Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 96

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 96


Contents

Template:SubArticle

We're trying to reach consensus at Template talk:SubArticle over whether or not Template:SubArticle should appear on the article page or be replaced with a wikilink to the main article in the lead section, like is done in History of Biology and Politics in Futurama. Comments would be appreciated. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Try and vs. Try to

Are both these usages acceptable or do a lot of people make the mistake?

I want to try to discover the correct usage. Can I also try and discover it?

IMO if you are going to try and do something, make up your mind, either try, or do it, but not both.

Hope that sense makes :) Franamax (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Try and sounds too informal to me. Strad (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I know J.R.R. Tolkien preferred to use "try and" in his works, and was often "corrected" by well-meaning editors when publishing his works. I found that in the Note on the Text in my 1995 single-volume HarperCollins paperback edition of The Lord of the Rings, page xi. I'm not sure what to conclude from that, but I wanted to mention it here. Phaunt (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Tolkien was idiosyncratic in other respects too. I agree with Strad -- "try and" is perfectly fine informal English, probably with a very long pedigree, but it's not appropriate to the register of English used in an encyclopedia. --Trovatore (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Other users of "try and": Charlotte Bronte, Lord Byron, Lewis Carroll, Wilkie Collins, Joseph Conrad, James Fenimore Cooper, Charles Dickens, Arthur Conan Doyle, Theodore Dreiser, George Eliot, Kenneth Grahame, H Rider Haggard, Thomas Hardy, Henry James, DH Lawrence, Herman Melville – without even venturing into the second half of the alphabet. All abysmal stylists, of course. Our editors must be warned away from such catachrestic usage as theirs.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
These are fiction writers, at least the names I recognize. When you're writing fiction you do what you like; you finely calibrate the particular effect you're trying to evoke in the reader. Writing for a formal reference work is quite another matter. --Trovatore (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed, Trovatore. And what would they know about proper language? Let us by all means guard against following their example, as reference works with titles like these appear to have done:International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, International Encyclopedia Of Economic Sociology, Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, The Concise Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management, Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas, Medieval Germany: An Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Academic American Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of the American Judicial System, Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War, and a zillion wannabes from that same "college of dullards" (in Mencken's memorable phrase). Standards, I cry!
(Meanwhile, we can't even get the hard space sorted out. Or the ellipsis.)
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 02:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't "try and" imply success at what was tried, while "try to" carries no implication of success? Whether "try and" is correct might depend upon whether the author wanted to imply success. Is the debate about a specific rule of grammar without any artistic license? -- SEWilco (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think "try and" implies success. It's just a more informal way of saying "try to". --Trovatore (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Working through the words, "try and" would imply success, but that's not how I see it used, I tend to agree with Tr that it is informal usage, of course that's why I'm asking. Anothger point is that I am currently "trying to" find the answer whereas almost no-one is ever "trying and" find such a thing.
I have two specific questions: is there such a rule of grammar? what is the appropriate usage in Wikipedia mainspace articles? Franamax (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And thank you Noetica for the new word! I don't think I'll be accusing my friends of catachresis anytime soon though, could get me in trouble. :) Franamax (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
(Happy to help with the lexical supplementation, Franamax.)
This thing with try and has been turned inside and out for eighty years at least. Fowler's first edition approves of it, and does indeed find in it a suggestion of encouragement towards success that is absent from try to. The latest Fowler's gives the issue almost a page, approvingly. M-W's Concise Dictionary of English Usage (fabulous work, along with its earlier unabridged sibling) devotes almost two full pages to the issue, and finds the form quite acceptable (citing, among many other sources, a letter by Jane Austen). Both of these current authorities observe that inversions and similar contortions are impossible with it: you can't have this: "Arrive on time? I'll try and, at least!" But you can have this: "Arrive on time? I'll try to, at least!" Duh.
(Meanwhile, we can't agree on a rational policy for punctuating captions!)
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 05:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
No one's saying there's anything inherently wrong with it. It's in the wrong register. I stand by that. --Trovatore (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I had a feeling try and would turn up a million times in a corpus search. That's good enough for me. Strad (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem with "Try and", as in "Try and do it" is its implication of "try [to achieve something]" AND "do it [succeed in doing it]". It's a round-about expression that should be conflated into a single meaning ("Try to do it"). "Try and" is more common in speech than writing, I suspect, because it avoids the t ... t and can be slurred lazily as "Try 'n". It may have its place in fictional dialogue, but not in serious writing such as WP articles aspire to. I always correct it where I come across it. Tony (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You "correct" it? You alter it. It is presumptuous to call it correction when the usage is enshrined in great works of English literature (by no means only, or even predominantly, in dialogue), and common in good serviceable prose outside of fiction as early as the 17th century. As my small sample shows (see above) it is also in common use in reference works, and approved by major authorities on theoretical and empirical grounds.
I might alter it, too, for style: but I would not think or say that I was correcting. Ameliorating, rather: after a nuanced weighing of context and intent.
Why seek to legislate on such subtle matters here, when so much else is more pressing? And why pretend that such questions are not subtle, when the literature shows very plainly that they are?
My intention here? As Milton has it: "At least to try and teach the erring soul" (Paradise Regained).
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 11:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. I see that's been misquoted (missing comma). The text (my emphasis) actually says:
"At least to try, and teach the erring soul,/Not wilfully misdoing, but unware/ Misled; the stubborn only to subdue."
--ROGER DAVIES talk 13:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeking to legislate on it; I'm not pretending that it's not subtle. You could have chosen not to accuse me of being presumptuous. Tony (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
(Serves tea all round) Silly me for coming here looking for an answer, I forgot the WP in WP:MOS :) I tend to agree with Tony that the "try and" usage is a little easier to say, thus tends to get written the same way. Would it be fair to say that "try to" is a preferred usage?
And who's that Milton guy? I haven't seen him editing around lately :) Franamax (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Milton hasn't published anything recently, so he's not qualified to be considered a writer. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think "try to" is preferred for Wikipedia articles, but I can see situations where "try and" will reasonably appear. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

