Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Frequently asked questions Wikipedia's Manual of Style contains some conventions that differ from those in some other, well-known style guides and from what is often taught in schools. Wikipedia's editors have discussed these conventions in great detail and have reached consensus that these conventions serve our purposes best. New contributors are advised to check the FAQ and the archives to see if their concern has already been discussed. Why does the Manual of Style recommend straight (keyboard-style) instead of curly (typographic) quotation marks and apostrophes (i.e., the characters " and ', instead of “, ”, ‘, and ’)?
Users may only know how to type in straight quotes (such as " and ') when searching for text within a page or when editing. Not all Web browsers find curly quotes when users type straight quotes in search strings. Why does the Manual of Style recommend logical quotation?
This system is preferred because Wikipedia, as an international and electronic encyclopedia, has specific needs better addressed by logical quotation than by the other styles, despite the tendency of externally published style guides to recommend the latter. These include the distinct typesetters' style (often called American, though not limited to the US), and the various British/Commonwealth styles, which are superficially similar to logical quotation but have some characteristics of typesetters' style. Logical quotation is more in keeping with the principle of minimal change to quotations, and is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing, than the alternatives. Logical quotation was adopted in 2005, and has been the subject of perennial debate that has not changed this consensus. Why does the Manual of Style differentiate the hyphen (-), en dash (–), em dash (—), and minus sign (−)?
Appropriate use of hyphens and dashes is as much a part of literate, easy-to-read writing as are correct spelling and capitalization. The "Insert" editing tools directly below the Wikipedia editing window provide immediate access to all these characters. Why does the Manual of Style recommend apostrophe+s for singular possessive of names ending in s?
Most modern style guides treat names ending with s just like other singular nouns when forming the possessive. The few that do not propose mutually contradictory alternatives. Numerous discussions have led to the current MoS guidance (see discussions of 2004, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2017, 2017, 2018, 2018, 2019, 2021,
2022). Why doesn't the Manual of Style always follow specialized practice?
Although Wikipedia contains some highly technical content, it is written for a general audience. While specialized publications in a field, such as academic journals, are excellent sources for facts, they are not always the best sources for or examples of how to present those facts to non-experts. When adopting style recommendations from external sources, the Manual of Style incorporates a substantial number of practices from technical standards and field-specific academic style guides; however, Wikipedia defaults to preferring general-audience sources on style, especially when a specialized preference may conflict with most readers' expectations, and when different disciplines use conflicting styles. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Style discussions elsewhere
[edit]This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
Add a link to new discussions at top of list and indicate what kind of discussion it is (move request, RfC, open discussion, deletion discussion, etc.). Follow the links to participate, if interested. Move to Concluded when decided, and summarize conclusion. Please keep this section at the top of the page.
Current
[edit](newest on top)
- WP:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Could_MOS:TMRULES_be_amended_to_avoid_conflict_with_WP:COMMONNAME,_esp_for_contemporary_artists_and_their_works?
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#British peer titles in infoboxes – Should British peers use their peerage title in place of their name in infoboxes?
- Talk:Shays' Rebellion#Requested move 27 April 2024 – Apply MOS:POSS and add an s?
- Template_talk:Infobox_university#Type – Should multiple entries be formatted as a list or a single phrase?
- Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict#Flags and wikilinks in the Infobox "Belligerents" section – Do flags in this infobox serve a "useful purpose" per MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS or are they primarily decorative and should be removed?
- Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Collages in infoboxes
- Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#RfC_on_the_leads_of_DOY_articles_and_their_FL_eligibility – Lead length of Days Of the Year (DOY) articles (Feb. 2024)
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Possessives in condition names – On Asperger syndrome vs. Asperger's syndrome, etc. (Jan. 2024)
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Names of deceased trans people (moved from WP:VPPOL) – Yet another round of this long-term, multi-RfC process. Consensus seems possible this time. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024)
- Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Make Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computer science – Proposal to merge a "guideline in all but name" into MoS. (Jan. 2024)
- Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Increase default thumbnail size from 220px to 250px – Peripherally related to MOS:IMAGES and MOS:ACCESS. (Jan. 2024)
- Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)#Use of comma and abbreviation of Incorporated – Involves MOS:TM (plus WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAME. Covers more than thread name implies, including that guideline not having substantive revision since 2009. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024)
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#JOBTITLES simplification proposal – MOS:JOBTITLES has long been considered too complicated and hard to follow. This is not an RfC but drafting toward one; input has stalled out over the holidays, and needs to resume. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024)
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles#Kangxi radical template/gloss – Involves MOS:FOREIGN, MOS:SINGLE, MOS:ALLCAPS, MOS:BOLD. Still unresolved. (Oct.2023 – Jan. 2024)
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Fictional characters known by initials - what qualifies as the "preferred style for their own name" ? – Involves MOS:WAF, MOS:INITIALS, MOS:TM, MOS:ACRO, WP:OFFICIALNAME, etc. Still unresolved, but there seems to be no appetite for diverging from MOS:INITIALS. (Oct. 2023 – Jan. 2024)
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" – Involves MOS:HONORIFIC, MOS:DOCTCAPS, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICKING, etc. Still unresolved, though consensus seems to be forming in one direction. (Sep. 2023 – Jan. 2024)
- Help talk:Table#Indenting tables – Help page is conflicting with MOS:DLIST and MOS:ACCESS on a technical point. No objection to fixing it, and a suggestion to just do it WP:BOLDly, but the work actually has to be done. (Aug. 2023 –Jan. 2024)
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables#Proposal to discourage vertically oriented ("sideways") column headers – Specifically in tables, possibly elsewhere. MOS:UNITNAMES (at the table "General guidelines on use of units") has an example of existing use that is being challenged, and material at Help:Table is also at issue. Still unresolved. (Dec. 2023)
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Making redundant table captions screen-reader-only – About use of
{{sronly}}
around table captions (which are primarily for screen readers) to hide them from the usual non-screen-reader view when their content repeats what is in the table headers. Still unresolved, too little input; probably needs to be RfCed. (Nov.–Dec. 2023)
Capitalization-specific:
- Talk:M40 Gun Motor Carriage#Requested move 27 August 2024 – 14 articles; lowercase the various kinds of motor carriages?
