: Come now, you must recognise why "everyone else is doing it" is a poor reason :) Just remember that no matter how popular something is, that doesn't always make it correct or right. (The world is in a lot of trouble because there are many people doing things that are popular but ethically wrong, usually in order to make money.) Also, in response to your above comment where you mention WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS: There is a difference between "righting great wrongs" and "not making things worse" :) The same problem applies in another area that I've been trying to deal with: Wikipedia has a lot of loaded or confusing words on it (such as "consumer" and "intellectual property") – my opinion there is the same as here, which is that while we're not here to right great wrongs, we can at least not make things worse. If a capitalised I in Internet – referring to the Internet – is indeed correct, which according to Johnuniq, it is – I'm from the networking world and know that technically "Internet" is correct to distinguish the world-wide internet from all the others. – then I really think we should be following what's correct, rather than what's popular. Although I do want to ask: In your view, is "Capitalised I for the Internet is correct" not a factual statement, but an opinion? I might be repeating myself in a sense here... my apologies if so, my brain is not good at keeping track of so many things :) DesertPipeline (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is really no "fact" when it comes to what is "correct" in language. The closest you'll get is the fact of what's more commonly used or not, or what's considered standard or non-standard by big-cheese publishing houses et al.
    "Everyone else is doing it" is the perfect reason, though. As others say: Wikipedia follows, it doesn't lead. Wikipedia reflects sources. Wikipedia has no responsibility to uphold your preferred version of the universe. And as I said right at the start of this discussion, we have a policy for this: WP:MOSCAPS: Only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. In other words: only capitalize if "everyone else is doing it". Popcornfud (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Popcornfud: Well, the lead of MOSCAPS also says primarily needed for proper names. The lead of Proper noun (which Proper name is a redirect to) says A proper noun is a noun that identifies a single entity and is used to refer to that entity – does that not apply to Internet, since it's a single entity? It goes on to say as distinguished from a common noun, which is a noun that refers to a class of entities which applies to internet. By the way, I would like to ask, what is your reasoning behind wanting to do this because everyone else is doing it? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire point of this disagreement is that most style guides no longer consider it a proper noun, so you saying "but it's a proper noun" misses the point. As for what is your reasoning behind wanting to do this because everyone else is doing it, I just explained that. WP:MOSCAPS: Only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. In other words, "Do what most reliable sources do" - even if you think it's wrong - sorry. Popcornfud (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Popcornfud: I just don't personally believe that what is and what isn't a proper noun can be defined by popular opinion, though. Surely it is or it isn't, regardless of what people think, based on what the article on proper nouns says? DesertPipeline (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • However, Wikipedia is not about being correct — it is about reporting the sources — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 13:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    User:GhostInTheMachine: Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not really sure that applies here. We can obviously report that some people don't capitalise the I when referring to the Internet according to the sources, and that some do, but when we're just referring to it generally, shouldn't we be capitalising the I if that's the correct way to do it? :) DesertPipeline (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joking moved out of the !vote section (with copy of what it's a response to), per user talk request:

How about now? It's been weeks since any new votes or discussion. Popcornfud (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to mention that none of those opposing capitalising Internet as a proper noun are disputing that it is a proper noun. As I said to Popcornfud previously, "popular opinion cannot take away a word's status as a proper noun" (not a direct quote).

    1. Does "Internet" refer to a single entity? – Yes

    2. Is a proper noun something that refers to a single entity? – Yes

    Unless these can be refuted, then for what reason should we not capitalise it in reference to the Internet, other than "to conform"? Should we really "conform" with things that can be proven to be wrong? Whether or not something is a proper noun is a fact, not an opinion. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    1) Uh, yes, we are disputing that it is a proper noun. You must have missed several people's points. The one I find most relevant is the comparison of "the internet" to "the airwaves" or "the press". 2) Your illustration would also apply to the word "atmosphere". 3) I'm not sure it was ever really a proper noun in the first place. More like a simple emphasizing for importance, like "That's Jimmy Wales over there, but not THE Jimmy Wales". --Khajidha (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Khajidha: 1. In what way are "the airwaves" and "the press" relevant to the context of "the Internet"? There isn't "an airwave" and "the Airwave"; nor is there "a press" and "the Press". Internet, when referring to the Internet, is a proper noun because it refers to a single entity – the Internet. There is no other internet like the Internet, and therefore it refers to a singular thing.

    2. "an atmosphere" (referring possibly to another planet's) and "the atmosphere" don't really need that distinction right now because the vast majority of us are on Earth.

    3. It was understood to be a proper noun when people understood that "internet" means "interconnected network". Because there are multiple, but one is the "main" one, it's useful to have a distinction. It's just a shame a name wasn't chosen that didn't have this problem. Because that's not the case though, we should be capitalising the name of the Internet, which is "Internet", when we refer to it. DesertPipeline (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    1) This might be the nucleus of the disagreement. The point I was making was that "the internet" is a medium, like "the press" or "the airwaves". You seem to characterize "the Internet" as the actual linkages. 2) Even on one planet we have the atmospheres of each city or even each building. We can even have atmospheres in chambers completely cut off from "the atmosphere". 3) You made my point for me. "The Internet" isn't a name, it's a simple emphasis. This emphasis is more commonly made these days by speaking of "the global internet" as opposed to, for example, a "corporate internet" that only links computers within a single company. --Khajidha (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would note that there are other "spheres" that, unlike "atmosphere", have a unique referent but are still not capitalised (noosphere, anthroposphere). —Nizolan (talk · c.) 17:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Khajidha: You seem to characterize "the Internet" as the actual linkages. That's not what I meant. The Internet is the name for the most common public interconnected network as of 2021. Press, airwaves and atmosphere aren't cases where one usage is a common noun and the other is a proper noun. "internet" is a common noun but "Internet" is a proper noun. If we don't capitalise Internet when referring to the Internet, then essentially we're saying "well even though this is grammatically correct, we're not going to do it because others don't". Appeal to popularity is a fallacy for a reason – because no matter how many people happen to do something, that doesn't automatically make it right. (See also: Smoking, drinking, developing non-libre software.) If we were just going to go along with what the masses do, we wouldn't even have our own manual of style – we'd just use one that already exists. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep saying that it is a proper noun, but it just doesn't scan that way to me. I just cannot see a difference between saying "the Internet", meaning the world-wide one that is most important, and "the car", meaning my personal car because it is the most important. --Khajidha (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is only one Internet, that unique, special project developed out of ARPANET. The car you drive is just some car; it's non-unique (there may have been tens of thousands of that model produced in the very same color, styling, etc.). If you name it something, like "Khajidha's Krazy Kar", well then you can capitalize it, because it refers to a unique and special vehicle. But don't be disappointed when the neighbors just refer to it as Khajidha's heap (or Ford or blue car or 318i or whatever) because you're not famous enogh for folks to recognize your car's uniqueness. The Mackinac Bridge is a particular, unique structure (like the Internet); a bridge is just one of a kind of item, like an internet. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, "the Mackinac Bridge" is a proper noun. But "the Bridge"isn't. If you can figure out which one is analogous to "the Internet", you will see why that isn't a proper noun.--Khajidha (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have figured it out, which is–surprise!–why I brought the examples. Proper nouns: the Mackinac Bridge, the Internet, Khajidha, Wikipedia, the Earth. Common nouns: a bridge, an internet, (an or the) editor, encyclopedia, some earth. I don't know if you mistyped, but I didn't use "the Bridge" with a capital letter, so I don't know if you're trying to make a point there. I said "a bridge" and I meant "a bridge". — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. You completely missed the point. Bridge and internet are both common nouns. Used by themselves, neither is a proper noun. And just capitalizing them doesn't change that. Common nouns are capitalized as part of specified names like Mackinac Bridge. --Khajidha (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Khajidha: Internet is a common noun, yes. But it is also a proper noun, because the name of the global internet commonly used in 2021 is "Internet". If there was a bridge and it was simply called "Bridge", would you argue not to capitalise the B because bridge is also a common noun? It doesn't matter that it's also a common noun – they decided to call the global internet as commonly used in 2021 "Internet". Names have their first letter capitalised, whether or not the name also counts as a common noun if uncapitalised. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But you're ignoring the fact that many sources and many authorities have decided that it's not a proper name. Just because you consider it to be one doesn't mean that Wikipedia should. We tend to go the other way, and use lowercase when caps are not necessary, and the large number of sources and authorities who say caps are not necessary here make your opinion on the matter rather un-weighty. You claim "they decided"; but who is they? Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If there were a bridge simply called "Bridge", it wouldn't have a proper name, either. It's that simple. --Khajidha (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Dicklyon: Popular opinion cannot decide whether something is or is not a name. It is a name; someone decided that. I don't know who, but that's irrelevant. We cannot change that.
    User:Khajidha: Why not? If the people who constructed it decided its name would be "Bridge", then that is its name. You can't refute something like that. You could say "well, that shouldn't be its name", but that changes nothing. It is its name. DesertPipeline (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys are claiming someone created it and named it? But can't say who? How quaint. Dicklyon (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Dicklyon: I can't see how knowing who named it is relevant to the discussion of whether or not it is a name. What about place names in different countries? If they're old names, we don't know who named them – we just know that is their name. The same applies here. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, not relevant because nobody named it, as you seemed to claim above. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Dicklyon: If nobody named it, then why does it have a name? DesertPipeline (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If it has a name, please tell us what it is, because"the Internet" isn't one. --Khajidha (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Khajidha: In your opinion Internet is not (or should not be) a name; however, opinion does not override reality. DesertPipeline (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems more like you are the one trying to put your opinion above the reality of how the English language has always worked. --Khajidha (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: Also, does this mean that you don't consider "Moon", "Sun" and "Earth" names because they are also common nouns when uncapitalised? DesertPipeline (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, it does. (Although the rationale is that the uncapitalized form is the common noun for the type, not just any common noun.)--Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Khajidha: I don't know what you mean by that. Please can you rephrase? DesertPipeline (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • If we're making a direct quote (The Podunk Herald wrote that "Ted Stevens famously compared The Internet to a series of tubes"), then yes, we should reproduce the original source as faithfully as our publishing technology reasonably allows, but that's really the only exception which prompted my "almost always" qualifier. (...) -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    @RoySmith: per MOS:PMC, it is okay to silently correct minor spelling errors in quotations. So if the result of this discussion is that "internet" is correct, then it's okay to also correct the quotations (unless that change also changes the meaning of the quote somehow). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll add my 20 cents here, too, to my argumentation for my vote above.
    @changing direct quotes: it is inadmisive to change quotes in such a way, that changes quotes meaning. Where manuals of style etc. allow or encourage that, MOS-es etc. should be reconsidered, and changed, not followed.
    @internets, intranets, Internet: There are company (etc.) internets (term), that are also global, composed of interconnected (used to be by various types of dedicated links) intranets, which are by design trying not being part of Internet accessible to general public (and malware). When we discuss history of these technologies, internetworking without Internet used to be a lot more common before, much of it for security and reliability reasons. Now VPN tunnels through Internet are often used, often not because they would be more secure, but because of price and better hw redundancy.
    Now go try to teach fresh young to-become-network-engineers (from extremely-smart-but-not-yet-very wise child game-enthusiasts) OSI model and related science and technology with all terminology in the literature used, decapitalized. Try to teach them about systematically preventing vulnerabilities (make them keep Murphy's law in mind's eye) of these technologies, without letting them know (and understand thoroughly) the examples what happened before some of those were fixed. And think of how you could explain those examples in an understandable way without the ability to be concise, which removing distinction between similarly sounding and/or written terms like proposed here, would reduce.
    Please try to look at the problem not from the aspect of (an expert narrow speciality) teacher, but from the aspect of an (extremely smart and interrested) novice student. I learned much form bad teachers - about how not to teach. I used to be an expert, but tried as much as possible to stay aware of the point of view of a novice, to a point to systematically try not only to remember, but also document a novices point of view whenever I was introduced at something significantly new. It happened often, because I was called often to try to help troubleshoot widely different things, and insisted of always being introduced to field of the problem as a novice to it. Often (even usually) significant part of the problem to troubleshoot was miscommunication between novices and experts, and even between different experts, without the experts being aware of that, and without most novices daring to speak up about it.
    Conclusion: I see WP primary as a tool for users, and secondary to be editor friendly. WP policies should help with both aspects. Following them should reduce clashes between editors about what contents should be included and how it should be presented, and ease up their resolution if they emerge.
    IMO Primary goal should be to help contents be usefull to the user, and beneficial to humanity in general. Policies should help achieving that goal, and if policies are found to have evolved in such a way the usefullness of contents of WP diminishes, they hvvr"however"? should be reconsidered, no matter how longstanding, not followed and enforced just becouse they exist.
    I see changes that make things harder to be explained concisely adverse to the primary WP goal mentioned above, and anything involved in promoting that trend (in or out of WP) in serious need to be reconsidered from that point of view. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your post incisively summarizes the discussion so far. EEng 15:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "I can tell you right now, Dave... that monkey is indeed being cheeky!"