One convenient place for an outside opinion on usage is the American Heritage dictionary online. They have a usage note for try and at the bottom of the entry. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I think try to makes more sense. Per CBM's comment above, the usage of "try and" seems to be informal, and while its actual grammatical correctness is perhaps in question, its formality doesn't seem to be, and formal writing should be preferred in an encyclopedia. Also, while it may not be viewed this way, at least technically "try and" implies that one will succeed. For example, "I will try and find a solution to this dilemma" can be viewed as you are going to make an attempt at solving the problem, "and find a solution..." While many people may not view it this way in the interest of ambiguity I would say go with "try to". Of course other options like "attempt to" are even better. Just don't "take a crack at it"--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 17:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
To make my view of the matter even clearer than I have already, and to answer a couple of recent comments, I present these points:
  • I do not accuse any person of being presumptuous, but I say that certain behaviour is presumptuous. It is presumptuous to "correct" usage that has been established for centuries in the language, from the pens of great writers. It is presumptuous to think that commentators in all editions of Fowler's, and other major authorities, are wrong and that one's opinion is by natural right more weighty then theirs. It is presumptuous to think that the competence of a huge number of reference works in print is less than ours here. As I have pointed out, we can't even get good policy on the hard space, ellipses, or punctuation for captions. And we can't sort out the formatting of dates and numbers. Why should we think editors here have any better judgement on this matter? If we agree that the matter is subtle, and if we don't seek to legislate, we should let editors have their way and not "correct" them as a reflex reaction. (Tony says: "I always correct it where I come across it.")
  • Milton may or may not have been misquoted. I was perfectly aware of different punctuations of the line I cited. I chose to follow the OED's version (in the entry for "and"). Until any of us has cited and named a proper textual version, there is little more to say. Even if we have it recorded, and not some editor's attempt at emendation, the punctuation of Milton's time was vastly different from any modern practice; and it would take further argument to demonstrate any relevance to the present question, anyway.
  • I say we should work on what's more important, and not dwell on minor, disputed, and subtle questions of style. It this were the most urgent of our concerns we would be in a happy situation indeed. That is the point of what I have contributed above. Of course style is important, and I myself am constantly making alterations to improve it. But this will always be a matter of individual judgement or negotiated consensus: except in those cases where there is already an established majority opinion among those who have actually looked, analysed, and thought on the matter.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 21:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, let me make my view clearer. There is nothing wrong, in English grammar, with the phrase a lot in the sense of "many" or "much", and I would hazard a guess that you can find the usage in the works of many great writers, and that Fowler probably had no problem with it (though this is a guess). But the tone is wrong in an encyclopedia article. If I happen across a lot while reading an article, I will most likely change it to something that sounds more formal. (It does depend a bit on the subject matter of the article -- if the article itself is some piece of pop-culture fluff, I'm more likely to leave it alone.)
I would do the same thing with try and, for the same reason. We needn't call it a "correction", if that word strikes you as a presumption. --Trovatore (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, Trovatore. I might change try and, myself. Same for a lot and a bit. That is not presumptuous: it is a large part of what editors are there for! But I would weigh each case, and not rush to coin inept rules that intimidate more often than they encourage.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 23:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, we're on the same page there. I might go a bit further -- I tend to think the MOS is generally too detailed and too pushy now. --Trovatore (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
In the case of try and, could you suggest an example of where this phrasing would be appropriate? I'm not trying to stir things up here, I really would like to know when it would or would not be appropriate to change the text. Noetica, you are right that there are more important things to work out, but it would be nice to get agreement on this small issue, at least I'd feel better :) Franamax (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You want me to try and treat the two differently? OK. I agree with Tony that the sound may be a factor; but I think that's perfectly legitimate. I recently advised an editor at WP:FAC to change this text: "At around the same time, Cage started studying...". I suggested "...Cage began studying...", which is much easier to say. (No -ge st-, etc.) Good prose stands up well when spoken, I say: and nothing is lost by changing started to began. Now, try to say my own first sentence here, but with to instead of and: "You want me to try to treat the two differently?" A bit harder, yes? Why should we not think that Milton chose and for the same reason? Try to say this: "At least to try to teach the erring soul." All those sibilants and dentals!