- Talk:Canada in the World Wars and Interwar Years#Requested move 27 August 2024 – Lowercase four words in the title?
- Talk:M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle#Requested move 27 August 2024 – Lowercase "automatic rifle"?
- Talk:Palestinian territories#Requested move 5 August 2024 – Capitalize "territory" / "territories"?
- Talk:List of Moderators of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (multi-page RM) – Lowercase "Moderators"?
- Talk:St. Aloysius College (Mangalore)#Requested move 19 August 2024 – "Deemed to be University" or similar with lowercase?
- Talk:Ahmadnagar Sultanate#Requested move 11 August 2024 – Lowercase "sultanate", 5 more like recent Berar sultanate move?
- Talk:Bolognese School#Requested move 26 July 2024 (15 articles) – Lowercase school in these articles?
- Talk:Non è la RAI#Requested move 21 July 2024 – Remove the all-caps?
Other discussions:
- Talk:Julian (emperor)#Capitalization of "emperor" – should "emperor" be capped when referring to a specific person?
- Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Indigenous – continuation of an RM discussion on capitalization of "indigenous"
- Talk:War on terror#Capitalisation of "global war on terrorism" in prose
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#THEBAND disambiguators – what to do about "The" in parenthetical disambiguators?
- Talk:F1NN5TER#Capitalization – Should the online persona be called "F1NN5TER", "F1nn5ter" or "Finnster"?
- Talk:Union Jack#Case consistency – Union Flag, or Union flag?
- Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Capitalisation of "oblast" when used as the name of a Ukrainian administrative division – May affect other administrative divisions (e.g. raion) and other nations for which such terms are used
Pretty stale but not "concluded":
- Talk:Upstate New York#Other plausible capitalization issue – Capitalization of "Upstate" New York.
- Talk:Southern Italy#Lowercase or uppercase? – Capitalisation of "southern". Also "northern" and "central" in related articles.
- Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Capitalization of geologic names – Despite being opened on an NC talk page, this is about usage in general not just in our article titles.
- Talk:Fall of Saigon#Names section and capitalisation – capitalisation of Vietnamese language names and capitalisation of their English translations?
Concluded
[edit]Extended content
| ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Section headings that begin with years
[edit]MOS:HEAD says that sentence case should be used for section headings. But I'm never sure what to do with section headings that begin with years - should the first letter after the year be capitalised or not? e.g. should it be
2000 season
[edit]or
2000 Season
[edit]? DH85868993 (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The first one would be correct. Remsense诉 09:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense: Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The first. For this purpose, "2000" is the first word. Maybe it would help to illustrate this application of sentence case with a sentence that starts with a number (though it breaks the rule against doing so)? 24 flamingos escape. 24 Flamingos escape. NebY (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Text produced by templates
[edit]I can't figure out if the MOS applies to text produced by templates, and if so, what special provisions exist. Most templates do not produce full grammatical sentences rather abbreviated text. For example the large corpus of external link templates. Like {{IMDb name}}
produces "Marlon Brando at IMDb" and not "Marlon Brando at the IMDb" which is the recommended way per MOS:INSTITUTION, and to be grammatically correct. There are 100s if not 1000s of examples like this producing abbreviated text.
I'm not currently seeking opinions, but am looking for help to find existing MOS, guidelines or discussions. -- GreenC 02:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- On which logic should the MOS not apply to template output? Gawaon (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the "full sentence" would be "Marlon Brando at IMDb.com" which is why it why it was shortened without the ".com" part. Gonnym (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- a) Neither ("MB at" or "MB at the") are full sentences, and whether they are or not has no bearing on the matter the OP raised. b) MOS:INSTITUTION doesn't require "the" before the name ("… at the Yale University"?) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Re: b): Unless it's part of the name: "The University of Calgary". Though I see that it really addresses capitalization, not grammatical articles. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- The general point, however, that templates should be configured to generate output that conforms with the MoS is an entirely sound one. MapReader (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Re: b): Unless it's part of the name: "The University of Calgary". Though I see that it really addresses capitalization, not grammatical articles. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- a) Neither ("MB at" or "MB at the") are full sentences, and whether they are or not has no bearing on the matter the OP raised. b) MOS:INSTITUTION doesn't require "the" before the name ("… at the Yale University"?) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Of course templates should conform to the MOS. This is the first I've ever heard of somebody suggesting that they not conform. That probably explains why, at least AFAIK, nowhere do we have some explicit statement that "this all applies to template output, too". It's simply generally assumed that it's the case, so there's nothing to cite for you.