Removal of "UK" from location field in infoboxes

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


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

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

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

Martinevans123 A good point, my apologies, I both could and should have referred to NI above - my own oversight. I personally take the same view given by the user below, that if it is in the UK, which NI unambiguously is (and to acknowledge this does not deny the politics that exist around the topic), then "UK" or "United Kingdom" ought to be included. Vaze50 (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vaze50, I support requiring "United Kingdom" to be included as a minimum requirement for each location within the UK - it is the only sovereign state covering this area after all, and is equivalent to US, France, Canada, Australia, China, Japan, etc. Any sub-division, such as E, NI, S or W or county names, etc. should, I think, only be included if they are required for disambiguation and only if there is a local consensus to include them.
The main point of the location data is surely to pinpoint a place within the world in the most efficient way, and the sovereign state is the internationally accepted primary sub-division of the world for that. This fundamental requirement should not be hijacked to push any political agenda. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, using the principles of efficiency and specificity, I'd say only include the county if it is essential for disambiguation of the location within the UK. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. But very many BLP articles for British people include county, where no disambiguation is needed, and I feel no compelling desire to remove them. I sometimes wish MoS was clearer, as currently there is no specific advice about counties. I've always regarded them as the equivalent of US States, even though there's a big size difference. But I think Vaze50 sees the constituent counties of the UK as the equivalent of the US states, rather than as countries in their own right. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify Martinevans123, I do accept that E/S/W/NI are not the equivalent of US states in most respects. In a purely literal sense it is true that they are subdivisions of a sovereign state, but the state of California doesn't have international sports teams, its own 'national anthem' etc. I accept therefore that a reasonable compromise would include both the UK country in question as well as the UK at the end. I do not think it is right or fair that "UK" is the only sovereign state in the world that is airbrushed entirely out of location fields. If I was being totally single-minded about it, I'd recommend the removal of E/S/W/NI, but I accept that this would not be met with general approval. I think the most reasonable compromise would be a practice of: City/Town/Village, County (only when necessary, large cities e.g. London, Birmingham, Glasgow clearly don't benefit from having a county attached), E/S/W/NI, UK. In this way, we include the constituent country of the UK (and I am happy to accept that removing them would be unacceptable to some) AND the sovereign state of the UK, reversing the current situation where the UK is the only sovereign state not allowed to be on location fields in infoboxes. Does that sound reasonable? Vaze50 (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable to me. But I'm aware there are probably as many editor preferences over this as there are possible combinations. By the way most of the largest cities in England can't have a county attached as they are Unitary Authorities. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vaze50: You've only pinged editors who appear to have agreed with your position in the earlier discussion. It's only right then that everyone should be invited back (if you'd just mentioned them by name above, that would be different). JG66 (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JG66 By all means, the more the merrier. I didn't include every single editor who agreed with my position in that earlier discussion, only a number, I also included one who did not, but the bigger the discussion the better - will hopefully mean an agreement can be reached. Vaze50 (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vaze50, that's good to hear. So if you could now ping all the others, it would be much appreciated. You say you included an editor who did not agree with your position, but I'm referring to your statement: "Several users in that discussion, including User:GoodDay, User:EEng, User:koavf, User:DeFacto, indicated a clear preference for the inclusion both of "England/Scotland/Wales" as well as "UK". This is clearly a fair compromise ... [my emphasis]." Many thanks, JG66 (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GhostInTheMachine, in the international context though (and remember the audience of this work is wider than just the UK), "England" is not equivalent to a sovereign state or country, and that it is only the sovereign state (i.e. United Kingdom) that is internationally recognised. The addition of "England", a sub-division of a sovereign state is inefficient and totally unnecessary to identify the location precisely and concisely. To locate Blackpool precisely, all that we need is "Blackpool, United Kingdom" (or "Blackpool, Lancashire, United Kingdom" if there is another "Blackpool" in the UK which it might be mistaken for), so why complicate and confuse infobox contents with the clutter of totally superfluous and redundant bloat? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto, that is not entirely correct to claim that "in the international world England does not have the status of a country." That really only applies to diplomatic and other official relations between the states and their governments. In other settings, England and the other UK countries most certainly are considered as countries, not only domestically but internationally as well. In international trade/commerce, for example: imports are very commonly labeled "product of England" or "product of Scotland" without any mention of UK. Another example, when sending mail to, say, somewhere in England, internationally, there's no requirement to write "UK" - writing England for the country is all that's needed. That is not the case with either US states or Canadian Provinces, even when mailing between Canada and the states, they require on a separate line below everything else to be written either 'Canada' or 'USA' (and even after both countries coordinated their state/province abbreviations so that no state or province used the same two letters as any state or province in the othercountry). Sorry for the long winded reply. Just pointing out that there is a difference that can be objectively quantified that is unique to the UK cases. Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GhostInTheMachine I respectfully disagree with you that adding UK or United Kingdom is excessive. The UK's status is an unusual one, often referred to as you know as "a country of countries". Personally I would favour the approach recommended by DeFacto, in that "Blackpool, United Kingdom/Blackpool, Lancashire, United Kingdom" would be easily sufficient. However, recognising the rather unusual situation of the UK, I think "Blackpool, England, UK" or "Blackpool, Lancashire, England, UK" is not excessive, but rather a perfectly reasonable compromise. As it currently stands, the UK is the only sovereign state that is not included in the location field, and this does not seem reasonable or fair. One way or the other, I think the case for the inclusion of "United Kingdom" (or shortened to UK for the sake of space, which is reasonable) is overwhelming. Does that sound reasonable to you? Vaze50 (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not the best example folks, as Blackpool is no longer in Lancashire. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is, just only the ceremonial county but yes we would normally use "Location", "Parish", "District", "County", "England" when identifying places. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I am missing something but aren't England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland countries? Which makes them equivalent to Australia, US, Canada, Russia, etc. The UK would be more equivalent to something like the old Soviet bloc (ie a group of countries).
In any case, we only need to give enough information to the reader so that they have a reasonable chance of knowing where it is. Readers from the other side of the world should not be expected to know where all the shires are in the UK (I'm Australian and I certainly don't know many UK shires and I wouldn't expect most Asian or American readers to know them). But most of these same readers should be comfortable with just the country, even if they think it is a far away, exotic, country. Adding 'UK' just makes it more verbose.  Stepho  talk  10:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stepho-wrs England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not the equivalent of Australia, Canada etc., because they belong within a single unitary sovereign state, the UK. What you're suggesting would be more like adding "European Union" to the end of locations (of course the UK is no longer in the EU so that wouldn't apply here, but I hope you understand the point). It's because England etc. aren't the equivalent of Australia, Canada etc., that this issue arises. Vaze50 (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused. I look at the England, Scotland and Wales pages and they all say "XXX is a country that is part of the United Kingdom" (my emphasis). If Scotland (for example) is a country then it is equivalent to Australia, which is also a country. It is also equivalent to France, even though France is also a part of the EU. However, the Northern Ireland page doesn't say that it is a country.
Just in case my pinion was misread, I'm not suggesting we add something, I'm suggesting that we stop at the country level because our readers know what a country is, most of them know those countries in particular and have got the point by then without more verbiage. The same way that we don't say France, EU.  Stepho  talk  12:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stepho-wrs, Australia, Canada and France are so-called "sovereign states", and there is a list of all of them here, and that means they have sovereignty over a given geographical area and international recognition for that. You'll notice that neither England, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales is in that list, that's because they are not recognised internationally as independent states. The sovereign state that covers them, and so is equivalent to Australia, Canada and France is the United Kingdom, which is in that list. Using "England" as a 'country' is similar to using sub-parts of Australia such as "Victoria" and "Tasmania", or "Saskatchewan" or "Manitoba" from Canada. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stepho-wrs I understand where you're coming from, and I would agree that adding "EU" at the end of, say, "Paris, France" would be unnecessary. However the EU is a supranational organisation, and the UK is a sovereign state - like France. Indeed it is exactly because France (the sovereign state that Paris is located within) is included after Paris that I think surely somewhere like London ought to have the UK added after it. To put it more simply, London is the capital city of both England and the UK. It seems bizarre to me that within a location field we can have "London, England" without controversy but not either "London, UK" or "London, England, UK". I accept that it can be a bit confusing when you see on the article that "England is a country", however there is no government of England for instance, which is a pretty basic requirement for a country. There is a UK Government instead, because the UK is the sovereign state. It is on that basis that I strongly recommend the inclusion of "UK" within location fields on relevant infoboxes - does that make sense? Vaze50 (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I acknowledge that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not sovereign states. But I find it very hard to accept that England, Scotland and Wales are not countries - at least according to WP's own articles, the Oxford, Cambridge and Merriam-Webster dictionaries. But whether or not they are sovereign states is irrelevant. They are countries that are known around the world in their own right. Adding 'UK' is therefore not necessary and only adds clutter.  Stepho  talk  04:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Words can have multiple definitions and meanings. There are a variety of places that are known in their own right (eg. London), but consistency is useful to a reader, and so giving locations in a consistent pattern is also useful, rather than being unnecessary or clutter. CMD (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stopping at the country level is the best way to specify the location of a place. England is a country, so towns and villages in England would be specified as being located in England. The reference to "sovereign states" is not relevant to locations — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 11:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GhostInTheMachine Would you accept that E/S/W/NI are not typical countries given their status, and are not the direct equivalents of, say, France or Germany? As such, is it not fair to include BOTH E/S/W/NI as well as UK, so that this encyclopaedia is not taking a potentially political stance of removing the country that E/S/W/NI are within? Vaze50 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Typical or untypical does not matter - England is a country. ..., England, UK for a location is still absurd — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 11:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GhostInTheMachine, England isn't a country recognised by the UN, it is a constituent part of the UK - and the UK is recognised, and indeed is a founder member of the UN. All places in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales can rightly be addressed as being in the country of the United Kingdom, without the need to mention which of the constituent countries they are also in. The sub-country is irrelevant as far as the location of a UK place is concerned. Also, amongst those that do not fully understand the structure of the UK, "England" is often erroneously used when the "United Kingdom" is meant, which could be considered offensive by British people, especially those from one of the other three constituent countries. All in all, "UK" alone is the safest bet, if we are to avoid "England, UK", "Northern Ireland, UK", "Scotland. UK" and "Wales, UK". -- DeFacto (talk). 13:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose use of UK. Adding UK is both superfluous and redundant. If Americans want to say "England, UK" in articles about non-British subjects – fine. But, if the article is within the remit of Template:Use British English, then British convention must apply and we use county first and then country to clarify – never UK. For example, Churchill was born at Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire. However, an overseas reader might not know where Oxfordshire is so we're happy with Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire, England. In fact, removal of the country would be downright insulting to many, probably most, British citizens. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No Great Shaker, what's your logic for requiring the inclusion the superfluous sub-division of the sovereign country - which probably isn't even fully understood within the UK - and excluding the name of the sovereign country itself - which is the only name recognised at the international level? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what it is that you fail to understand. British people do not use UK. They use their country. A Scottish person will say they come from Aberdeen, for example. If someone asks where Aberdeen is, they will say Scotland, never UK (okay, they might say Britain depending on the situation). UK is not a country, it is a state which consists of four individual countries. And please don't assume that British people do not understand living in the UK and its component countries. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just glad no-one has mentioned the Isle of Man yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Ha! Or the Channel Islands. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you say UK is the only name recognised internationally? What about sport, for example? I can't think of one international team that is called UK (tell me if there is one). No Great Shaker (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No Great Shaker I would dispute the point you make in your final paragraph - "British people do not use UK...they use their country". The UK is the correct term for the country, it is a unitary sovereign state, a founding member state of the United Nations, and is therefore, I would suggest, very reasonable to include on this basis. The logic you apply here would suggest that we should also remove "U.S." from the location field of appropriate boxes and replace with "America" - after all, very few Americans would say they come from "the U.S." over simply saying "America". However, the U.S. is the technically correct term, and as this is intended to be an encyclopaedia, I don't agree that we should apply an arbitrary approach based on what some people might or might not say. On that basis, I think the inclusion of "UK" after E/S/W/NI is perfectly reasonable as a compromise. I am certainly not suggesting throwing out E/S/W/NI. I don't agree that identifying the sovereign state of a location (when this is done in all other cases) is superfluous. Vaze50 (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vaze50, UK is not a country, that is the point. The countries are England, Scotland, Wales and NI. The UK is a political entity – a sovereign state, if you like. It does not follow that British convention should apply to the US and I would oppose any proposal to alter American convention. Also, per the points made below, could you please fromally define your proposal somewhere above? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No Great Shaker I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with your assessment above - there are a huge number of "lists of countries" on this encyclopaedia, as there are many different criteria by which one could list a country, and in the overwhelming majority it is the United Kingdom that is referred to in these lists, not E/S/W/NI. Whilst it is true that E/S/W/NI are referred to as countries in many respects, this doesn't change the fact that the UK is itself also a country. The phrase "country of countries" has been employed outside of this website to describe the UK, but even if we stick to this website alone, the fact that the vast majority of "lists of countries" articles include the UK (not E/S/W/NI) I think provide a suitable basis for disagreeing with your comments there.
My proposal is to add UK to all infobox location fields where the location is within the UK, as simple as that. I certainly do not propose to remove E/S/W/NI - to be frank with you, I would be happy to see them removed and replaced with United Kingdom, but I fully recognise that compromise is required and it wouldn't be fair to try to impose that on articles when clearly the status of countries within the UK is complex at best. Therefore I think the most suitable (and informative) compromise is to include simply "UK" wherever E/S/W/NI is used. My reasons for doing so is that all other sovereign states are referred to within the relevant location fields, and it would seem to be unfair to be prioritising the use of E/S/W/NI over UK - as a fair compromise, I think both should be included, and I cite the example of Derry/Londonderry as where, on this website, there has been a recognition of similar. I hope I've made that clear, but please let me know if I can clarify further. Vaze50 (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/add UK, this is an international encyclopaedia read by many who will not know what is or isn't part of the UK. Removing it is removing helpful information for readers for no benefit. Don't particularly see much difference as to whether United Kingdom is spelt out or UK is used for space reasons. Responses against the removal of Eng/Sco/Wal/NI seem misplaced, that doesn't appear to be proposed. CMD (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the proposal needs to be clearly defined. The individual countries of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are known globally and the addition of UK is superfluous. However, you may have a point about the Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, etc. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are known globally, but equally the states of New York and California are known globally, and yet they are included along with "U.S." in the equivalent infoboxes. Whilst it's true that a US state and a UK country are not exactly the same thing, they are both subdivisions of a larger sovereign state, and it would I think be appropriate and useful to include, as well as a fair compromise. At the moment, including only E/S/W/NI feels like a politically biased outcome, unintended or otherwise, whereas to include both is a reasonable compromise. Think the Derry/Londonderry debate - strong feelings about both, and so both are used. It makes the articles longer than they would otherwise be, but it is a fair compromise for a potentially sensitive issue. Vaze50 (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. They are not the same thing. England is a country, California is a state, British and American conventions are different. It may be an American convention to always say "London, England, UK" but it is not a British convention and articles about British subjects must comply with Use British English. "England, UK" is absolutely not part of British English. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Great Shaker You have asserted that it is "not part of British English" and "not a British convention" but would you please be able to point me to where the guidance is on this website that British English dictates UK ought not to be added after England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? I have gone through it and have not been able to find any advice one way or the other. If that is the case, it would appear to be assertion, rather than guidance, and there would be no compromise with British English to include the UK. Indeed the fact that the British English article begins by referencing the United Kingdom first and foremost, I think that rather demonstrates the point that UK would be worth adding to these location fields! Vaze50 (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also a strong citation needed for "known globally". The amount of times I have had to explain what Northern Ireland is... CMD (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Great Shaker, don't be casting aspersions on us Americans :P. It most definitely is not an American convention to always say "London, England, UK". (in the case of London it is pretty much always just London). For other cities in England, it is typically either just England or just UK; never both. England is more common. We never write "England, UK" or "Scotland, UK." Northern Ireland might get UK tacked onto it sometimes...not sure. Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We in the UK have had an "oven ready" Brexit and we know that "EU" is not a real place. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • I don’t see that as a parallel. Parallels might be “Dogsville, California, USA” or “Oompahberg, Bavaria, Germany” MapReader (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blueboar, no, there is no parallel there. The EU is not a sovereign state, it is a trading bloc of member states, each of which is an independent sovereign state. On the other hand, the United Kingdom is a sovereign state which comprises four, non-sovereign, constituent countries. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blueboar I would like to emphasise the point made above by both MapReader and DeFacto - the EU not only isn't a sovereign state but doesn't claim to be, it is a supranational organisation, which only sovereign states can join. Indeed the very fact that it was the UK that was a member of the EU until recently, rather than England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being members separately, demonstrates why it is the UK that is the country those four are located in, and why I and others here believe it ought to be included within location fields in infoboxes, do you think that is fair? Vaze50 (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what is obvious about it. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "England, UK" is an abomination. There are various laboured arguments above about the status of the United Kingdom as a "sovereign state" (indeed, only recently having regained its sovereignty back from the EU according to one popular opinion), but we are talking about explaining where somewhere is. None of the four constituent nations of the UK is obscure, and none is ambiguous, so "Scotland" is sufficient to identify where something is. Geography is not just about "sovereign nations": there are many cases, such as remote offshore bits of France, where giving the "sovereign nation" (i.e. "France", for an island in the Pacific) is quite misleading. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Imaginatorium "Abomination" is a bit strong I think, considering England is unambiguously within the UK! The cities of London or Edinburgh are not obscure, and are not ambiguous, why therefore isn't "London" or "Edinburgh" sufficient to identify the birth/death place of somebody? The reason "England/Scotland" are added (but not UK, the sovereign nation these cities are located) seems to be political, frankly! Offshore areas are less of a problem for the UK - Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories are not technically within the UK, so the issue simply does not arise. Vaze50 (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elsewhere you ask if you are being clear enough - yes, you are crystal clear, but you are simply wrong. You believe (presumably not being British) that British people should say this or that, but they do not. Of course England is unambiguously within the UK, and is also unambiguously within Europe, and unambiguously on the third planet from the sun, but any of these would be superfluous after it. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep UK. If it is necessary to include U.S., Canada and Australia inside infoboxes (see Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau and Scott Morrison), why shouldn't UK be included? -- Calidum 19:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unnecessary Infoboxes are supposed to convey "key" information "at a glance". The country (e.g. England, Scotland) is more than sufficient for the reader to understand the location. That's all the infobox is for. No need to specify UK in thousands or tens of thousands of articles, that is pedantic (overly concerned with minute details or formalisms).
Above comment added by MB.
MB Why in that case do we even add England/Scotland/Wales etc.? Surely "London" would be sufficient enough (for example)? But every other infobox includes city/town etc., followed by country - England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland are not ordinary countries, they are within a wider sovereign state, the UK. It only seems fair to me that both are included, and we are hardly crowding the infobox by adding two letters, are we? Vaze50 (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't remove. No need to reinforce systemic boas by engaging in special pleading. Only the UK is a sovereign country. oknazevad (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "England, UK" is just ridiculous. Use either, not both. Readers of English know what both mean. It's time not to clutter our text—especially in infoboxes—with superflous divisions/subdivisions/super-categories. Same for the ridiculous "New York, New York". Same for "Chicago, Illinois" et al.: when well-known, we can dispense with using WP like a postal envelope. Tony (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep UK (and US, etc.) for consistency and because it may be a skewed (perhaps Western or developed-country) perspective to assume that all Wikipedia readers, including those in Africa and Asia, know that England is part of the UK. Indeed, it is not an uncommon misconception for “England” to be used to refer to the whole of the UK (and “Holland” for the Netherlands). Avoiding ambiguity is to be preferred for an encyclopedia. Also, if some sovereign nations are omitted, there will inevitably be further discussions about which other cities or regions are so well-known that their sovereign nations can also be omitted (Paris? Kuala Lumpur? Rabat? Rio de Janeiro?) — SGconlaw (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep UK where it is and do not remove. Only the UK is the internationally recognised state, if it's been included this is likely for some reason and other editors should not WP:POINTedly try to remove it. FOARP (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not quite so simple... Margaret Thatcher once quipped that when she attended international conferences, the country she represented depended on who she needed to speak with. If she needed to speak with Ronald Reagan, she would ask to be seated as “United Kingdom”... if she wanted to speak with Mubarak of Egypt, she would ask to be seated as “England”... if she wanted to speak to the President of Greece, she would ask to be seated as “Great Britain”... and if she wanted to speak to someone from Angola she could ask for the seating to be in French, so she could be from “Angleterre”. Blueboar (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never both England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland and UK. To quote Tony1, it looks ridiculous. I'd go further and say it's makes Wikipedia look utterly stupid. That's not to dismiss concerns here about standardising with the approach for other countries – I'm just coming from a Brit (English/Scottish) perspective. It might be an idea to notify the likes of WP:UK and WP:GEOGRAPHY, and start an RfC about this. JG66 (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I'm aware the UK countries are normally recognized alone and we usually only have UK in infoboxes. Canada and the US aren't the same since they don't have any constitute countries. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Crouch, Swale - As a note, and not as a particular argument in either direction, Quebec is a "nation" of Canada, and various Native American "nations" are contained within the United States. FOARP (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s cute that you guys call them countries, but England is no more sovereign than California (and at least California has its own government). -- Calidum 19:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." It seems Wikipedia is equally cute? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any indication that Quebec is a nation of Canada, its a province similar to Cornwall or Essex being counties of England. England indeed isn't a sovereign state, the UK is, if you asked someone what country Mansfield is in you would probably get "England" but if you asked them what sovereign state you would get UK. I'd note with Cornwall it has its own language unlike California (though there is mention at Uto-Aztecan languages it appears to refer to a region not a named language) see also Cornish nationalism. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Québécois nation motion and also various acts of the Quebec legislature during the early 2000's when it was dominated by BQ/PQ (e.g., renaming the legislature as the "national" assembly and Quebec City as the "national" capital). Like I said, I don't think this is really an argument either way but it is not really true to say that no other country contains countries/nations/whatever. Even Germany contains the "Free State" of Bavaria. FOARP (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All German states are countries (Lander) within a country (Land) too. A similar history of established entities uniting. The translation just hasn't carried over into English. CMD (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this OCED report apparently is not embarrassed by referring to "England (UK)" multiple times,[5] so it's probably easy to get over feeling "ridiculous" or "stupid", or maybe feeing "ridiculous" or "stupid" about such a thing is a sign of taking oneself much too seriously. And it seems very doubtful that people in the USA would customarily refer to "Manchester, NH, USA", anymore than those in the UK would use UK in their national customs, but the pedia is written for others not in the USA, nor in the UK. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep UK and do not remove. Systematic removal of UK from infoboxes by certain editors is rife, sometimes alongside changing "British" to "English" for any BLP where the subject was born in England, without any verification. This often leaves articles without a single mention of the UK, Britain or British anywhere in it. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland may be described as countries, but they are not countries in the sense that any other country is a country. The UK is the sovereign state, whether we like it or not; whether it "looks ridiculous" or not. Some people here would be stunned to learn just how many people in the world have no idea that England is not independent, or that it is part of the UK. This is an encyclopedia, which exists to inform. We don't omit information because it "looks ridiculous" or because local editors feel it is redundant. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the unnecessary use of "UK" or "United Kingdom". While the constituent countries of the UK may not be sovereign states it's ridiculous to say that they're not internationally recognized. Anyone from anywhere in the world with a modicum of education surely knows where "London, England" or "Edinburgh, Scotland" is, for example. Appending that with "UK" will not help our readers better understand anything, and removing mention of the country certainly won't help. The fact is that the UK's status as a 'country of countries' is unusual, so all these comparisons to the US, Australia or anywhere else are moot. For people who already understand that the UK is a sovereign nation, appending "UK" serves little purpose, and for people who don't understand it, it means nothing. nagualdesign 20:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose inclusion of UK. As stated by others, to a British user, a formula like "Manchester, England, UK" would be absurd. Let's stick to British style on British articles. There is no need to base the decision on "sovereign states" - what is necessary for readers is the internationally known country, and that is E W S or NI. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how that is tenable. In Singapore it is common for all titles (e.g., President, Prime Minister, Chairman) to be capitalized, but I don't see Wikipedia taking a country-by-country approach to an issue like that in its articles. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ghmyrtle, as far as I know, the "British style" is to exclude the constituent country name, and just add "UK". You only have to look at non-partisan online sources of addresses to see that - try Royal Mail's postcode finder or the Sainsbury's store finder, for example. Try typing "Drum" into the store finder, and it'll offer stores from across the UK matching that, and you'll see that whether they are in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, or Wales is not mentioned, they just end "UK". I couldn't think of a string to bring up a place in each of the four home nations, but "Drum" finds stores in three of them: NI, E and S. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also here. We can all cherry-pick examples either way to our hearts' content, without making much progress. What is most important is what our readers will want and understand. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ghmyrtle, that's not a typical address list though. As we know, the UK's four constituent countries compete independently in the Commonwealth Games, unlike at the Olympics or most other international sports where a single UK team competes. So, of course, they will be identified separately. Look at the teams' own websites though, and notice how even there, their contact addresses (E, S, W and NI) all end with their UK postcode, with no mention of their individual constituent country names. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove UK where we can go to England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland per ENGVAR. This is the English language Wikipedia and we can assume that most of our readers are familar with such concepts as Scotland and England. Other language versions may choose to do things differently - someone mentioned German Lander, and on DE wiki you could expect a greater understanding of Lander. ϢereSpielChequers 11:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually just write England/Scotland/Wales/NI I'm not advocating a great bot-led purge or anything, but in general I think that just giving England, Scotland or whatever is better than just giving UK, in that it more closely reflects the way that people usually refer to places, and that it's more precise; conversely, I think that giving both is just silly. I get that Britain is a bit of an outlier internationally in having countries within a country, and consistency is all well and good, but we don't strive for uniformity and we should go with what reads better. FWIW, I would no more write 'Perth, Western Australia, Australia' than I would write 'Perth, Scotland, UK'. There are probably particular circumstances where it would make sense to use UK, that could be discussed case by case. GirthSummit (blether) 11:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - infobox parameters/usage: For articles that are relevant to sovereign state such as government bodies for example Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Secret Intelligence Service and MI5, etc.. inclusion of UK in the infobox would seem reasonable. The inclusion of UK in a infobox would seem reasonable when a company/organization, etc.. provides goods/services to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. {{Infobox company}} has parameters for |location= and |area_served= as used in Rekom UK with "Headquarters" in England and "Area served" as UK. {{Infobox organization}} has a parameter for |headquarters= (|location_country= is never used) and parameters |area_served=, |region_served= and |region= that label using that wording. Examples are General Medical Council with "Headquarters" in London and "Region" as UK and Civil Aviation Authority (United Kingdom) with "Region" as UK and "Location" as London using |location=. {{Infobox union}} is an example of an infobox that doesn't have a area/region served parameter for example Dental Laboratories Association covers all UK it uses |office= and |country= with UK in both. UK is normally in the MOS:LEAD for government bodies/companies/organizations that cover all UK. High use infoboxes are in bold in the WP:IB list. |country= is used in film, book, television, {{Infobox station}}, building, {{Infobox venue}} and mountain. Place such as |birth_place= is used in musical artist, football biography, military person, writer, officeholder, person, artist and sportsperson. Airport uses |location=. Military unit is high use and uses UK for country. {{Infobox UK place}} automatically inserts Sovereign state for United Kingdom an example is Belfast. {{Infobox settlement}} is a high use infobox for cities, towns,etc.. but I assume {{Infobox UK place}} is mostly used. Although London uses {{Infobox settlement}}, which supports customized labels, using Sovereign state for United Kingdom and Country for England the same as {{Infobox UK place}}.--Melbguy05 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One size does not fit all so I very strongly oppose making a single rule to cover all cases. In most contexts using either E/W/S/NI or UK is fine and perfectly understandable by the significant majority of the readers (which is the only reasonable goal to aim for) but sometimes using both will be preferable. Whether to use constituent country, UK or both will depend entirely on the subject matter, for example a footballer whose primary notability is playing for one of the E/W/S/NI national teams and politicians from a nationalist party using the relevant constituent country is usually going to be the most meaningful, while for central government departments and UK-wide organisations and people prominently associated with them "UK" is probably usually best. Using, e.g. "Wales, UK" is probably best in only a few cases but organisations of devolved assemblies might be one example. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If it's used it should always be "United Kingdom", not "UK". We should always prefer the full term rather than an abbreviation that looks tacked onto the end. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Curious about this stance. Do you also advocate for the change of infoboxes in regards to say "U.S" to "United States".  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always add UK - In an infobox you want it to be all apples, not apples and oranges. The nation is UK or United Kingdom, not England or Northern Ireland. You might as well just leave things as California instead of saying Los Angeles, California, USA. For a person like president McKinley we put in Niles, Ohio, U.S., not just Niles, Ohio. That's they way it should always be to be consistent. If you want to change all Wikipedia article to not include the country, we can do that, but we need to be consistant and not have some special rule for just with UK. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But England, Wales, and Scotland are all countries to begin with unlike US states. So having just is Niles, Ohio is not comparable to say Bristol, England as the latter includes the country whilst the former does not.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • UK is usually unnecessary. The point of info boxes to to briefly and concisely communicate key information about a topic. When identifying someone's birthplace, we need just enough information so that most people can recognize it easily: details about the political structure are irrelevant unless the info box is about a political topic. It might be helpful to write Isle of Man, UK, as I suspect many people don't know where it is, but I feel that it's unnecessary to write England, UK, and probably confusing to write Gibraltar, UK, as that might suggest that Gibraltar is geographically close to the British Isles. If we're looking for international comparisons, I surveyed some info boxes and found that we use Netherlands Antilles (rather than Netherlands Antilles, Netherlands), Greenland (rather than Greenland, Denmark), and Hong Kong (rather than Hong Kong, China or Hong Kong, United Kingdom). pburka (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be "helpful" to write "Isle of Man, UK" as the Isle of Man isn't part of the United Kingdom. If you want to say where it is then "Isle of Man, British Isles" would work though I don't think we should routinely do that. 213.137.16.211 (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes a UK 'country' distinct from a Canadian province or a US state? Is "California, US" or "Quebec, Canada" an acceptable construction? If yes, then "Scotland, UK" should be too. If no, then it shouldn't be. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, I want to preface how this discussion since I have been misrepsresented. Vaze50 first went about adding "UK" in infoboxes intially without edit summaries to high-profile UK articles ([6],[7] (strangely changing "English" to "British" but that is a discussion for another time) [8] (in addition to removing counties but that is also a discussion for another time), then doing the same for 27 others articles vaguely citing "MOS:BIRTHPLACE" which does not say anything about the matter. I and other reverted the edits and notified Vaze on Vaze's talk page. The user in question then bad faith accussed me being an "English nationlist" (I know exactly where people like you come at this issue from. You're an English nationalist intention keeping the word "UK" away from articles, where it belongs (as with all other countries) because of your political bias) [9] (fortunately the user has since striked the comment). I have not "insisted that a consensus must be reached here before adding "UK" to the end of location fields" I have insisted if it is going to be changed en masse. There are articles currently which do have "UK" at the end but I have not gone out of my way to "expunge" them. I have been maintaining the infomal status quo that either way is allowed but should not be changed on mass. On to the actual content...
  • I think that generally speaking we should just be using England/Wales/Scotland (neutral on Northern Ireland given its more complicated geopolitical status) in infoboxes as I and others have laid in the previous discussion. It seems unnecssary we are general purpose English encylopedia we are not expected to teach every reader the obvious that England is in the UK, it is irrelevant that it is not a "sorverign state". Country is perfectly sufficent. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading some of these comments, one is left to wonder in astonishment why Wikipedia prominently identifies that the UK's London is in the UK (as does Britannica, [10]), and a Canadian London as being in Canada (as does Britannica). Perhaps, any remotely useful general interest encyclopedia in the English language would seem to do so (quite apart from any personal feelings anyone has). The same is true for England in Wikipedia being prominently identified as being in the UK (accord, Britannica). There seems simply no logic to not explicitly identifying these places as being in the UK, regardless of what anyone personally feels about what is unnecessary, or what is obvious -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • London, England, is London, England. It's not London, Ontario. For heaven's sakes, why should we argue about such self-evident nomenclature? England is England; it's not England, Europe, Eastern Hemisphere, Earth . . . . and on and on. Sheesh! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Struck off double suggestion. -The Gnome (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit UK, but don't require it. This is one of those cases where having formal rules doesn't benefit the project. We've been doing fine for 20 years with an ad hoc and article by article approach, depending on the context, and that should continue.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, permit UK, but don't require it. The fact that there's an occasional editing war over this relatively trivial detail is not in itself sufficient justification for imposing a policy affecting zillions of articles (and that will probably create even more edit wars, for a prolonged period). Practice on geographical naming already varies, often sensibly depending on context - for example American cities are more commonly, but far from always, followed by their state; where this is omitted, often this is sensible (for example where it can be implied from the context). IF there is a ruling, it makes no sense to make one for use of "UK" alone; we'd need a fully comprehensive policy that can be applied to geographies across the world, so that the usage in each particular case has some sort of overarching logic. MapReader (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is nuanced. We're talking about an archipelago with a long history, and there are a lot of historical topics that discuss an England, Scotland, Wales, or Ireland that pre-dated the United Kingdom; there are also current topics where adding "UK" is an essential piece of disambiguation. These things require editorial judgment and discretion in each case, and the absolute last thing we need is for a poorly-attended discussion on the Manual of Style pages to come up with a half-assed diktat on the matter out of some misplaced need to regulate things that shouldn't be regulated.—S Marshall T/C 22:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose UK Adding UK in addition to the country name seems unnecessary, and should not be common practice.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose saying "England, UK" or "England, United Kingdom": Appending "UK" to England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland is simply way too pedantic. In my eyes, it seems kind of WP:POINTy, as if someone is trying to sneak in some political commentary rather than simply identify a place. It feels a bit like saying "France, European Union". Personally, I also think "California, United States" is similarly silly and undesirable. We should be able to assume the readers have some basic education about the world, and if "California" is a blue link, those unfamiliar with the place can click on the link to find out what country it is in. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close requested (UK in infoboxes)

