Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:MOSTALK)

Welcome to the MOS pit[Humor]


    Style discussions elsewhere

    [edit]

    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

    [edit]

    (newest on top)

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Capitalization-specific:

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

    Move requests:

    Other discussions:

    Concluded

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

    Do not use the precomposed ellipsis character (…)

    [edit]

    I propose to rethink this rule. It was established by one user, having extreme opinion on this issue, 20 years ago, as stated in this discussion (latest discussion about this rule that I found in archive of this talk page). It was justified by problems with display of this Unicode character in very old browsers and fonts, all of these problems should be irrelevant now. The problem that brought me here is this:

    1. AWB replaces Unicode character to three dots as a part of "minor fixes" pack, containing hundreds of fixes, and this pack could only be turned completely on or completely off, there is no way to turn off only this replacement.
    2. In Russian Wikipedia, my main wiki, local MoS prescribes usage of Unicode character instead of three dots. AWB with "minor fixes" enabled brokes our MoS.
    3. If I file a ticket to AWB developers, they probably will use enwiki's MoS as a reason not to change AWB minor fixes. Only when enwiki's rule will changed, I can request AWB developers to remove and even inverse this harmful replacement.

    MBH (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not change the ruwiki MoS? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the rules for this differ across various Wikipedias, getting the AWB developers to add a toggle button for this feature seems like the best solution (or maybe it could be autodetected based on the wiki one is in?). Gawaon (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are lots of differences between English and Russian; it seems weird to use the same AWB configuration to try to tidy up both? -- Beland (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not used AWB in other languages, but it makes sense that different rules would apply in different languages. At least we need to check with the AWB developers before changing the MoS on this topic. Last time I looked, the precomposed character and the three dots looked significantly different depending on fonts chosen. SchreiberBike | ⌨  11:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We discussed it here last year. The discussion didn't require a formal close; there was some support for but some marked opposition to switching to or even allowing the Unicde character, and consensus for change was not in prospect. NebY (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe a formal close would have been better; as I see it, while the discussion went against deprecating the three dots in favour of the precomposed character, there was no clear consensus against allowing the latter as an alternative. In any case, the discussion should not be used as argument in favour of an outcome it did not have. Gawaon (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why we wouldn't use the Unicode character. Graham11 (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like many other special characters, it is difficult to type, so people are more likely to enter "..." when searching. This can cause problems and confusion; for example, searching a page for "..." in Firefox does not find instances of the Unicode character. -- Beland (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if it's prescribed by the MOS and not everyone uses it, that's fine. Wikipedia is a work in progress and it will be taken care of by the gnomes. Graham11 (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if Wikipedia were to use the character perfectly consistently, it would cause a lot of confusion because most people don't know that it's possible to have a single character with three periods in it, and certainly don't know how to type it, so their searches would be mismatching whenever it occurred. -- Beland (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Browsers should simply treat "…" as equivalent to "..." when searching, just as they treat different kinds of quotation marks as equivalent. But you're right, currently that doesn't seem to be the case, and that's a plausible argument against allowing both. Gawaon (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do browsers not treat it as equivalent? I just pressed ⌘+F in Chrome and tried searching both "…" and "..." and, in both cases, it turned up all instances of either on this page. Graham11 (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't happen in Firefox. Chrome has the severe limitation of not being able to distinguish between dashes and upper/lower case, so it's useless for this kind of gnoming. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that's true with respect to letter case, but Chrome can definitely distinguish between hyphens, en dashes, and em dashes (unless it's different on PC vs Mac?). Graham11 (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:DECOR vs. military flag officer "Dates of rank" / "Awards and decorations" sections

    [edit]