- I don't see what's so
grammatically correct
about "Marlon Brando at the IMDb"; I think most people wouldnt talk or write that way. If you are trying to say that the "the" is required because it's the Internet Movie Database, then maybe, maybe if it were written out like that, a preceding "the" might be cool. But surely few people call IMDb by the original, long name. Otherwise we'd have to talk about "the NASA launching another rocket". — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)- Yes, the use of "the" depends on common usage. People say "the BBC" but they don't say "the NASA", even though both "the British Broadcasting Corporation" and "the National Aeronautics and Space Administration" use "the" when written in full. So just "at IMDb" is fine because no one (I think?) says "the IMDb". Popcornfud (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It can be confusing whether or not to use the definite article before acronyms. Sometimes it's very subtle: when writing about railway companies in the UK, pre-1948 railway acronyms usually take the definite article, post-1948 railway acronyms don't. So we might have "the GWR", which refers to the Great Western Railway of 1835-1947, and "GWR" which refers to Great Western Railway (train operating company), created in 1996 but which only adoped that name in 2015. Similarly, there are "the LNER" of 1923-1947, and "LNER" of 2018 on. I don't think that we can (or should) write a one-size-fits-all rule. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, like I said, common usage. Why is it "the White House" but just "Bush House"? Why is it "the Eiffel Tower" but just "Tokyo Tower"? No reason, no logic, just common usage. Popcornfud (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It can be confusing whether or not to use the definite article before acronyms. Sometimes it's very subtle: when writing about railway companies in the UK, pre-1948 railway acronyms usually take the definite article, post-1948 railway acronyms don't. So we might have "the GWR", which refers to the Great Western Railway of 1835-1947, and "GWR" which refers to Great Western Railway (train operating company), created in 1996 but which only adoped that name in 2015. Similarly, there are "the LNER" of 1923-1947, and "LNER" of 2018 on. I don't think that we can (or should) write a one-size-fits-all rule. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the use of "the" depends on common usage. People say "the BBC" but they don't say "the NASA", even though both "the British Broadcasting Corporation" and "the National Aeronautics and Space Administration" use "the" when written in full. So just "at IMDb" is fine because no one (I think?) says "the IMDb". Popcornfud (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Use of verbs in biographical descriptions
[edit]- 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.
In many articles about living persons, and particularly about persons in positions of authority, e.g. member of parliament, corporation CEO, city councilor, etc, the lead paragraph often uses the verb "to serve" in denoting the person's work." E.g. "Ms Smith serves/has been serving/has served as member of the XYZ Board of Directors." In this related discussion, the issue was raised about the potential for meaningless excess in that term's use. (Here's a useful essay on that.) This, of course, applies to biographies about persons no longer living.
Comments are invited on the following options:
- A Use any simple form of "to be," e.g. "Smith is Acme Ltd auditor."
- B Continue to use "serve" in biographies, e.g. "Smith serves as Acme Ltd auditor."
-The Gnome (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would go with B, which does continue to reflect both formal proper, and common, usage, particularly in fields like politics and public office. But both forms are of course perfectly correct and acceptable. MapReader (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I remember a previous discussion long ago where an argument was made that "served" is a euphemism. Curbon7 (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Neither. This is not something that needs a broad rule. Either form is acceptable, as are other options. My most common experience is that people use "serve" to capitalize a title while complying with MOS:JOBTITLE, going for "served as President of Aybeeceedia" instead of "was the president of Aybeeceedia", which seems like a silly workaround but whatever. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- A is/was reflects everyday speech. To my ears 'served as' always sounds either pompous or somewhat euphemismistic, he "served as President of Aybeeceedia", but wasn't really 'up to scratch'!Pincrete (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Neither per FFF, the euphemism angle is understandable in some cases but this also seems within the bounds of quite common language variation. CMD (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Neither – is should be fine most of the time, but synonyms are not forbidden, and the occasional usage of serve, even if maybe a bit pompous and not strictly needed, does no harm. Gawaon (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- A is preferable in almost all cases; "serve" is appropriate for military personnel and the like (and also for waiters and tennis players!), but is empty WP:PEACOCKery in other cases. Better to stick to plain English (but hoping this is not something we're going to embody or enforce in yet another MOS rule). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging participants in related discussion, minus ones already present and accounted for: @Necrothesp, Doniago, AlsoWukai, EEng, Popcornfud, SMcCandlish, WhatamIdoing, and Roger 8 Roger: -The Gnome (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Neither - both are acceptable. Also, it isn’t a dualistic choice… consider that there are other verbs besides “served” and “was” that might be appropriate. Don’t be formulaic when writing. Blueboar (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Neither as this is instruction creep. But if we must have one, I would choose A over B. DonIago (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Either. Both are perfectly good English. Neither should be encouraged nor deprecated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- A since any variant of "serve" denotes a positive attribute, which goes against WP:NPOV. It's not a neutral verb no matter how many clothes we try to dress it with. The opening paragraph of WP:WTW is explicit: "Certain expressions should be used with caution because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, vague, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint." -The Gnome (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not positive or negative. Adolf Hitler served as Führer of the Third Reich! Reinhard Heydrich served in the SS. It's completely neutral. I'm mystified as to why anyone should think it was not NPOV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. AlsoWukai (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not positive or negative. Adolf Hitler served as Führer of the Third Reich! Reinhard Heydrich served in the SS. It's completely neutral. I'm mystified as to why anyone should think it was not NPOV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Neither because