So sound gives one sort of reason. And then, sometimes a colloquial feel is no bad thing. It depends on the kind of article. But try and convince the pedants of that ! :)
(Another? Yes, why not! One lump, please.)
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 01:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, best to reword in this case: "You want me to treat the two differently"; I suspect that the "try" thing is unnecessary here. Thanks for the compliments. Tony (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you've raised an important point that's often forgotten. It's the inner sound of the language that determines good prose, not any number of arbitrary and ever-changing rules. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
But Noetica has changed my question! I didn't ask for two things, I asked for one: treat the two forms differently, I don't insist on success, I just ask for the attempt, failure is an option, so I haven't set a "try and" task, I've set a "try to" task.
I do take the speakability point, too many t's in a row leads to spittle, however generally encyclopedias are read, possibly with lips moving, but generally in a deliberate manner, so the inner sound is no more important than the inner meaning. That's why I brought this up, what gives the best meaning?
And looking at the Milton quote again, using the alternate punctuation: "At least to try, to teach the errant soul / Not wilfully misdoing..." - add that 1/4 second pause and maybe I've just out-Milton'ed Milton?
What is the appropriate tone for an encyclopedia? I suppose the lesson I will draw here is that "it depends" Franamax (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Franamax! I only did it that way to set up an example! To answer more directly: you could use try and in all sorts of contexts, and there is usually very little difference between it and try to, as far as meaning is concerned. Since that is so, we can let sound determine the choice in many cases. Especially in articles where a less formal tone is acceptable. You can try to make your own example. Think of an article about a TV show, perhaps. Make a sentence with spittle and twisted lips and try to, and change it to try and. Try and find a way to do that!
As for your having out-Miltoned (no apostrophe) Milton, perhaps the change to to with the comma alters the sense, to something like "to try, [and in so doing] to teach". We'd have to do a deep analysis, using a proper text, to try (in the sense of test) whether Milton actually meant that or simply to try to teach.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 02:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I did see the deliberate example(s) and chose to respond by pointing out the dichotomy I see in your chosen phrasing. Perhaps I met your rhetoric with my sophistry? Dunno - I get lost around apostrophes, and, often, use of commas. :) I've always thought of the usage in question as a corruption: "trying to" - "tryna" - "try'n" - "try and"; and of course if that's how it happened, well that is the living language, it is correct by right of its own evolution. I suppose I will continue to change the phrasing but try to be careful in choosing my spots.
Having now looked up the context of the Milton quote, I agree a deeper analysis would be needed, it seems as though the aim is the trying itself since in the event of failure the option is to simply subdue the stubborn. Set up the discussion sub-page as you wish :) I do like that Wikpedia-ready line though: "by winning words to conquer willing hearts".
I'll bow out now with thanks to all thoughts above. I've posed the same question to The Economist, my exemplar of English usage, if I get a response I'll be sure to reappear (who knows, the same argument may be raging through their offices right now). FTR I like full stops after captions and ,,'s for nbsp's is a fantastic idea, put me on the list for notice when you decide to unveil. Thanx all! Franamax (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Very well, Franamax. Thanks for tea. And thanks also for noticing our push to reform markup for the hard space, which needs promoting at every opportunity. (I must go and [sic; not go to] update that page right now.) I look forward to your report from The Economist.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 04:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Trovatore and Oni_Ookami_Alfador make good points. In new text, I would use "try to" because I feel it is more encyclopedic. I'm less sure about replacing existing occurrences of "try and". I'd make the change if rewriting the sentence completely for other reasons, or for consistency with use of "try to" elsewhere in the page. As usual, there are exceptions: "I try and [I] succeed" deliberately differs in meaning from "I try to succeed". Certes (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a useful piece about "Try and" at http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-try1.htm in the splendid "World Wide Words" website. Michael Quinion's conclusion is that it is "entirely legitimate". PamD (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Working example of the proposal for MOS coordination