    Hey folks, I'm curious to hear from people more familiar with MOS:DECOR on the images used in "Dates of rank" and "Awards and decorations" sections in military officer biographies. Examples include William D. Leahy § Dates of rank or Paul Tibbets § Awards and decorations. I'd be hard-pressed to see how these aren't "decorative" or "improve comprehension of the article subject", but perhaps I'm missing something. (I looked in the archives and only found this unanswered question from Oritsu.me.) Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It has been discussed in the past, referred to as "fruit salad". It looks decorative to me, and in many cases isn't sourced properly, but based off photographs of the person wearing ribbons and probable OR in interpreting what medal each ribbon is associated with. IMHO generally the most appropriate way to address medal entitlements or promotions is to mention them at the point in the chronology of the biography where they were issued/awarded/promoted, see Arthur Blackburn for an example of this approach. This is generally the approach with FA mil person bios in my experience. Where there are reliable sources for someone's full medal entitlement, they could be listed in a separate section as done in Arthur Phleps, but the iconography of medals and particularly ranks is purely decorative in my view. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the "Dates of Rank" extremely useful in quickly checking what rank someone was at a particular time. MOS:DECOR has nothing to do with writing style and should be nominated for deletion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkeye7: For clarity, I didn't say anything about the content within the section. I'm primarily concerned with the images used within these sections. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the layout of dates of rank as in the Featured Article on William D. Leahy to be much easier to navigate than a simple table. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And there's nothing wrong with that layout. It's the images that are the problem. MOS:DECOR is clear on that point, no matter our personal preferences. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm non-military, so the insignia of the ranks mean absolutely nothing to me. I suspect that the majority of our readers are the same. Even worse, those insignia change for different branches of the military and for different countries. As an example, at Lieutenant there is a vast array of insignia for different countries where Lieutenant is represented by 1, 2 or 3 stars, horizontal bars and/or vertical bars (see Mexico for using both directions) and different colours. Other ranks have the same problem. In short, unless the reader is in the same force in the same country, the insignia are meaningless.  Stepho  talk  03:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of us are familiar with countries other than our own. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. As you can see from my user page, I'm also familiar with many countries (have physically worked in many of those listed). Doesn't mean that readers are going to know about the insignia of every armed force in every country. For many readers those insignia will just be pretty pictures.  Stepho  talk  00:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The readers of the articles are people seeking information about the subject. It may well be what date they were promoted. While military ranks might be obscure to many civilians, it is an important part of military biography, and informing the readers is part of our educational mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we banish "etc." from the encyclopedia?

    [edit]

    I find "etc." to be a bane of encyclopedic writing, particularly in usages as found in Voluntary society ("an entity in which all property (including streets, parks, etc.) and all services (including courts, police, etc.) are provided"); or Contamination ("unsuitable, unfit or harmful for the physical body, natural environment, workplace, etc."). Can we banish this and require things to be spelled out in more formal language? BD2412 T 00:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What's even informal about it? It's used all the time in scholarly trade books and monographs, and seemingly functions like all the other abbreviated Latinate phrases used in English. It appears in State of the Union addresses given during a previous era in history that considered them to be formal oratory. I strongly contend that just about any phraseology which regularly makes it out the door of university presses should not be deemed "too informal" for Wikipedia, possibly barring an explicit appeal to dedicated style guides. Remsense 🌈 论 00:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everything is easily spelled out. In your second example, "body", "natural environment", and "workplace" aren't members of a single category X that would enable us to have "and other things in category X", and there isn't a specific set of items that would finish the list.
    In the first case, "etc." is unnecessary because "including" already implies the existence of additional items not explicitly mentioned. So I would edit the sentenced accordingly. But that's just effective copyediting, it doesn't rise to the level of justifying a ban. Largoplazo (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with the comments made, and anyway, the true banes of encyclopedic writing are: (a) references to the accolades bestowed on a creative work or praiseworthy endeavor; and (b) sections or articles entitled response(s) or aftermath (or, sometimes, legacy), used as dumping grounds for (respectively) anything anyone ever said about the article subject, or any random thing that happened to occur subsequent to events already described. A close runner-up is sentences of the form "He was X, despite Y", used ad nauseum to hit our readers over the head any form of apparent incongruity. Etc. EEng 01:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are overlooking the "In popular culture" sections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Two sides of the same coin: "in unpopular culture" sections are among the most common one can find onwiki. Remsense 🌈 论 21:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Largoplazo: If the items named "aren't members of a single category X", then why use "etc.", which implies a continuation of a theme? Why not use language actually describing the scope of things susceptible to contamination? BD2412 T 22:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what I explained. I'm not sure how else to say it. Largoplazo (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do't see a problem here. I agree with the others that it's not terribly informal and is quite useful. It can be overused and suitable alternatives are reasonable but not always better. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider use of, e.g., "...", "et al", "et cetera"," "exempli gratia", and their abbreviations, to be essential in cases where an exhaustive list would be awkward or impractical. The first example above was bad, not because the wording implied partial list, but because that indication was redundant. The wording an entity in which all property (streets, parks, etc.) and all services (courts, police, etc.) are provided or an entity in which all property (including streets and parks) and all services (including courts and police) are provided would have been perfectly fine, as would variants using ellipses or "e.g.,". -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The very common error committed with this and similar constructions (as mentioned above) is to use it redundantly, as in your examples. For example "Planets include Venus, Jupiter, etc." "Customers like Heinz, Unilelver and others." (Like is also a good word to avoid in these contexts.) I would prefer the leading qualifier to the trailing one, but I'm not sure it's MoS worthy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    It really is just awareness in the copywriting area of your brain to pleonasms at-large. Remsense 🌈 论 21:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem more satisfying to say e.g. "including" instead of "etc." and I pretty much always write this way, especially since the period can be awkward. I'm not sure there's consensus to go around changing all existing instances of "etc.", though I would not object to that. I do think there's consensus not to have redundant constructions. If you want to take out some "etc." frustration, there are thousands of instances of redundancy which could be repaired, for example many of the results of this search. -- Beland (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Each of us has our own "bane of the encyclopedia", and sometimes we chime in with a "who cares?" to diminish someone else's. In that line, I don't find "etc." to be a huge problem – but I applaud those who do and work to improve the writing around it. Dicklyon (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Some questions on tense