we don't need any more WP:CREEPY rules. He served as president, he was the president, he held the position of president, he worked as president, he became president, he was elected/appointed as president, he took office as president... Any of these will do under most situations. The idea of Public service being a form of service (as in servants, as in the opposite of powerful people seeking their own aggrandizement) is not a form of peacocking, nor is it a euphemism. It may be aspirational (the rest of us hope that the politician will serve the country instead of his own interests), but there's nothing inherently or egregiously non-neutral about it, especially when applied to people who didn't exploit their roles to harm others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. AlsoWukai (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- No rule needed. Here, there is more than one way to say something, and variety can still make for good, and interesting writing (also, 'serve' is not hard to understand in the example given, rather the NPOV or related arguments are much too strained, when not baffling). As an aside, we should probably not usually write, 'someone is job', rather than, 'someone is broad occupation', followed by where they have served in that occupation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- No rule, please. Either one could be at least annoying to too many editors and possibly disruptive if applied to existing text. There are figures in history of whom I wouldn't use "serve" –
Caligula served as emperor from AD 37
? – but we wouldn't need a MOS rule for that. NebY (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC) - Neither, as both are appropriate for many articles and editors can use their heads—even if this freedom results in the occasional awkward lead sentence. As my troublesome nitpick, I actually do think serve has a vaguely positive connotation compared to the bare copula—but I don't think it matters enough, as every word has a web of connotations and none is truly neutral in every situation. Doesn't register as a WP:W2W in any case. Remsense诉 18:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Neither --- WP:LOCATIONLOCATIONLOCATION, which The Gnome linked in his OP, is my essay, and I'm flattered. However, we don't need a rule on this. My objection to served as is that it's usually surplusage; but it has its uses now and then, and I don't see any kind of flattery or peacock-iness in it. But I will say that, applied to Hilter, it does take some of the edge off to say he "served". That's for sure the wrong word to use for him. EEng 19:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- This needs to be said: The term "to serve" is being pronounced neutral in this discussion by sundry contributors. Is it really? Because if an ostensibly neutral term cannot be used at the extremes, it cannot be used anywhere. The Hitler example trumps all arguments to the contrary. It cannot be made more clear. -The Gnome (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds a bit extreme. Remsense said it well: no word is truly neutral in every situation. So if that's the thing to aim for, we may as well shut down this website and all go home. Gawaon (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- ...but...but...this site is one of the few things keeping me from falling asleep at my desk during downtime at work... :| DonIago (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Which is exactly why we should not make a rule… we need things to argue about during downtimes at work! Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia serves a valuable purpose, if perhaps not the purpose it was originally intended for... DonIago (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Which is exactly why we should not make a rule… we need things to argue about during downtimes at work! Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think us editors are particularly vulnerable to logocentric fallacies—i.e. we're liable to treat the lexical word as the predominant or even only issuer of meaning, while affording phrases, sentences, and other composites no credence to really influence what connotations individual words must themselves possess. Remsense诉 20:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please, please, don't go Wittgensteinian on me. This is the last thing this discussion needs.
-The Gnome (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have trouble saying these things in an intelligent way sometimes—in other words I need to try sounding more like pseudo-Kripkenstein than pseudo-Wittgenstein. Remsense 诉 19:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- But subjectivity is objective. EEng 21:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- And I've said that many times. Remsense诉 21:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please, please, don't go Wittgensteinian on me. This is the last thing this discussion needs.
- ...but...but...this site is one of the few things keeping me from falling asleep at my desk during downtime at work... :| DonIago (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
if an ostensibly neutral term cannot be used at the extremes, it cannot be used anywhere.
[RFC needed] NebY (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds a bit extreme. Remsense said it well: no word is truly neutral in every situation. So if that's the thing to aim for, we may as well shut down this website and all go home. Gawaon (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- This needs to be said: The term "to serve" is being pronounced neutral in this discussion by sundry contributors. Is it really? Because if an ostensibly neutral term cannot be used at the extremes, it cannot be used anywhere. The Hitler example trumps all arguments to the contrary. It cannot be made more clear. -The Gnome (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Neither I have no problem with Richard Nixon saying that he
served as the 37th president of the United States from 1969 to 1974
. That's not euphemistic and is normal English, even though most presidential historians rank him poorly. Cullen328 (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)- That’s because some of us are imputing some sense of merit or sacrifice into the term “serve”, which isn’t really there. Serve can mean simply fulfilling a purpose, or function, and there is plenty of common usage where no merit is implicit, such as “serving as a bad example”. MapReader (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- So, me saying to someone Thank you for your service, for example to a veteran soldier, denotes nothing positive whatsoever; it is an abject expression of thanks for wearing a uniform, and nothing more. And, logically, I could express the same thankful sentiment to a traitor soldier. -The Gnome (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- A traitor would supposedly not be thanked. How is this relevant for this discussion, though? Gawaon (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Really you are making my point for me. Your quoted phrase does, but not because it includes the word “service”. It is positive because of the “thank you”. Had you said “I confirm your service” or “I note your service”, your comment wouldn’t have been received as positive despite the word ‘service’. Whereas, had you said “Thank you for your time in the army” or “Thank you for your work”, that would be received as a positive comment without any need to refer to serving. MapReader (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- So, me saying to someone Thank you for your service, for example to a veteran soldier, denotes nothing positive whatsoever; it is an abject expression of thanks for wearing a uniform, and nothing more. And, logically, I could express the same thankful sentiment to a traitor soldier. -The Gnome (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Either, see wikt:serve#Verb, particularly entries 1.2, 1.4, 8, 12. There are contexts where the word "serve" is non-neutral, such as smiling politely whilst putting meals in front of customers in restaurants despite a torrent of verbal abuse, but the original post gives "Ms Smith serves/has been serving/has served as member of the XYZ Board of Directors." as an example, and that is different from plate-juggling. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Neither Both are acceptable Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- A or some other neutral alternative that suits the context. "Serves/served/serving" is a WP:NPOV failure, in being promotional and (positively) judgmental language. An argument could possibly be made to retain those terms for military and maybe even governmental functions, but even those uses have their long-term opponents. It's entirely inappropriate for corporate and other misc. organizational (school, team/squad, nonprofit/NGO, etc.) roles. PS: The fact that we have a bunch of articles doing this just means we have a bunch of articles to clean up. Cf. WP:FAITACCOMPLI and WP:NOWORK. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry to say, but this is yet another RfC out of the blue, with no discussion on how to frame it. There certainly should have been an option C -- a new rule saying either A or B is OK, and D -- meaning nothing new added to MOS at all. This RfC is already a complete mess out of which nothing useful can possibly come. EEng 20:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- A Is there a specific case where anyone feels that "served as" is better, not just as good? Is it the case that "served as" has WP:NPOV problems in some people's idiolects, but not others? If so, does that mean that it has WP:NPOV problems? McYeee (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's what consensus is for in the abstract, and the examples proffered to illustrate why served should be generally proscribed have not really attracted consensus. Remsense ‥ 诉 01:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I might just be out of my depth here, and I might not have been clear, but I just don't really understand any argument in favor of the usage of "served". I think my preconceived definition of the word is just less neutral than yours. I'll bow out for now. McYeee (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Aye, it's worth making explicit—no one is really saying it's superior in any or as good in all situations, but the MOS is meant to be as frugal as possible. We try to allow editors flexibility in things like word choice as much as possible, and we don't want to tell them what not to do unless it's almost always wrong (roughly, if it's more work to fix than it's good for to allow). See WP:CREEP. Remsense ‥ 诉 01:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I might just be out of my depth here, and I might not have been clear, but I just don't really understand any argument in favor of the usage of "served". I think my preconceived definition of the word is just less neutral than yours. I'll bow out for now. McYeee (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's what consensus is for in the abstract, and the examples proffered to illustrate why served should be generally proscribed have not really attracted consensus. Remsense ‥ 诉 01:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Neither. I agree with the many comments above that there's no reason to ban either form; with Remsense about WP:CREEP; and with EEng that this is not a useful RfC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- No rule needed. Both are acceptable depending on context, but this is not the sort of wording choice that the MOS should be forcing on editors. See also WP:CREEP. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- No rule needed. The claim that "served" is pov in general has no basis. Argue specific cases on the respective talk page, but don't impose a general rule where none is needed. Zerotalk 07:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
MOS:SEMICOLON
[edit]According to the semicolon article, the semicolon is one of the least understood punctuation marks, and is not frequently used. Therefore, I'm of the opinion that semicolons should be used sparingly, and only when an alternative sentence structure is clumsy. Should MOS:SEMICOLON be updated to give this advice?
In addition, on any introduction pages to Wikipedia, such as Help:Introduction_to_Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Five_pillars, I think that the semicolons should be removed in order to make the pages more accessible to potential new editors. I've already updated those pages, one of which has been reverted so far.
I thought I'd ask for opinions and guidance here before making any more changes.
Random56653 (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The two edits are diff1 and diff2. The semicolons look good to me. Johnuniq (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- We should not encourage such use of comma splices (thanks for the diffs, Johnuniq), whether by setting such a poor example or by amending MOS:SEMICOLON. As the current Fowler's says, the semicolon is extremely useful, though it is the punctuation mark "least in evidence to anyone riffling through the pages of a modern novel." NebY (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Admittedly I'm a priori certain that this is not a good idea. That said, I think the flaw in your specific argument here. Assuming it's true: just because many people do not generally demonstrate a working understanding of the semicolon when writing, does not mean they are confused by it when reading, or even that it is not helpful to them when reading.
- What's more: new editors do literally everything wrong—frankly, if for one reason or another a semicolon encounter scares someone off, then I'm certain that in its absence another hangup would take its place. Writing is never going to be easy, and many norms are as they are for very good reasons after centuries of iteration. Remsense ‥ 诉 11:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't take my semicolon away. Zerotalk 12:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
There may be a minor ENGVAR-ish dynamic going on here. I have the impression that British teachers, or perhaps even more particularly English-as-a-second-language teachers in Continental Europe, have this prejudice against semicolons, but it is not widespread in the States.- To be sure, it's possible to overuse semicolons. When you first learn about them you want to put them everywhere. It gets to be a bit of a lazy habit, almost a rhythm of writing to put sentences in pairs and connect them with semicolons, irrespective of whether the two ideas being joined are really closely related.