Since there seems to be widespread misapprehension about the practical application of the proposal under discussion above, I looked for an example of how we should be resolving inconsistencies. It wasn't hard to find one.

Under "Chronological items", "Longer periods", "Years", MOSNUM says this:

AD appears before a year (AD 1066) but after a century (2nd century AD); the other abbreviations appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC).

But MOS-central says this:

AD appears before or after a year (AD 1066, 1066 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC).

Thus, MOSNUM says that 1066 AD is wrong, but MOS central cites it as an example of good usage. Under the proposal, MOS-central prevails until we get off our backsides and do something about it, either by changing MOS-central or MOSNUM.

Can we do something about it, so we don't look like fools? Which one is preferred, please? I've put a link to this section at MOSNUM talk. Tony (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the biggest problems with the proposal. In cases such as this, where MOSNUM (aka WP:DATE) is a part of the MoS of general applicability dealing with the particular section of the MoS, the specific page should control. It's not that I like the rule as stated in MOSNUM; the MoS version is much better in my opinion. But the people most knowledgeable about and most interested in a particular general applicability subpage are going to be following that page. It is different for the various WikiProject and other pages related to a specific topic not of general overall interest. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
To me this is an example of my suggestion that if two guidelines do not line up on a minor issue such as this, then it probably means that the issue is unimportant to article or encyclopedia quality. As it happens, in this case, that is essentially what MoS-central says (it permits either approach). But also MOSNUM only implicitly rules out the other format. If this is the kind of issue that causes problems during FAC discussions, then FAC needs to think seriously about its priorities. Geometry guy 19:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep your dirty hands off the discussion section and this section that needs independent resolution, Geometry. What a hide, thinking you can walk in and do what you like at almost no notice. Tony (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
"Dirty hands"? Shame on you! Paul August ☎ 00:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Please calm down Tony, and check the edit history more carefully. I did not remove this section. It was moved by Finell to a different place on the page (and, probably, a more sensible place). As for the proposal, SandyGeorgia and Finell, among others, called for it to be closed, and Finell attempted to close it, but did not do it with equanimity in my view, so I attempted to make a better job. Your reversion and personal comment here and on my talk page does not portray you and your relationship to this page in a very good light. Geometry guy 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow me to calm down in my own time. Yes, dirty hands. I don't care who called for what, I'd like to know about a proposal to remove an entire discussion—just two or three days after it was launched, when discussion is still in train—before someone launches in suddenly and removes it. How dare you. Tony (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Tony: As the edit history clearly shows, I moved this to be a sup-topic under the Proposal, not Geometry guy. I moved it because it was titled "Working example of the proposal for MOS coordination", so it seemed to belong under the proposal for which it was an example. If it had been titled without reference to the proposal, I would not have moved it. Please don't be offended. For the record, Geometry guy and I acted independently. If you look at the discussion, you will see I agree with you that all parts of the MoS should be consistent and that conflicts must be reconciled, and disagree with Geometry guy's position that inconsistency is tolerable and with his proposal that what we need is a new master project page. However, it is obvious from the vehement discussion that a new guideline is not the way to achieve consistency, and that argument over the abstract principle is going nowhere and has become counterproductive. Further, MoS internal contradictions can be resolved in the usual way, without a new guideline to which there is substantial opposition. I initially supported your proposal, although I expressed some reservations (my vote on your proposal was Support, but ...). In the face of such strongly expressed opposition by many others (and I don't meant from me), it is obvious that no consensus will be reached (unless you believe that community consensus means a narrow majority vote; I don't). Although well intentioned and offered as a solution to a genuine problem, the proposal should be put to rest for lack of consensus so that continuing non-productive argument over it will stop. Please calm down and don't take it personally. And please don't resort to incivility—do you really want a response-in-kind to "Keep your dirty hands off ..."