    [edit]

    I'm going through Voyager 1, trying to get it cleaned up for a run at WP:FAC. Even after reading MOS:TENSE, I'm not sure how I should treat the discussion of instruments on the spacecraft which are no longer functioning. For example, the Imaging Science System has been disabled. Would you say "uses a two-camera system ..." or "used a two-camera system ..." If you look back a few revisions (say, Special:Permalink/1300184953) there's a mix of both. RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would suggest past tense for instruments that are no longer functioning. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that (past) events are past tense. If the discussion involves using the camera, then it would be past tense. I have an SLR camera in the closet that doesn't work anymore, but I still use present tense for it. But okay, using sounds like it could be an event. So, has a two camera system and used a two-camera system, the latter when describing what it actually did, when it did it. Gah4 (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Probably, the first of your contrasting phrases would be better stated as "has a now-disabled two-camera system" or something similar. This is comparable to the style for bios where a living person who used to be an actor "is a retired actor" while an actor who has died, whether while still acting or after having retired, "was an actor". Largoplazo (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ranges of page numbers with hyphens

    [edit]

    The rules for ranges of hyphenated page numbers[a] should be easier to find. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is pretty clear in MOS:RANGES: The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when either or both elements of the range include at least one space, hyphen, or en dash; in such cases, {{snd}} between them will provide the proper formatting. i.e. simple page ranges use an unspaced en dash; page numbers which include spaces, hyphens or dashes (e.g. A-2) require a spaced en dash. pburka (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because it is not clear whether the page numbers should have en dashes when used in a range. Should it be A-2{{snd}}A-5, A{{en dash}}2{{snd}}A{{en dash}}5 or E. none of the above? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, why should the number itself change in a range? It's in any case A-2, with a hyphen. Gawaon (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Notes

    1. ^ E.g., should A-2-A-5 be A-2{{mdash}}A-5?

    Use common name even if officially dated

    [edit]

    Look at Talk:Boy Scouts of America. There's a discussion saying that Wikipedia must use the most common name even if it is officially dated. Is the "even if officially dated" part actually mentioned in the MOS?? (The discussion reveals plenty of examples.) Georgia guy (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A relevant policy is WP:NAMECHANGES:

    If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above at § Use commonly recognizable names.

    —Bagumba (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is correct… Wikipedia uses the most recognizable name (determined via source usage), not the “official” name. This does not mean we ignore “official” names (they should be mentioned at an appropriate point in the article text). Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bagumba, what if the sources are inconsistent?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We go with the most common reliably sourced usage. Canterbury Tail talk 13:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...with sources after the name change. What if it's a 50-50 tie?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps WP:COMMONNAME comes back into play. It's up to the community how they weigh it. —Bagumba (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, does anyone understand this rule as a "quantity is more important than quality" rule?? The way I view it, yes. The rule is that it's about HOW MANY (thus implying quantity) current web sites use the new name. Georgia guy (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sort of… the “how many” is really just our best way of assessing what name will be most recognizable to our readers… what name will they expect us to use as the article title. The idea is to help readers to quickly find the article when searching.
    That said, it isn’t just about the numbers. Which sources are using which name is also a factor. We favor sources that are independent of the article subject over those that are tied to it. We favor secondary sources over primary sources, and academic sources over non-academic sources, Etc. This can sometimes help when general usage is mixed (the 50/50 scenarios). Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Looking at this Ngram... 100% of books use Boy Scouts of America, because of course... but for my part, the area under the line is important.
    If I person is reading a book about this entity that was published between 1910 and 2022, it will say 100% use "Boy Scouts of America", and if the person wants to know more about the entity, that is the string they will search on. Yes we have redirects so it kind of doesn't matter, and in fact a person might be well served by immediately seeing the new name, but on the other hand it can be a bit confusing to come to an unexpected name which is different from what was searched on... the first sentence will point out the new name in bold text, so perhaps that is sufficient... nobody can know the answers to all this, but my guess is that "Boy Scouts of America" is the best article title at this time... I guess. Herostratus (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it depends. If there's a 60–40 split but the sources in the majority are overwhelmingly poor quality, the "common name" argument is much weaker. The task is really to determine the "best title" in light of all the relevant P&G and particular facts in a given case. "Boy Scouts" is probably the true common name but we've gone with a less concise and until-recently official name instead, which is reasonable. My preference for name changes is to wait a few months, which have passed in this case, to see what usage looks like outside of any coverage of the change itself. Sometimes in the case of mergers or acquisitions, or other significant changes, the older but still "common" name is deemed inaccurate and more weight is given to the change. I don't see that that is the case here, although some have argued it. Ultimately, these are case-by-case. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Fooians in Barland, Fooians of Barland, or Barland Fooians?