- But the fact that they can be misused is not a reason to avoid using them when they are helpful, and I don't think they cause readers any trouble worth consideration at all. --Trovatore (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have definitely encountered Americans who eschewed semicolons altogether. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sure you have. I don't see how that contradicts anything I said. --Trovatore (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have definitely encountered Americans who eschewed semicolons altogether. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, don’t do any further such edits. Punctuation use should be correct, for sure, but you don’t edit articles simply because of personal preference for or avoidance of certain forms of punctuation. MapReader (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
We and first-person pronouns
[edit]While first-person pronouns are considered poor writing for an encyclopedia, MOS:WE currently allows exceptions for the figurative we in history and science articles. A brief search in this page's archives didn't turn up any recent discussions on this, so I'd like to see whether it's still supported by the community. I believe this is outdated now that Wikipedia's voice has developed and it's not good practice for writing in an encyclopedic tone, even if it's often used in this fashion in primary and secondary sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- My gut feeling is that outside of quotes we (ha!) shouldn't be using first-person pronouns in article space. Certainly as a general rule, including in history and science (this is already the case in maths articles - Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Writing style in mathematics). Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would only keep we in a quote if I were quoting a full statement; otherwise, a we statement can otherwise be summarized or quoted in part and changing we to they. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Using the portion of a quote with "we" in it is going to be essential to the meaning in some cases, clearly inappropriate in some others and somewhere between the two in the majority. Thryduulf (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would only keep we in a quote if I were quoting a full statement; otherwise, a we statement can otherwise be summarized or quoted in part and changing we to they. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that there's a difference between "encyclopedic" and "stiff", and insistence on stiffness does not suit the project. "We now know that Venus is a planet" is fine, and more comfortable than "It is now known that Venus is a planet." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have a violent objection to We now know that Venus is a planet, but between that and Venus is now known to be a planet, I'd probably pick the latter. I don't think it's stiff, just slightly less chatty, and chatty is kind of bad for an encyclopedia. --Trovatore (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The construction We used to believe X, but now we know Y is vague and informal. Our goal is to summarize what reliable sources say, not dissertate in asides to the reader. To use your Venus example, an article should instead say: The scientist Carl Sagan discovered that Venus is a planet in 2040. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I find the we constructions to be stiff-sounding. Maybe I'm associating it with the "Royal We". Also, not to get hung up on an example, but presumably the first sentence of the article would be "Venus is a planet..." so there wouldn't be a need to craft the big surprise part way through. Primergrey (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not expecting this to be in the lede of the entry on Venus; more along the lines of "While we now know that Venus is a planet, in Shakespeare's day it was commonly assumed to be a star, and thus his references to..." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The opening clause is extraneous and this can be rephrased more formally: Shakespeare, like his contemporaries, believed Venus was a star, and thus he referred to ...
- I'm not seeing a circumstance where "wee see X" couldn't be rephrased to something more encyclopedic. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not expecting this to be in the lede of the entry on Venus; more along the lines of "While we now know that Venus is a planet, in Shakespeare's day it was commonly assumed to be a star, and thus his references to..." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- To my reading, "we" is common and suitably formal in mathematics articles. I see it in a lot of FA-class articles, but I don't have a sense of new vs. old work. I'm a non-expert, but I would suggest consulting the WikiProject before moving ahead with a broad change. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- As @Thryduulf noted, MOS:MATH already prohibits use of we. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's not how I'd interpret the guidance, which reads
"While opinions vary on the most edifying style, authors should generally strike a balance between bare lists of facts and formulae, and relying too much on addressing the reader directly and referring to "we".
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)- You beat me to it. I don't think anything more prescriptive than a recommendation should be adopted in general either. It just isn't possible to cover all the circumstances which may arise. Zerotalk 03:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair, but it does strongly discourage it. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Strongly discouraged but not prohibited is I think what we should be aiming for across the board. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Was your use of first-person plural intentional, or merely an example of how this grammatical form is so natural that one doesn't even notice when one is using it?
- I don't see a strong reason for discouraging it, but as doing so has been adopted for years as a house style within Wikipedia (including in mathematics articles as discussed above) I also don't see a strong reason for lifting that discouragement. I don't think it should be forbidden. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- (This isn't mainspace, so even if we know we're using it to designate WP it's authorized. And yes, I know, I intentionally used it to show.) — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 00:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- (This isn't mainspace, so even if we know we're using it to designate WP it's authorized. And yes, I know, I intentionally used it to show.) — Alien333 ( what I did
- Strongly discouraged but not prohibited is I think what we should be aiming for across the board. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's not how I'd interpret the guidance, which reads
- As @Thryduulf noted, MOS:MATH already prohibits use of we. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly fond of the Venus construction given earlier, but completely prohibiting such things would be counterproductive IMO. At the end of the day it's rare in enwp and doesn't hurt anyone, and as Firefangledfeathers points out mathematicians are accustomed to such verbiage. ― novov (t c) 10:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "We now know" begs questions – who are "we" – and isn't in our usual Wikivoice. I'd rather we described it as acceptable but best avoided in scientific writing, rather than simply acceptable. But yes, we have worse:
Afterwards, we pass a car retail company and a petrol station on our left, with some allotments and Market Harborough cemetery on our right. ... We also now have to say goodbye to Kelmarsh, and hello to Maidwell...
(A508 road). NebY (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)- @NebY that's the preferred style for the SABRE wiki so you'll find a few examples of it in our articles about British roads, unfortunately. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh dear. NebY (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @NebY that's the preferred style for the SABRE wiki so you'll find a few examples of it in our articles about British roads, unfortunately. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Although there are not many cases where it's useful, I don't know if it's really worth explicitly forbidding it, as it's already quite rare and most unjustified uses of it already fall under another interdiction (e.g.