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

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

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

Hyphenating racial identities

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

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

Sources:

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

  • Support not hyphenating I used to hyphenate when used as an adjective, but stopped when I read somewhere that 1) it's obvious anyways when it's modifying a lowercase noun 2) growing sentiment that hyphenating makes these groups seem "less" American.—Bagumba (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The general move of most style guides has been towards dropping the hyphen. It also seems apparent that, as Bagumba suggests, a hyphen is NOT needed when used as an adjective. So, for instance, there was a recent move of Asian American studies → Asian-American studies, as the result of a RM. But this seems contrary to the overwhelming precedence without the hyphen, as seen in the names of every major academic program under that name (e.g. UCLA, Berkeley, SFSU, OSU, Cornell, etc.) and the main academic guild on the subject, the AAAS. A similar precedence can be seen with African American studies (e.g. Harvard, BU, Berkeley, Stanford, etc.).--Caorongjin (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – it seems like most organizations are not using the hyphen these days, and we could definitely use the consistency. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After looking at several reliable sources and reviewing the sources mentioned here, the trend is to not hyphenate. I agree with the arguments made and given the sources that support not hyphenating, I agree with having guidelines that adhere to MLA, APA, and AP style guidelines. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use normal English hyphenation – An African American and European American are not hyphenated; but African-American culture and European-American background are. Nothing special here. Compound nouns used as adjectives get hyphens to help the reader parse them. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphenate exactly the same as other compound adjectives in English. There's nothing magically special about these. If one is used as a modifier (an African-American actor) it's hyphenated; if it's not used as a modifier (the most popular candidate among African Americans) then it's not hyphenated. This is dirt-simple, and the MOS:HYPHEN guideline exists for a reason, so just follow it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The current MOS:HYPHEN is not clear. It currently states: "But never insert a hyphen into a proper name (Middle Eastern cuisine, not Middle-Eastern cuisine)." I am not sure how "Middle Eastern cuisine" is considered a proper name. On that basis, are "Middle Eastern literature" or "Middle Eastern studies," and your example of "African-American actor" also considered proper names? — Caorongjin (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hee, hee. I'm gonna let McCandlish explain that one. Fasten seatbelts (or seat-belts). EEng 12:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did the MOS stop reflecting what Reliable Sources say on the matter? If the material doesnt reflect the source, then is wrong. If it does and the MOS says otherwise, the MOS is clearly not working. The MOS is meant to be a guide on best practice. And the best practice for almost every situation on Wikipedia is 'What do reliable sources say about this?'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The MOS does reflect what a lot of reliable sources say on the subject. But as some publishers have style that changing to drop the hyphen, we don't need to be quick to follow that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dicklyon, I would be curious to know which reliable sources say to keep the hyphen. The CMOS17, for instance, gives examples "African Americans" and "African American president" with the explanation "Open in both noun and adjective forms, unless the first term is a prefix or unless between is implied." (§7.89) It further states "since the hyphen does not aid comprehension in such terms as those mentioned above, it may be omitted unless a particular author or publisher prefers the hyphen." (§ 8.39) — Caorongjin (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The summary at (blacklisted link) amp.en.google-info.org/371846/1/hyphenated-american.html says "Modern style guides most often recommend dropping the hyphen between the two names except when the compound is used as an adjective, some, including Chicago manual of style, recommend dropping the hyphen even for the adjective form. ..." Most style guides are not easily searchable online, and my collection is not accessible during WFH, so I'd have a hard time getting back to primaries from there. But I believe this one is correct in characterizing Chicago as being a bit of an outlier. I'm not claiming that a website is a WP:RS, but that's not the relevant criterion for this kind of discussion. Here's a site that made their own determination, justified with "This decision, we felt, treats these terms in the ordinary way." I think we should do the same. And as Chicago says, "it may be omitted unless a particular publisher requires it." It's OK with them if we require it; and we do. There's lots of discussion in sources explain that religious affiliation (Jewish or Muslim Americans) and Native Americans are different, and don't typically take hyphens even as adjectives; I wasn't aware of that. Point is, there are different and conflicting dimensions of consistency. Dicklyon (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can appreciate the limitations of WFH (nevermind whether one has access to a library in normal circumstances). I am just slightly doubtful of these claims of "most" or "a lot." Please note that, as opposed to CMOS16, which you quoted, CMOS17, which I quoted, expands their position to "unless a particular author or publisher prefers the hyphen"; this seems inline with the next discussion in this Talk re: capitalization.
    My point is less about differences of opinion out there, and more about developing consensus for Wikipedia's style guide, which may evolve over time. It also seems to me that if the hyphen "suggests bias," as per CMOS16/17, then that goes against the aspirations of WP:BIAS. — Caorongjin (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a question. Is there a possibility that there different attitude to this in different regions of English language countries. The provided style guides are all USA ones, but I’m wondering what for instance the UK thinks of this issue.Tvx1 00:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what newspapers/magazines use. But the UK equivalent of CMOS would be New Hart's Rules, which seems inconsistent. Speaking about compound words in §3.3.3, it says "In general do not hyphenate capitalized compounds," followed by the example "Latin American studies." It refers to §4.11.1, which gives an example of "Greek-American wife" with the description "American by birth but Greek by descent, hyphen" (as opposed to an en dash for "Greek–American negotiations"). Elsewhere, in §21.4.3, it clarifies that US English usually drops hyphens in compound words. Caorongjin (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2015 Fowler's, which attempts somewhat to bridge the Atlantic, suggests that compound adjectives formed by an adjective and a verb (e.g. good-looking) should get the hyphen. It stated here's no need for a hyphen between an adverb and adjective, so skilfully painted portrait etc. Other than that, hyphens are apparently on the wain. New Hart's Rules gets a mention there as being more comprehensive in its treatment and useful for guidance on specific words, as does the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors. The advice seems to be in favour of re-phrasing to avoid heavy handed use. So support no hyphen Chumpih. (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do like New Hart's Rules, too. It acknowledges "that US English usually drops hyphens in compound words", but that's not a reason to do so in Wikipedia, where being as clear as possible for the benefit of the reader is still part of our mission. Americans are just ignorant of the affordances of English grammar and punctuation, too often, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Irish-Canadian of American origin" or "American-Canadian of Irish ancestry" would be my choices. --Khajidha (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose instruction creep to this level of detail, and context matters in each specific case. Generally support the use of a hyphen when the compound is used as an adjective. but it should be judged on a case-by-case basis. The presence or absence of a hyphen does not change the meaning of anything in any fashion, it is merely an alternative method of organising the text, a visual indicator of the relationship between the words joined by the hyphen. The notion of a hyphen "showing bias" is totally absurd. Also, comment to one thing that the OP mentioned, about terms like "Native American" and "West Indian" not being hyphenated: short answer, those are a completely different kind of construction and different rules apply. (in the case of West Indian, the "West" is not a descriptor of the person; a West Indian is a person from the West Indies). Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: If it affects anyone's !vote here, The New York Times appears to have dropped the hyphen from their style guide this week. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose instruction creep. It makes sense for different uses of ethnic descriptors to have different sorts of hyphenation; the hyphenation is generally used in the adjective form, while the absence of hyphenation is used when using the group as a noun. Wikipedia currently has this sort of thing in place; the page regarding Americans of Italian descent is Italian Americans, while the cuisine of this group is Italian-American Cuisine (though I will admit that seeing "Italian American" without the hyphen just doesn't look right to me). The month to honor the achievement of the American descendants of Irish people is Irish-American Heritage Month, while the group itself is referred to as Irish Americans. I don't see a reason for wholesale change on this at the current moment.
Regarding Chumpih's analysis using Fowler's, which attempts to bridge the atlantic. wouldn't we possibly want to leave it up to the type of English being used rather than making it consistent across all of the English Wikipedia? I don't see why to enforce an American English hyphenation standard on article written in British English (or vice-versa).
Regarding Caorongjin's point about the move request, I think that there might be a WP:COMMONNAME argument that you are getting at with respect to the article title. COMMONNAME aside, the move request was only attended by two people; there might be a sensible rationale for a move request on that particular article if your analysis is correct. I would also posit the possibility that "Asian American Studies" is a compound noun containing a qualifying noun; treating "Asian-American" as an adjective modifying the noun "studies" feels a bit weird to me. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How were the guidelines for politicized phrasing defined?