    [edit]

    This is a WP:TITLECON question. I notice an inconsistency in titles of articles about minority A in country B. These can be roughly grouped into four forms:

    1. Fooians in Barland
    2. Fooians of Barland
    3. Barland Fooians
    4. Fooian Barlanders

    A good example is articles about Serbs.

    A similar inconsistency exists for Croats of/in Barland. In addition to Forms 1, 2 and 3, it has also a...

    Is there a guideline for title consistency in such articles? If not, should we establish one, and what should it be? Anecdotally, Form 1 seems the most common, but it might not necessarily be the most accurate. Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: I might add that Form 1 indeed seems to be the most common in the larger category trees Category:Ethnic minorities and Category:Ethnic groups in Europe. In particular, Category:Romanian minorities in Europe and Category:Hungarian minorities in Europe always take Form 1 Fooians in Barland. Category:Polish minorities is divided between Form 1 (Poles in Barland) and Form 4 (Polish Barlanders), with Form 1 being slightly more common, with two slight variations (that I'll label Form 1b and 1c):
    Forms 2 and 3 seem to be rather uncommon outside the Balkans. The only other examples I know of Form 3 is Sweden Finns, and Finland Swedes, which is a redirect to Swedish-speaking population of Finland. These two articles alone may be cited as evidence that Form 3 can be rather confusing for readers, and should be avoided wherever possible. Form 4 may be confusing for similar reasons. Form 2 seems okay to me, just much less common than Form 1. Forms 1b and 1c are also fine in my view, but not as WP:CONCISE as Form 1. NLeeuw (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see a slight semantic distinction between these options. For example, I would expect an article titled Serbs in Mongolia to have a more historical and demographic tone - outlining the story of Serbs (as an ethnic group) in the region - when they first started to emigrate in significant numbers, any patterns of discrimination they faced, their current demographics. Meanwhile I would expect Mongolian Serbs to focus on individual Mongolian citizens of Serbian heritage. It might even be a list.
    I suppose what I am saying is there might be a reason why these articles are titled inconsistently. And over-consistency isn’t always desirable. Blueboar (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely agree this is an area that I would not expect title consistency if we go by reliable sources for naming. It likely depends if the group is sufficiently large to be consider part of that country's culture, or if it's just the case of people from one nation living in another. Masem (t) 20:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'of' form is the most awkward to me. I do see subtle semantic differences between all four. The differences may be more relevant, or more reflective of common usage, in some cases than in others. In the US, the Fooian American form is standard, from relatively recent arrivals like Hmong Americans to older populations. Note that controversy around the title Native Americans has meant the name for the original inhabitants was previously a DAB page and is now (as of very recently) a primary redirect to Native Americans in the United States. It may be possible to achieve more consistency for a particular country but I'm skeptical that we can or should enforce a standard across the board. Some of these titles probably reflect local consensus/POV but others are surely the result of reasonable discussion around the particulars for different ethnic and national groups. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for both of your feedback! If indeed these article titles are the result of local consensus, then I suppose it might not be a good idea to strive for consistency, particularly as ethnography in the Balkans can be a sensitive subject. What Myceteae says about Fooian American does seem to hold true for the Template:Croatian diaspora articles when it comes to the Americas and Oceania, but for Europe, there are other tendencies. For example, Form 2 Fooians of Barland, seems more like a direct translation from the South Slavic Wikipedia versions, such as hr:Hrvati u Španjolskoj and hr:Hrvati u Francuskoj as cited in the Template:Croatian diaspora:
    Americas
    Oceania
    Europe
    In that case, Form 2 article titles may not really reflect 'local consensus' so much as a direct translation that has arguably not been properly localised to English Wikipedia conventions. The only times the Croats and Serbs article titles seem to agree on Form 2 is for Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, and Romania. The same seems to apply to Montenegrin minority articles: Montenegrins of Serbia, Montenegrins of Croatia, Montenegrins of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (But Montenegrins of Kosovo, Montenegrins of Slovenia and Montenegrins of North Macedonia are not in agreement with the equivalent articles on Croats and Serbs in those countries). Template:Bosniak diaspora provides us with yet more inconsistencies:
    It seems to me that for the Americas and Oceania, the local consensus is Form 4 Fooian Barlanders, while for Asia and Europe outside of former Yugoslavia, the consensus is Form 1 Fooians in Barland. For articles and categories within the boundaries of former Yugoslavia, I would propose not to change anything for the time being. NLeeuw (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I would also propose not to change anything about article titles that evidently represent the WP:COMMONNAME, such as Form 4 pages like Burgenland Croats. So in practice, I would propose to Rename Croats of Switzerland to Croats in Switzerland; Croats of Sweden to Croats in Sweden (edit: it's already Croats in Sweden); Swedish Serbs to Serbs in Sweden, etc. On a linguistic note, Hrvati u Švicarskoj probably better translates to Croats in Switzerland than to Croats of Switzerland anyway. As far as I know Slavic grammar and as far as Google Translate and DeepL suggest, "in" is more correct than "of" to begin with. But whatever we decide, let's take it step by step to form a consensus. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven’t looked into these, but an RM or further discussion on talk for the group seems reasonable. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Myceteae Thanks! Where would I host a further discussion on talk for the group? NLeeuw (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize that was rather vague. My default approach would be to start an RM on the most popular page, which is Swedish Serbs (see Pageviews) and list all three. If you think more focused pre-RM discussion were needed, I would look for an appropriate WikiProject, perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups. I don't think further pre-RM discussion is required, only if you think it would be helpful. Note Croats in Sweden was moved from Croats of Sweden in 2017 with the reason given as "standardize". No reason this can't be revisited. I see no discussion on any of the three talk pages about prior moves. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Myceteae Thanks! I've placed it there now: Talk:Swedish Serbs#Requested move 21 July 2025. @Blueboar and @Masem, you are invited to participate as well. As I've stated above, I'm going to do this step by step, and do not intend to change anything about article titles for topics inside the boundaries for former Yugoslavia for now; only to seek WP:TITLECON for the rest of Europe wherever this can easily be demonstrated. Good day, and once again thank you all for your helpful feedback! NLeeuw (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:GEOCOMMA in article titles