We know Venus is a planet
is as much a WEASEL asSome have said that Venus is a planet
.) — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)- strongly discouraged may be enough. But to achieve a FA rating first person should be removed, otherwise it is a style fail. Certainly for science articles, where I mostly work on, "we" or "our" or "us" is inappropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, there's broad interest in such a change. Is it time to create the RfC proposing the removal of
But some of these words are acceptable in certain figurative uses.
and the corresponding examples from the MoS? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)- As David Eppstein said above, the status quo (it's discouraged but not altogether forbidden) seems fine enough. I too see no good reason to forbid it altogether, so I don't think an RfC is called for. Gawaon (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the proposal is to make it discouraged across the board, rather than accepted (but not encouraged) in a couple of areas and discouraged everywhere else. I would support such a change. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- As David Eppstein said above, the status quo (it's discouraged but not altogether forbidden) seems fine enough. I too see no good reason to forbid it altogether, so I don't think an RfC is called for. Gawaon (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Question on article title
[edit]Is the title for the article I Voted sticker correct, or should it be I Voted (sticker) (and I Voted in italics). Would love to know the MOS answer to this, if there is one? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'll leave it to the experts to give the definitive answer but it is important to know whether the article is about "I voted" (in which case "(sticker)" would be a disambiguator that may be redundant unless there are other "I voted" articles) -or- about the sticker (in which case, the "I voted" is an adjectival phrase and the word "sticker" should not be in parentheses). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Per JMF, the object is not called an "I voted", so it shouldn't be disambiguated as such. Remsense ‥ 诉 12:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The article is about the sticker, but the title should match the (correct) usage found in the first sentence: It's an "I Voted" sticker. "I Voted Sticker" should then redirect to that. Largoplazo (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Biographical entries
[edit]I have long wondered why any entry of a biographical nature manages to list the dates of service or position in government in a particular order. Personally, especially for deceased persons, I would prefer to have the dates of life itself at the top of the order, instead of any honorific or notable achievement which may or may not reflect the most notable of many possibilities. I think this is also supportive of first valuing others as human beings and necessarily descriptive of any subset of time in which a position is held. Maybe this is not the place to raise the question, and I have no idea if this is already discussed in some other style guide that mandates the current practice. But I am amenable to follow the topic wherever it is listed. Wikipedia has become a very valued resource for me who grew up spending hours upon hours as a child reading printed Encyclopedias done by World Book or Encyclopedia Britannica. 65.129.144.172 (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think you are talking about listings in the infobox? So for example, at Winston Churchill, his infobox lists his political details (as prime minister), then his personal details, then his military service.
- If that’s what you mean, the more appropriate forum is probably Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, to discuss infobox layout in general, but it may also be that for the specific type of bios you’re talking about, most decisions have been made at Template:Infobox officeholder, where you could ask about that specific infobox on the talk page (Template talk:Infobox officeholder). I would imagine that editors of that infobox believe the political info will be more pressing for readers than the personal info, but you would have to dig through the archives to see whether that decision has even been discussed explicitly.
- I will say that I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, but I have found that the layout of politicians’ infoboxes are often more complex than they need to be, and less helpful than they could be—mostly as a consequence of trying to include too much, relative to other biographies. — HTGS (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
"Looking towards the text"
[edit]OK, I boldly changed the unsupported assertion that "it is often preferable to place images of people so that they 'look' towards the text", to an acknowledgement that some people do prefer this, but the more important part of the bullet point is that you shouldn't reverse images to achieve this.
Mandruss reverted me, so let's talk about it.
Why is it "often preferable"? Frankly I think this is just a superstition, or an aesthetic preference that some people do have but which has no actual value for the encyclopedia, beyond not triggering a reaction in the people that have that preference.
Of course a lot of things come down to aesthetic preferences, so if enough people really do have it, then that is an answer in itself. The eye, one might say, wants what it wants. But do enough eyes really want this to justify this (in my opinion irrational) guidance? --Trovatore (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's because the gaze of the reader will track the gaze in the portrait. So, readers are directed into the text by the faces looking inward. DrKay (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I understand the theory. I just think it's nonsense. I can recognize a face whichever way it's pointing, and read the text just fine. --Trovatore (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- A majority of the community either supports the concept or it doesn't. As I understand it, guidelines are for keeping us all on the same page, all moving in a common direction. Not for accommodating the personal preferences of all editors or even all significant subsets of editors—on relatively inconsequential issues. I think we do too much of that. When a guideline has been watered down to the point of complete impotence, it's time to retire it per CREEP.This was the very meta reason for my revert. While I don't have a strong opinion on this specific issue, it does seem to "feel" better to me when the image subject faces the text. I can't really explain why; it could be because I've lived with this guideline for ten years and it has become imbedded in my DNA; I don't know. If you think the guideline is nonsense, it seems to me the proper action is to seek community consensus to remove it. Or boldly remove it, for that matter, but I doubt that would be accepted. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the default position of the MoS on any given issue should be no position. I like the way EEng put it, something like "if the MoS does not need a rule, then the MoS needs to not have a rule" -- I forget the exact wording. Articles do not all have to be the same.
- So why do we need a rule on this?
- I do agree that, whatever the outcome, we should keep the guidance about not reversing pictures, as that is actively misleading. But we could do that by itself, something straightforward like "do not reverse pictures of persons just to make them 'look' towards the text". --Trovatore (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Articles do not all have to be the same.
I would agree with that, but the raison d'être of any style manual is consistency, and any deviation needs to have a better reason than somebody's personal preference. The encyclopedia is more important than any individual's sensitivities—we're not here to please editors—but for some reason we seem to disregard that because people aren't being paid, as if there would be a mass exodus if editors were asked to be team players (there would not). I just smh. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)- To be frank I don't value "consistency" as highly as some do in this context. Would it really detract from Wikipedia to have some photos facing one way and some facing another? I don't think so.