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

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

References

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

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

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

Adjective order guidance (status/nationality in lede)?

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

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

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

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

  • A: No, it's fine.
  • B: Yes, and it should suggest status before nationality.
  • C: Yes, and it should suggest nationality before status.
  • 4: Yes, and it should say "Do as you think works best, but if somebody has already written it leave it as you found it".
  • E: I don't care. And never mention this again.
  • F: Mu. I unask the question, as all answers are absurd.
  • G: Other (describe)
  • H: Other (don't describe)
    Herostratus (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My strong impression is that "former" is heavily overused in this context. If they are known as a hockey player, the lead should say that they are a hockey player, not a former player. We don't describe Euclid as a "former mathematician" just because he's been dead for a couple millenia; he was a mathematician. The same should go for sports figures after their period of activity, including after their death. But if you insist on "former", it should go with the thing that it modifies, "hockey player", as "Canadian former hockey player". "Former Canadian hockey player" means to me that they are still a hockey player but now play outside Canada. "Formerly Canadian hockey player" is subtly different, meaning that they have given up their Canadian citizenship. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the difference with Euclid is, that bio (presumably) starts with Euclid was rather than Euclid is. For living persons, since the bio must necessarily begin with John Doe is, I think "former" is pretty much required. Otherwise it strongly suggests that Doe is an active player.
I would prefer to put "former" after nationality, as it is less ambiguous, even if the ambiguity is unlikely to trip many people up in practice. (Or even better, we could stop putting nationality in the first sentence of bios at all — that would solve a lot of problems. But I recognize that that's a bit of a longshot.) --Trovatore (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all this. If something must be said, "retired" is probably better - former rather implies he was thrown out. Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Retired" could be misleading as it kind of implies he had a press release that said he was retired, rather than desperately trying to hook on with any team that would have him, and failing, which is commonly the case. But neither really imply anything very much, they are close to interchangeable, so perhaps "retired" should be suggested, giving "Retired Canadian..." and everyone knows what is meant and everyone's happy.
Good points tho... it's debatable tho. We never use "former" for dead people because "Joe Smith (1933-1986)" pretty much secures that point. But there is a big difference between an actress who is currently working and one who hasn't worked in 20 years and/or has announced retirement (but is still alive). You could use "was a hockey player" I guess but I think that also runs into flak and kind of sounds like maybe she's dead. So I don't know as advising to not use any employment status would fly. Editors seem to have voted with their feet on that one.
So I see what you're saying as to "former" being very closely tied to "hockey player". It may be that the nationality-before-status rule is weak... sometimes. So while you would certainly say "dead Canadian hockey player" not "Canadian dead". But "Canadian All-Star" works for me (so does "All-Star Canadian"). So hmmm.
However, I don't think anybody takes "former Canadian hockey player" to mean he's not Canadian anymore. People know how adjective order works and get what you mean, and they know that if you meant the other you would say something like "former hockey player, originally Canadian but now a French citizen" or whatever, because nobody would write "Former Canadian hockey player" with no further elucidation to indicate that he's formerly Canadian rather than formerly a hockey player, nobody writes that badly. English follows common usage not logic. So that part I personally am not worried about. Herostratus (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the cases where "retired Canadian hockey player" doesn't work (for the player who didn't formally retire, but just never signed again), then the null solution ("Canadian hockey player") works. Either they're still a hockey player, because they (if no one else) see themselves as still active, or they're a hockey player the same way Euclid is a mathematician. If they're clearly retired, we can add that without problem to the front, keeping natural adjective order, and we needn't bother with "former" at all.
I also can't imagine a case where a "[currently] American hockey player" would be better served by "Former(ly) Canadian hockey player", but I don't think that's part of what you're asking. — HTGS (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can use unmodified "hockey player" in the present tense for someone who has clearly ceased to play and isn't planning on a comeback. One who's currently unemployed but still looking for a team is a different matter. --Trovatore (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My strong impression is that "former" is heavily overused in this context: I suspect its prevalence is based off of an example at MOS:BLPTENSE: "John Smith (born 1946) is a former baseball pitcher ..."—Bagumba (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever the right answer is, I'm sure it's not this: "Oshiomogho Isaac "O.J." Atogwe is a Canadian former American football player..." pburka (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yikes, that one's worst than you said. Oshiomogho Isaac "O.J." Atogwe (born June 23, 1981) is a Canadian former professional American football free safety[....]
    I think losing Canadian from the initial description would be a start, in line with my general remarks about nationality, and also "professional" and "free safety". Those things can be treated later. How about Oshiomogho Isaac "O.J." Atogwe (born June 23, 1981) is a former player of American football, of Canadian nationality. He played primarily at the free safety position. We don't need "professional" at all; it's normally understood that sports bios are of pros unless stated otherwise. --Trovatore (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "is a Canadian former professional player of American football who was a free safety ..."—Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to the confusion… it could mean that he used to play for the Canadians, but was traded to the Leafs. Blueboar (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just really don't see why we need to emphasize nationality so strongly. The article will get around to it; it's not like it'll be hard for the reader to figure it out. Put it in the second sentence, maybe. --Trovatore (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: I think you're confusing him with a "Canadien former American football player." pburka (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • C Use "Canadian former hockey player". Former is an adjective operator that modifies what immediately follows it.[11] Order matters. Consider "child former actress", a child who used to be an actress, versus "former child actress" for an adult who used to act as a child.—Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I would still say "former child actress", even if the girl were still a child who happened to quit acting. Consider two things: one, child actresses, present or former, whose acting career never extended into adulthood (or has not yet) are virtually never referred to as just "actresses" - always "child actresses". And, on the flip side of that, if the subject is still a child, we would not start off the article with "Lucy Brown, age 9, is a child and a former actress." We would say shes a "former child actress"; no one could construe that to mean shes a 9 year old that's no longer a child. Firejuggler86 (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll trust the reliable source, Slate, and the linguists they quoted: "The Secret Rules of Adjective Order". Slate. August 6, 2004. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • G I think we overdo adjective stacking in lead sentences. When country-of-origin and country-of-activity are different, why not say "is a former football player from Canada who played in the American National Football League", "is a cricket player from Malaysia who played for Germany", "is a retired Olympic swimmer from Australia who competed for Brunei", "is a former hockey player from the United States who played in the Canadian Hockey League"? Struck bad examples. "Is a retired hockey player from Canada". Schazjmd (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Schazjmd: Actually, the case of a Canadian playing American football was not part of the original question.—Bagumba (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not part of the original question, but is an extension of the original question with additional high-confusion-risk variables thrown in, for which we have an actual example...so, still on topic, methinks. BTW, Schazjmd, I don't think the examples you struck are bad at all - they seem to me like good, well written solutions :). Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A or B - On the fence. In the particular example you gave, Herostratus, the way it should be written is "former Canadian hockey player"; the alternative reads as exceedingly clunky at best, and broken English at worst. I mean no unkindness here, but to anyone that would interpret that phrase as meaning the person is a "former Canadian" would be well advised to continue studying correct English grammar/usage; for that usage just does not exist in our language (but I do fully understand that other languages might phrase their sentences that way and how a second language English speaker coould be confused because of differences between phrasing in English vs phrasing in their native language). If we were describing a hockey player that was Canadian and is no longer so (let's say he defected to Soviet Russia or something), we would say "is a hockey player, formerly of Canada..." or similar.
  • BUT, I am hesitant to commit to B because there may be other specific cases we aren't considering where nationality first would be optimal. Which is why I think it's generally best to avoid such fine-detailed prescription in MOS guidelines... Firejuggler86 (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "would" instead of simple past