    [edit]
    Shortcut

    For clarification purposes, I'd like to add an example to MOS:GEOCOMMA involving titles of articles on local elections, in which the geographical element often contains more than one level of subordinate divisions. The proposed addition is the third example below, in bold.

    In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g. city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element unless followed by terminal punctuation or a closing parenthesis. The last element is treated as parenthetical.
          Correct: He traveled through North Carolina before staying in Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the night.
          Incorrect: He traveled through North Carolina before staying in Chattanooga, Tennessee for the night.
    Also include commas when the geographical element is used as a disambiguator:
          Correct: Hantratty received a PhD from the University of California, Irvine, in 1977.
          Incorrect: Hantratty received a PhD from the University of California, Irvine in 1977.
    Include a second comma when the construction with a comma modifies a noun or compound noun:
          Correct: Keith Wilson won the 2024 Portland, Oregon, mayoral election.
          Incorrect: Keith Wilson won the 2024 Portland, Oregon mayoral election.

    It has been claimed that the guideline is valid for full sentences, but not article titles, and that "a comma between an single adjective/attributive and a noun is awkward and very unusual". If there were exceptions, they would have to be documented in MoS (wouldn't they?), but no such exceptions exist. While article titles rarely consist of a full sentence, I can't think of a reason why the same rules on spelling, grammar and (if present) punctuation shouldn't be valid for article titles.

    Opinions

    [edit]

    Some examples of comments on a recent RM follow here.

    Oppose rationale

    [edit]
    • "Putting a comma between an single adjective/attributive and a noun is awkward and very unusual, while leaving out a comma after "city, state" or "mmm dd, yyyy" is common." Quoting Jruderman in that RM.

    Other comment

    [edit]

    On the other hand, there is this comment from Ham II in the same RM:

    There needs to be clarification at MOS:GEOCOMMA and MOS:DATECOMMA over whether a second comma should be used when a construction with a comma is used as a modifier. Evidence from sources like the NYT and from style guides would be helpful. This is an example of an RM where the matching commas were kept.

    • Here's a start on the evidence-gathering: Merriam-Webster's Guide to Punctuation and Style (1995, p. 26): "Some writers omit the comma that follows the name of a state (or province, country, etc.) when no other element of an address follows it, which usually occurs when a city name and a state name are being used in combination to modify a noun that follows. However, retaining this comma is still the more common practice.
      We visited their Enid, Oklahoma plant.
           but more commonly
      We visited their Enid, Oklahoma, plant."