- What the MoS does do well is head off unproductive disputes. Would we have them without this guidance? --Trovatore (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Since 2007[1], portraits looking to the centre has been part of Wikipedia's house style. Even if it's merely an arbitrary aesthetic choice, it's served in that and in quelling potential disputes. There's no point in weakening it with a "some prefer (but do as you please)" explanation. In 2008 we briefly had
because the reader's eye will tend to follow their direction
[2] but after some to-and-fro that was dropped in favour of the simpleIt is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text
.[3] Justifications in the MOS are often more trouble than they're worth, so if "it is often preferable" is being read as one, it might be better to phrase it as more of an injunction (to normally/generally place etc) than an observation. Has that been an issue since 2008? NebY (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)- "[I]t's served in that and in quelling potential disputes". What's "that"? Being an arbitrary aesthetic choice? Are arbitrary aesthetic choices good? Really?
- As for potential disputes — would people really be fighting about this? --Trovatore (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sure - aesthetic choices are all around, from the choice of newspaper fonts to brick colours to logo design, and consistency in their application matters.
- EEng's common and sensible response when someone seeks a MOS change is to ask where the status quo is resulting in a problem in our articles or their editing. What problems is this longstanding MOS guidance causing? NebY (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- EEng's formulation is not about the status quo; it's about whether we need a rule. If there's no active justification for a rule, that rule should be removed.
- My feeling is that you should ordinarily not reverse photos, and you should put them wherever they look best, not artificially put them in a different place just because of this arbitrary shibboleth. --Trovatore (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you're concerned that people may be reversing photos to make them fit this style guide direction, the MOS does say
Do not achieve this by reversing the image.
Belbury (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you're concerned that people may be reversing photos to make them fit this style guide direction, the MOS does say
- The whole point of manuals of style is to make a decision once about a design style matter, so even if the decision is arbitrary, editors don't have to spend any time on it again. This lets them focus on content. Now it's certainly possible that this specific design choice ought to be revisited in our current world with a large range of viewing widths. Readers might be better served by placing all images on the right, for example, when there is sufficient available viewing space, and centred when there is not, in order to better support flexible layout design that is responsive to the viewing width. isaacl (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- In fact, I'd go one step farther than @Isaacl and say that the entire purpose of a style manual is to codify especially the arbitrary stylistic choices that go into collaboratively producing something.
- There are plenty of design, editorial, artistic, literary, etc. questions which come down to there being N pretty-much-equally valid options, and you can either pick one/some for the sake of consistency, or decide not to decide and just let anarchy reign. When you pick a lane, that decision goes into the style manual. The other times don't, because it's not helpful to dictate a non-choice as a point of style — which I think is the real crux of @EEng's point about the necessity of non-rules.
- The Manual of Style is meant to dictate the choices made for editors, not to legislate the areas where they have the freedom to choose for themselves. There's room for that sort of discussion, and for its documentation, but it shouldn't be cluttering up the MoS. FeRDNYC (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the entire purpose of our style manual were to codify arbitrary stylistic choices, we would have a much simpler guide for citations, and probably a more complete guide for colours and other arbitrary details. — HTGS (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- TLDR but this has been discussed many times, and the policy upheld. This is a basic principle of picture placement, which we should follow (and generally have done, for 20+ years). Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- For what it’s worth, I don’t have strong opinions on whether portraits should face text, but if we do collectively believe that, then we should probably use the word “should”. That would probably resolve Trovatore’s (and my) issue with “it is preferable”. — HTGS (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- We need an MOS for policies and guidelines. Something along the lines of use must or should, as appropriate, but otherwise don't worry about constantly softening guidance, as WP:IAR exceptions are always presumed to be possible. —Bagumba (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- For what it’s worth, I don’t have strong opinions on whether portraits should face text, but if we do collectively believe that, then we should probably use the word “should”. That would probably resolve Trovatore’s (and my) issue with “it is preferable”. — HTGS (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- For those in search of enlightenment, my Pulitzer-winning essay is Wikipedia:If MOS doesn't need a rule on something, then it needs to not have a rule on that thing. EEng 21:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that this guideline, MOS:IM and MOS:PORTRAIT, has been in place for every long time and is widely followed (and, IMO, it's substantially sound). Discussions about language, 'often preferable" vs. 'should', approaches "how many angels" territory – a waste of time. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- The distinction is whether the MOS actually recommends the first part, or whether it’s saying the first part is just a thing people do, because the MOS has a stance on the second part. If we only care to guide editors on the second, then we may as well remove the first. If we actually care that editors do the first, then we should say so. I don’t care if it’s
“Images of people should "look" toward the text”
or“Under normal conditions, where other concerns are not raised, images of people should be placed so that they "look" toward the text”
, but the current wording sounds like: “Some people like peanut butter; those people who like peanut butter must use the knife that’s designated for peanut butter.” — HTGS (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)- How about "It is often preferable to place images of people so they "look" toward the text." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. And very nice that it's already the current wording! Gawaon (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- How about "It is often preferable to place images of people so they "look" toward the text." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- The distinction is whether the MOS actually recommends the first part, or whether it’s saying the first part is just a thing people do, because the MOS has a stance on the second part. If we only care to guide editors on the second, then we may as well remove the first. If we actually care that editors do the first, then we should say so. I don’t care if it’s
- I agree that this guideline, MOS:IM and MOS:PORTRAIT, has been in place for every long time and is widely followed (and, IMO, it's substantially sound). Discussions about language, 'often preferable" vs. 'should', approaches "how many angels" territory – a waste of time. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Is Cobra Crack reasonable italics? If you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)