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

Why? -- Calidum 02:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxBrowne2, I think what Calidum is trying to say is that WP:NEWSSTYLE already suggests at this, but it doesn't always make sense to codify what a given word usage might mean in a specific context, or to a specific group of people. If you imagine that we formalised all grey—or even black and white—"informal" and formal language structures, we would quickly run out of space on the internet. — HTGS (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. Also I don't know as User:Calidum is pointing to NEWSTYLE at all. Maybe Calidum's saying like "So, what would the benefit be?" For my part, I also say "why?" because I don't see a net benefit. I think it's micromanaging. Let the person doing the actual work of the project (writing articles) the freedom to do as she pleases on unimportant matters of style preference. It's a volunteer program and people come here because they enjoy writing. Being micromanaged tends to make them enjoy it less, so overall negative, as I don't think it's confusing the reader. Herostratus (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with none of this. (Although the term "volunteer program" has a certain amount of humour to it.) — HTGS (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was asking why as in "why does this matter?" or "what is the point of such a change?" As you said, I don't believe the wording in question is confusing to readers, so I don't see the benefit of this. -- Calidum 15:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go on, EEng, make my day!
Thank you EEng, you've made my day! :))) — Mike Novikoff 00:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's the MOS for then, if not to guide people on how to write for wikipedia? We have MOS:TENSE, why not a note there to discourage misuse of "would"? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's for delineating house style -- stuff that different publications do differently for whatever reason. It's not for teaching general rules of English, unless it's proven to be a real problem here on the project for some reason. EEng 13:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's "misuse" in your opinion. That is why. Herostratus (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not incorrect: just unnecessarily complicated. The MOS already says "editors should avoid ... unnecessarily complex wording." We needn't enumerate every possible example of unnecessarily complex wording. pburka (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's "future-in-the-past"; sometimes useful to keep consistently talking about one time period, while informing the reader in passing what was going to happen in a later time period still in the past. Whether it's "unnecessarily complicated" depends on what you need to do. It is the simplest way to do that particular thing. I don't think that's a thing Wikipedia articles need to do very often, but I don't see that it's necessary to ban it. --Trovatore (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's a need to mandate it in the MOS, but I already change instances of conditional perfect to simple past unless what could have happened is absolutely necessary for the article when copyediting. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's being discussed here is not conditional perfect, which is used for counterfactuals. It's future-in-the-past, meaning something that happens later than the running narrative, but definitely does happen. --Trovatore (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, I used the wrong term; saw the "would have" and jumped to that. Either way, I'd change it to simple past, if only because the tone used when saying something like He would become prime minister could be simplified to He became prime minister, where the tone is more neutral. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fine, if that's the next event you want to report. The problem is if he became prime minister in 1947, but the narrative being reported is in 1932 and you want to keep it in 1932, even after you tell the reader that the individual was going to become prime minister in 1947.
      Now, if you want to say that it's usually not a good idea to say what was going to happen in 1947 while you're still talking about 1932, I'm not going to argue with you. It might be usually not a good idea. But if you really do have a good reason to talk about what was going to happen in 1947 while you're still talking about 1932, I think this "would" is sort of the standard way to do it, or at least one of the standard ways to do it. --Trovatore (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. I'm saying that there really isn't a good reason to report it in this tense in an encyclopedia, where the tone being used is very dry (some would say stuffy). I would use it myself when I'm constructing narratives for effect (e.g., Timmy was bullied by the mayor's son, who would come to regret it when his victim became the evil overlord of all), but again, outside the scope of an encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That's quite a creative example there, Tenryuu. EEng 01:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are describing the appropriate use of "would", the "future in the past". There is no problem with "He went to school with Winston Churchill, who would later become Prime Minister". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It boils down to taste, which is why I don't find it necessary to mandate this in the MOS. I prefer simple past because it sounds more neutral (and tends to use at least one fewer word). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have noticed that this kind of phrasing is common when changing an article that was in future tense to past tense. Take this sentence: "On 14 September 2024, it was announced that John Smith will be a guest star on the show." After the show has happened, it is a lot easier to change the "will" to "would" than to rephrase the sentence so that it makes sense. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even better, of course, and something that rarely happens, is to find a source that says it actually happened. One of my pet peeves is contributers' burning desire to add something the second they hear/read/see an announcement, but never come back after the show/film release/convention/tour/whatever to properly write and cite the actual singers/actors/speakers/concert dates/whatever. The change from "will" to "would" is actually okay, when that's all we know based on the now-passé cited sources. It's just ugly writing for an encyclopedia. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 23:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This use of would is actually somewhat different from the one under discussion. EEng 01:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Let's keep it on topic. Tony (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for fun, though at the risk of sticking my head in the lion's mouth, here's a use of would (from John Harvard statue) that I've never been able to figure out how to replace:
    The commission weighed heavily on French even as the figure neared completion. "I am sometimes scared by the importance of this work. It is a subject that one might not have in a lifetime," wrote the sculptor‍—‌who thirty years later would create the statue of Abraham Lincoln for the Lincoln Memorial‍—‌"and a failure would be inexcusable. As a general thing, my model looks pretty well to me, but there are dark days."
It also employs what might be deemed WP:ELEVAR (wrote the sculptor), and I can't figure out how to get rid of that, either. EEng 12:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One way is The sculptor, who thirty years later would create the statue of Abraham Lincoln for the Lincoln Memorial, wrote "I am sometimes scared by the importance of this work. It is a subject that one might not have in a lifetime, and a failure would be inexcusable. As a general thing, my model looks pretty well to me, but there are dark days." Whether that is an improvement is another matter.
Going back to the original question, one use of would is the imperfective aspect, e.g., habitual past. Replacing such uses with the simple past would change the meaning. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, well obviously we're looking for something that's an improvement. The problem with your suggestion is that it talks about Lincoln, apparently gratuitously, well before the reader has any idea why he's being told that. And by starting with Lincoln you make it seem like that's even the main point, instead of a subsidiary point, of where we're going. EEng 15:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[Added later:] And your text seems to suggest that French's words refer to the Lincoln commission, not John Harvard. This is exactly the kind of situation in which would is appropriate to use, and after all this reflection I believe it's OK here; but the sculptor I'd still like to be rid of. Well, you can't win 'em all. EEng 03:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, the easiest thing to do would be to remove the entire parenthetical thought. The lede in the article on French already mentions him creating Lincoln's statue, so an earlier wikilink to French would already provide that information. There doesn't seem to be any relevant association between the Lincoln and Harvard statues aside from sharing the same creator. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant association is that the creator of Lincoln -- one of the three most famous sculptures in America -- was worried, just twenty years earlier, that John Harvard might be his most important commission ever. It's not the entire point of the passage, but it's an important part of it. EEng 00:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'd go with The sculptor, who built the statue of Abraham Lincoln thirty years later for the Lincoln memorial, wrote [...] It's in simple past and conveys the same idea. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same as what Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz proposed. EEng 03:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except there's no "would". If the concern is that it seems like the quote is referring to the Lincoln statue, add also right before built; that should take some of the focus off of the parenthetical and convey it as more of an aside. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting speech

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

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

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

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

Wikilinking demonyms

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

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

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

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

SUFFIXDASH and category names

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

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

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

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

Both of your examples here seem wrong to me. Far from making it clear that the laws are "against the death penalty, not against death", the phrase "anti-death penalty laws" seems to me to be referring to "penalty laws that are against death". And "table tennis-related" seems to tie "tennis" more tightly to "related" than to "table". --Khajidha (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I find it extremely implausible that anyone proficient in English could possibly misconstrue "anti-death penalty laws" as "penalty laws that are against death" - one, because the phrase "death penalty" is near universally known, and two, even if it weren't "penalty laws that are against death" is completely nonsensical. As would be "punishment laws that are against capital" (maybe in Stalinist Russia 😁). I know that was somewhat the point you are arguing, and your focus was strictly on the construction rather than the words themselves, but honestly (and this is not said to any one particular editor), these types of abstract discussions wherein no example is produced that could reasonably cause confusion somewhat seem like solutions in search of a problem. Firejuggler86 (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This seems like a hard issue to splice. It would seem unusual to me to follow MOS:PREFIXDASH but not MOS:SUFFIXDASH. It would be easier to adopt the same approach one way or the other. I was not aware that there was a recent no consensus decision on the proposal to use MOS:SUFFIXDASH in categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps my close was misguided. Normally if there is no consensus, we default to Keep. But if there's no consensus against MOS, should we instead default to apply MOS? (Any practical difficulties with dashes would easily be overcome using redirects.) – Fayenatic London 16:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there clearly was no consensus in that discussion to apply the MOS, so you're not to be faulted for that. Applying the MOS as a default is an interesting suggestion, but I fear that doing that might be too controversial in discussions that fail to reach a consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in addition to what I said above, I thought I should point out that likely more than 99% of readers have no clue about the difference between any of these kinds of dashes, and probably neither do the vast majority of editors. And the ones that do know the difference aren't going to be confused if the wrong one is used - annoyed, but not genuinely confused. I understand that fixing mjstakes is a very genuine pain in the ass, and I'm thankful to all the editors that do that kind of thing, and sympathise with their irritation that most editors can't be bothered to do these things correctly. However, I think volumes and volumes of MOS space dedicated to the proper use of dashes is largely preaching to the choir. Firejuggler86 (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black and African American

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

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

Adding a callout for W-L record treatment in sports

See MOS:ENBETWEEN.