    Some recent examples in the news

    [edit]

    Here are some recent examples of a comma between an single adjective/attributive and a noun in WP:RS:

    • "5 Charged in U.C. Berkeley Professor's Killing in Greece, Including His Ex-Wife". The New York Times. July 17, 2025. Five people have been arrested by the Greek authorities in the July 4 killing of a well-known University of California, Berkeley, professor, including his ex-wife and her current boyfriend, the police said.
    • "US judge sentences ex-police officer to 33 months for violating civil rights of Breonna Taylor". Reuters. July 22, 2025. Taylor, a Black woman, was shot and killed by Louisville, Kentucky, police officers in March 2020 after they used a no-knock warrant at her home.
    (emphasis mine)

    I have also seen numerous examples of NYT using similar punctuation involving dates, like in "the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks", and "the January 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol". So my impression is that it's not at all unusual, and furthermore, the proposed addition is consistent with existing examples.

    Media in general are very consistent with their style, and we should be too.

    The absense of the proposed added example is probably the cause of the widespread inconsistency in the titles of articles covering local elections that we currently have.

    HandsomeFella (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion here

    [edit]

    Support

    [edit]

    Oppose

    [edit]

    Other comments

    [edit]

    Inclusion of unused acronyms

    [edit]

    Editors are invited to comment at Talk:The Mission to Seafarers § Inclusion of unused acronyms on the appropriateness of including unused acronyms in an article, when those acronyms are not for the article's subject. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The ewe/you/yew distinction in Welsh English

    [edit]

    As Welsh English maintains the Late Middle English diphthong /iu̯/ as a falling diphthong (/iu̯~ɪʊ̯/), keeping you /juː/, yew /jɪʊ̯/, and ewe/U /ɪʊ̯/ heterophones, shall we write an euphemism, an European, an university, etc. in the Wikipedic articles of Wales or Welsh entities? 西城東路 (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Do Welsh newspapers and publishers do that? I'd rather assume they don't. Gawaon (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not advise them to do so? 西城東路 (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. DrKay (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Written Welsh English is indistinguishable from other varieties", so no. —Kusma (talk) 08:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Iao Valley#Requested move 24 July 2025

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Iao Valley#Requested move 24 July 2025 that may be of interest. Station1 (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of business form in first sentence in article about business

    [edit]

    There's currently a discussion at Talk:Google#First line "Google LLC" or "Google" about whether or not to include "LLC" in the name of the company in the first sentence. It seems that it's quite common to include the business form (or is it the legal name?) in the first sentence, e.g. Penguin Random House says "Penguin Random House Limited", Y Combinator says "Y Combinator, LLC (YC)". But why? Is there a policy or guideline regarding the inclusion of the business entity form of a company or business in the first sentence? (Not the article title, that's covered by WP:NCCORP.) — Chrisahn (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This recent news article says Google, not Google LLC. The article is named per WP:COMMONNAME and the opening sentence follows this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment was not helpful. This is about general policy, not about Google. And if you believe opening sentences have to use the same name as the page title, you're quite mistaken. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It simply makes sense for an article to mention any alternative names (including the legal name) in the first few sentences of the article… both to inform the reader and so users searching for one of those alternative names know they have arrived at the correct article. Blueboar (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's reasonable and widespread to give the full name in the first sentence (in bold), so including such legal entity identifiers. Gawaon (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ptrnext had the answer: MOS:FIRSTCORP. Quote: "Regardless of the page title, the lead sentence of an article on a company or other organization should normally begin with its full legal name." That settles it. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Italics within italics

    [edit]

    The second hatnote at Breaking Bad (Better Call Saul) says:

    Not to be confused with Better Call Saul (Breaking Bad), the 2009 episode of Breaking Bad.

    As a result the title "Breaking Bad" is not italicized. Is that appropriate? 50.78.178.33 (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that is the intended behaviour. All news organisations use this method. FaviFake (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Consensus reading of MOS:COMMONALITY?

    [edit]

    After a bit of discussion at UBE template talk (and discussions listed in the table there), I feel there's some pretty divergent readings of MOS:COMMONALITY, so I feel it might be helpful to see what consensus (if any) looks like atp.

    First, the scope or domain of MOS:COMMONALITY is either the class of English varieties or dialects (call it E), or is the class of terms and phrases of any particular English variety or dialect (call them Vx for dialect x). And the test of MOS:COMMONALITY is either boolean, or is if-else formed.