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

Existing text:

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


Proposed text

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Ebony and Ivory

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what should it be?

  • "black" and "white" (and you'll get a shitstorm partly because lower-case "black" is now considered racist in the real world)
  • "Black" and "White" (and you'll get a shitstorm because upper-case "White" has been and is considered racist in the real world)
  • "Black" and "white" (and you'll get a shitstorm because its unequal and people can say it valorizes one group vis a vis another)
  • Leave it to the individual editor (and you'll get an endless drama of people bitching about in scores of individual articles and accusing each other being racist, and anyway even tho lots of things here don't need to be standarized, if this one isn't it seems odd and generally a headache)
  • Lets see what other important publications do and do that (Let's do this! Please! I get that we don't usually slavishly follow other publications, but in this case, let's. There's no "right way" here, so let's just avoid the shitstorms.)

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

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

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

I agree with almost all of that, but it's not really fair to say that a mere proposal is political and non-neutral (unless it were a case of the same person participating in/proposing the same proposal every one or two months, like (e.g.) Ukranian nationalists did every month for 3 years straight to get Kiev changed to Kyiv). Also, there was never any suggestion of using "ebony" and "ivory" in Wikivoice; I think Herostratus was just being cute with the discussion header. I'm also unclear what's unneutral about it - it's cheesy, but it seems neutral enough..? Ebony and ivory are what black and white piano keys were respectively made from, historically. Then in the '80s it was the title of a schmaltzy duet by Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder. Aside from that... only possibly controversial thing is in regard to ivory and how it's obtained. Firejuggler86 (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I do seriously question the veracity of the statement "lowercase black is now considered racist in the real world". Exactly what do you consider "the real world"? Corporate conference rooms in skyrise buildings in the centres of the affluent financial districts of major cities, filled with (undoubtedly overwhelmingly white) "task forces" (e.g.) sipping Starbucks lattes and pretending to fuss about "oppression" and that somehow a lowecase b vs an uppercase B is the cause of all the inequality woes in the world, when in reality the only actual objective they have is to maximise their bottom line for their ultra-wealthy shareholders. It's a classic case of corporate "keeping up with the Joneses" because it's the "hip" thing to do right now. We have no such monetary incentives. That's what differentiates us from everyone else, and Wikipedia was never meant to be like other publications because it isn't like other publications. (I also make note that, in the last year or so that this trend began, racism in society had not improved - after last summer's widespread enthusiasm cooled off, the racists have crawled out from their nooks and crannies more emboldened and unapologetically vocal than they've been since 1968 :\. ) Now, I fully agree that racists should not be catered to - not a thousandth of an inch. We should not be doing the opposite, to antagonise them either, though. Whatever short term satisfaction you might get out of it, it's bound to backfire. Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black and White or black and white. I personally like lowercase when it comes to colours, but I am perfectly fine with uppercase too - so long as all colours are treated the same way within their articles and/or article sections (including brown, and, if it were to be applicable, currently defunct/deprecated colours like red and yellow). For example, in South Africa, they have Whites, Blacks, and Coloureds; always capitalised, but not quite the same situation as America or England, so maybe irrelevant. Anyway, see my post advice for my arguments. Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "real world" it's mostly still black and white. Neither is racist, whatever the woke brigade might like to claim. Neither is a genuine ethnicity, neither does actually refer to a cultural group (try telling people from Jamaica, people from Kenya and people from Nigeria that they all have the same culture!) and neither is derived from a place that is a proper name (like Asian). They're based on the perception of the colour of someone's skin, for crying out loud. How on earth can that be a proper name? Oh, and let's also remember that there is a very big world outside the US of A! Some of us actually live in it. I know, who would have thought... -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Necrothesp, I was willing to entertain your argument until you started talking about "woke brigade", and your counterargument is starting to sound a lot like "designating groups is divisive". Note: I live in the real world too. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • We are an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. When people start to claim that capitalising one or other term is racist when it blatantly is not then we're going down the latter route. Note: The "real world" comment was taken from the OP (lower-case "black" is now considered racist in the real world.... What utter rubbish.). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it's a soapbox, it's one that many, many organizations, and not just news organizations, have adopted, and there is no reason for our practice to simply disregard what their practice already is. As for "when it blatantly is not"--that's actually you climbing on a soapbox. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it's common sense. How can not capitalising someone's vaguely defined skin colour possibly be considered to be racist? But once again, I say, there's a world outside the USA. The BBC, for example, does not capitalise black. Even the famously liberal Guardian newspaper, which would probably self-destruct if anyone even suggested it might be racist, doesn't. The assumption seems to be that because American organisations are doing it, the whole world does it and ergo Wikipedia should do it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We JUST held a massive RFC on this exact issue. Too soon to discuss it again. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I would only use Black and White when comparing and contrasting with other ethnic groups ("Blacks yadda yadda yadda, while Hispanics foobarity foo"). Or in proper nouns. When used as simple descriptors, I would leave them lowercase ("the crash killed four people: two white females and two black females"). --Khajidha (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophes and bold

Which do you prefer?

  • A confectioner's job encompasses...
  • A confectioner's job encompasses...

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

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

Requested move discussion in progress

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

Need more realistic examples for logical quotation

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

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

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

And here is its use in a Wikipedia article:

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

Let's see: we have List of band name etymologies, List of computer term etymologies, and List of company name etymologies; most if not all of these use modern english. This is entirely appropriate. Catchpoke (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same concerns as etymology and origins are not necessarily the same thing. MOS:SECTIONSTYLE mentions nothing about the edits that Catchpoke is doing. I would argue it's disruptive editing. – The Grid (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To both of you, you need to read etymology and compound (linguistics). An etymon is a word origin and my edits are not disruptive. If you find the edit summary problematic, I won't use it. Catchpoke (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, we find the changes disruptive, and the "etymology" header inaccurate. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And is this a lie? Catchpoke (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Catchpoke: First, the term "etymology" used in a subheading assumes the reader understands what the word means, whereas "origin of the term" is straightforward. If two editors find you disruptive, chances are you are being disruptive. And since I noticed your edits and find them wrong, you can make that three editors. You can defend yourself, but baldly stating that you're not being disruptive is not really your call. Also, it's frankly disingenuous of you to state that if others "find the edit summary problematic, [you] won't use it" as you obviously know it's not the edit summaries that are the disruption. Per WP:BRD you should refrain from reverting to your preferred versions until consensus is reached. There is no policy or MOS guideline that supports your proposed changes. freshacconci (✉) 18:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. I was thanked by User:Veverve for this and User:Bermicourt agrees that etymology is the proper term. Catchpoke (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am wrong about what? You need to reach consensus and cease reverting to your version. If you find others that agree and consensus is reached (and keep in mind it's not a simple straw poll), then that's fine. But you don't have that right now and your "nope" comment addresses nothing that was actually said. If you want to convince people I suggest being less condescending, dismissive and argumentative. The onus is on you to convince the rest of us. freshacconci (✉) 18:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Catchpoke: I thanked you for that, because I believed you when you wrote it was a MOS standard. If it is not, then in the case of the content of the section of Subreption I think "Origin of the term" fits better, as there is no analysis of the composition of the word, but there is a historical explanation. Veverve (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At least the one you were thanked for, at Subreption, actually is an etymology section, with details of the Latin origin etc, though I don't believe that means it has to be called that. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)User:Veverve: There is no guidance or policy on which word/phrase to use but "etymology" is far more common than "origin of the term" or "origin of the name". All of you need to read up on the articles I've linked. "etymon" is the origin of a word. If there is a discussion of the methods and/or etymon, there is an etymology. Catchpoke (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
user:Johnbod: You quote WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS so should I quote it too in response to your contradictory reasoning? Catchpoke (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Freshacconci: You don't want to read the pages so it does seem like a simple straw poll. Catchpoke (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Currently there seems to be no policy that would support the replacement of every Wikipedia occurrence of "origin of..." with "etymology" (or vice versa). Both are acceptable and so we shouldn't be doing any mass changes. I think it would make sense to have a guideline for naming section headings of this type (as opposed to article text), as the origin of an unusual word quite often forms part of the article. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean as opposed to article text? Catchpoke (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, Catchpoke, etymology is strictly applied to words only, not phrases; and to their origin, not the way they may be applied in novel modern ways. So, for example, the word disc has an etymology: the phrase disc drive does not (though its origin, in the context of computing, can be traced). Recently the community has had to rein in a spate of not-as-smart-as-they-think-they-are knowitalls; This guy has just barely escaped an indefinite block (for now) but if you keep this up I predict you won't be so lucky.
    And let me educate you on another point. A section headed ==Origin of the term==, in the article Silver Age of Comic Books, does not "redundantly refer back to the subject of the article", as SECTIONSTYLE warns against, because the subject of that article is the Silver Age of Comic Books, not the phrase Silver Age of Comic Books. Now cut it out. EEng 19:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:EEng#s: you are completely wrong. Etymology has a number of pathways. The pages which have "origin of the ..." have etymologies. Read the material again. I won't use that edit summary again. Catchpoke (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To User:EEng#s: Maybe you came to the bottom and didn't read [13] which I posted above. Catchpoke (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    'Etymology' is certainly used for lexicalized phrases. (That's one of the pathways, though not mentioned in the article you linked to.) I'm not aware of the word ever being used for a transparent phrase like 'Jesus of Nazareth'. I suppose I could speak of the 'etymology' of my WP user name in the sense of the pun involved, but if my parents had actually named me 'Kwami Kagami', it would be extremely odd to speak of the 'etymology' of my name (as opposed to the reasons my parents chose it), and if I did in a paper for publication I suspect the editor would correct me. Speaking of the etymologies of the individual names Kwami and Kagami (or Jesus and Nazereth) would be a different matter, and entirely appropriate.
    But even if you wish to be pedantic and insist that a transparent phrase like 'Toyota Camry' has an etymology distinct from the etymologies of its components, the issue here is whether it's useful to our readers to label headers that way. That is, whether you have discovered the Truth that the rest of us have missed is beside the point, and not a good argument for what you are doing. And saying 'I'm right and you're wrong, so eff you' is a good way to get blocked. — kwami (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=1033305432"