    So we have four readings of MOS:COMMONALITY from what I gather:

    1. boolean over E: where dialect x either meets or does not meet MOS:COMMONALITY, and so is fit or not fit for use on Wikipedia, as judged per its Vx.
    2. if-else over E: null.
    3. boolean over Vx: where a term or phrase in Vx either meets or does not meet MOS:COMMONALITY, and so is fit or not fit for use on Wikipedia, as judged by how universal it is in E.
    4. if-else over Vx: where a term or phrase in Vx either is or is not universal in E, and if not, either is to be avoided (in favour of its more universal equivalent, if available and meaning or context allow) or else is to be glossed (otherwise).

    I feel MOS:COMMONALITY is pretty straightforwardly meant to be read as 4 above, but have now come across a good number of editors seemingly reading MOS:COMMONALITY as 1 or 3 instead (so I might be way off!). These are all substantively distinct readings (with different consequences each), I feel. Might be helpful to see editor preferences/thoughts re these readings :)

    Ps some editors also seem to include informal or non-written terms or phrases in Vx when testing MOS:COMMONALITY over E or over Vx, but this seems like a straightforward mistake (rather than a distinct reading of MOS:COMMONALITY), as these are already outside the scope of all of MOS by dint of Wikipedia's being a written encyclopaedia. But if not, we'd have even more than 1–4 readings of MOS:COMMONALITY!

    Pps - Ohconfucius and Beland, I feel like you might both be using reading no 3? And Jonesey95 sounds like a no 1 reader to me. Apologies if I misclassified!

    - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, I do not understand all of your mathematical jargon. MOS:COMMONALITY is pretty self-explanatory. It doesn't say anything about whether a given variety of English may be used, only what to do in cases where words have different meanings or do not appear in different dialects. MOS:TIES has a non- comprehensive list of dialects which must be used for at least some articles, and requires use of any given dialect's formal register. -- Beland (talk) 06:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid that, like Beland, I'm not really sure what you're getting at here aside: my Ph.D. is in mathematical logic, but on the other hand I haven't worked in the field for a while and it's also late and I'm tired, so apologies if I ought to get it, but it seems to me that you're overthinking this. Basically it's just saying strive to use words that readers from most Englishes will recognize and not be jarred by (so for example generally use while in preference to whilst even if the article is in British English; use alternative in preference to alternate when they mean the same thing, even if the article is in American English). This doesn't need to be the subject of a law-school dissertation; just keep all readers in mind and use common sense. --Trovatore (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aww geeez my bad, the above is just word salad tbh (long day, lots caffeine I fear). But Trovatore and Beland pretty much cleared by doubts, thank you :)
    For future readers - I think I was trying to see whether (by consensus) it ever follows from MOS:COMMONALITY that this or that dialect is unfit for use in Wikipedia, or that this or that dialect's regionalisms are likewise unfit (rather than just to be avoided if uncommon/jarring, or else glossed if avoiding is not possible). These claims seemed to come up quite a bit in vars TfD and related discussions regarding vars {{Use X English}} templates, is why. Case seems settled in negative though!
    - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, stuff like that does come up. I think we've had several iterations of discussions over lakh and crore, which I think mean one hundred thousand and ten million respectively, though I could have that backwards. It's a difficult problem, because understandably Indian editors can be a bit offended at the idea that they should be banned, but on the other hand most non-Indian readers really don't know what they mean, whereas I'm pretty sure Indian readers do understand one hundred thousand and ten million. --Trovatore (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:CRORE -- Beland (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For sure, and that's like healthy debate, and the intended/straightforward reading of MOS:COMMONALITY imo! Just goes a bit awry or gets a bit muddled (imo) when some editors go from (for eg) "Whoa, Indian English has lots of these jarring/uncommon regionalisms" to "Indian English fails MOS:COMMONALITY so is unfit for Wiki so let's delete {{Use Indian English}}". I wasn't really seeing how MOS:COMMONALITY could be blanket failed at all [outside of context in article prose]!, and the claim seemed to go unchallenged quite a bit in vars TfDs. Prolly the latter made me doubt my initial reading, won't happen again :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, I don't understand a bit of what is laid out above. I do find it enjoyable that mathematical language unintelligible by even pretty smart readers is being used to open a discussion on the talk page for MOS:JARGON. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    On "USA"

    [edit]

    MOS:NOTUSA says "Do not use U.S.A. or USA except in a quotation, as part of a proper name (Team USA), or in certain technical and formal uses (e.g., the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, FIFA, and IOC country codes)." My impression is that "USA" is very common in addresses (for example, "1 Harbor Drive, San Diego, California, USA", or "a pasture in Middle-of-Nowhere, USA" or "a hill in southern Nevada, USA") where the writer includes the country—more common than "US" or "U.S."; therefore, the policy should be altered to allow or even encourage "USA" in these contexts.

    When used as an adjective (for example, in "I am a US citizen."), I agree that "USA" is quite rare, and have no objection to implementing a rule against it in that context.

    When used as a noun that is not part of an address (for example, "I visited the USA."), I encounter both "US" and "USA" often enough that I believe that both should be allowed. — LucasBrown 08:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Might be due to established usage in Chicago MOS, or AP Style, or Strunk & White, or one of the those? Those are all American, so I feel this'd for sure be covered there, and then MOS followed whatever they recommended. (Or else this might've been WikiProject United States project guidance that then was adopted by MOS.) So practice seems pretty entrenched in and out of Wiki (regardless of informal/postal use of "USA")! - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There used to be a rationale listed for clashing with the abbreviation for US Army (vs USN for the navy and USAF for the air force).  Stepho  talk  12:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How frequently do articles contain international mailing addresses or casual remarks like "I visited the USA"? That latter doesn't even sound to me like something someone would say except in an affected way. The closest I think an article would come to it would be "In 1905, X visited the United States", in which the name would be spelled out and both US and USA would be inappropriately informal. Largoplazo (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia serves a global audience, including people in foreign countries who are less likely to know, for example, that Vermont is a state in the USA; therefore, when an article specifies an American location, it is usually encouraged to include an indication to that effect when the location's American-ness has not already been established. For example, Shiprock, New Mexico begins "Shiprock (Navajo: Naatʼáanii Nééz) is an unincorporated community on the Navajo reservation in San Juan County, New Mexico, United States.", and its short description is "Town in New Mexico, USA" (and I was not even the one who made that edit). Also, infoboxes for buildings and the like often contain street addresses; the one at White House goes so far as to contain "U.S.". — LucasBrown 12:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need to have it read "USA" and I don't see any reason to change that. The short description should be revised. Largoplazo (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am intrigued to find such a lively debate about the ‘A’, when nowadays it’s the ‘U’ that seems so incongruous? MapReader (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's just change it to TCFKAUSA (The country formerly known as ...). Gawaon (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly disagree with User:LucasBrown's point. I ingest an enormous amount of English-language written content every week from a vast variety of sources around the world and have done so for over 30 years. I'm not seeing any trend towards USA. U.S. has always been the preferred usage in formal written English, especially American English. The Simple English Wikipedia was created to serve those who lack sufficient training in formal written English. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Chicago Manual of Style loosened its long-standing objection to "US" in the 2014 edition. I haven't looked since, but the trend is definite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)
    I have been looking into the history of British education in the 20th century for over two years because I keep noticing British English partisans trying to insert their bad ideas into the WP Manual of Style, and they point to American style guides like CMOS which have been picking up those bad ideas. I have come across numerous published secondary sources documenting the history of primary and secondary education in the United States, especially the teaching of English language arts. (For example, see this article about English Education in the United States.) ELA teaching as practiced in the United States is a conservative and occasionally cruel enterprise. Its conservatism explains why American English grammar evolves relatively slowly compared to other English dialects. It is true that ELA doesn't really work for half the American population, the ones who are illiterate or barely literate. But it works well enough for the other half, in the sense of producing some of the finest writers on Earth.
    After searching multiple times on the public Internet and in two of the largest research university library systems in the United States over the last two years, I have not yet found any corresponding works for England, in the sense of an objective history of how schoolchildren in England are taught how to read and write and how that has evolved during the 20th century. I see polemics, I see reports, I see primary sources, when I'm looking for a high-level published secondary source that dispassionately connects the dots and gives me a forest instead of the trees. The fact that no one apparently has any interest in writing that secondary source speaks volumes about the quality of British English today. It is something to be ashamed of. It is not an example to be emulated. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, interesting statements. I can summarise your points as a) systems different to mine can be labelled as "bad ideas", b) looking for non-US sources in US libraries found nothing and c) no sources means too embarrassed which means it must be bad.
    If you want sources for learning the English language in England then please look at the end of Language education in the United Kingdom and perhaps Language education by region. There are also numerous articles and categories starting with "Language education in" that you can type into the search box that will lead you to many articles with appropriate references at the bottom.  Stepho  talk  01:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not my impression. Here in Canada, people usually either say "the States" or "the U.S." But we don't get anywhere leaving it with impressions. Ngrams is pretty unreliable, but this gives us a hint. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Nomination for deletion of Template:Use Cameroonian English

    [edit]

    Template:Use Cameroonian English has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=1305229495"