? Finell (Talk) 01:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: I wrote the above in direct respone to Tony's post that began "Keep your dirty hands off ...." I did not see the other responses to Tony until I posted mine. Finell (Talk) 01:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It's disconcerting to see these conclusions about the proposal, when discussion was dominated by members from one WikiProject. The idea that there is any consensus is premature. A WikiProject would just add another place that needs to be coordinated with all these pages; coordination on the main MoS page is a worthy proposal. The wording might have gotten us off on the wrong foot. Tony, it appears you may need to apologize to Gguy, although I understand how it feels to have your good intentions attacked as they have been in this discussion, along with the denigration of good copyedit skills. Discussion should continue; if nothing else, it's bringing many issues to light. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Apologise for what? It was outrageous behaviour. Tony (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Any editors who comment here do so only as editors, not as representatives of any wikiproject. Indeed, this is the general Wikipedia manual of style, not a project-specific one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, let's try to ignore the off-topic ad-hominem chatter and focus on the issue at hand. Under the proposal, yes, MOS would override MOSNUM; however, the opposite could be made true (e.g. MOSNUM overriding MOS) with the same effect. (Or we could correct one page to say the same thing as the other and forget about the entire argument...) Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That's right, and in the meantime, the right- and left-hands say different things. What is important is that one page be the default, until an inconsistency is harmonised by a change in MOS or a sub-page: I don't care which, but I think MOS is the logical one to be the default. So I can see that no one here is at all interested in harmonising the inconsistency I've pointed out here. That's a good illustration of why we need to have a default. It's extraordinary that no one cares about it. AD 1066, or 1066 AD. You're all happy with two MOS guidelines on this, are you? Tony (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is important for one to be the default. Where there's an inconsistency there's likely to be a dispute, and until consensus is reached to resolve that dispute there's no need to rule in favor of one method. In some cases there may be no consensus and we'll have to live with two or more systems coexisting. Thankfully I think most of our readers are flexible enough to comprehend both 1066 AD and AD 1066. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, our readers can comprehend articles that disregard all WP typeface conventions, that use American title case for article titles and section headings, that cite a source informally (e.g., "p. 29 of the Selfish Gene by Dawkins"), that use no boldface in the lead, and so on. Whether a WP article remains comprehensible is not the sole criterion of whether there should be an MoS guideline. If there is a guideline, there should be a guideline, not contradictory guidelines within the MoS. If editors on two (or more) MoS pages cannot reach consensus on some point, either the guideline is dropped or the guideline is amended consistently in all instances to reflect the usages that are acceptable on WP; in this instance, I expect that "the year of our Lord" would not be considered a suitable replacement for AD. Or is the proposal to discard the whole MoS? If the MoS is not to be discarded, how can self-contradiction be justified logically? The MoS is not an WP:ESSAY. I do believe it is reasonable to have consistency. I don't think that the present proposal is getting WP any closer to that goal, and that MoS consistency can be achieved through normal editing without a new guideline. That is why I think the proposal should be closed and we should all get back to doing something more productive. Finell (Talk) 06:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Dear Tony: As you see, this L2 topic is almost entirely devoted to discussion over the Proposal, not about what the AD guideline should say. Therefore, it really should be moved to a subsection under the Proposal. A new topic should be started solely to address the AD inconsistency, without a title that suggests that it relates to the Proposal. Please do this if you agree. Or I may do this myself when I have the time for the sake of having the entire discussion of the Proposal in one place, a principle of good organization that is one of the bases of your Proposal. Finell (Talk)07:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It looks as though Parnham counts himself as a saboteur of MOS and its sub-pages. He really doesn't mind at all if they're in conflict. It's extraordinary that such people are given any oxygen at all here. Tony (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I would certainly prefer conflict to your consistent efforts to railroad changes through without any broad consensus. The fact that your diktat prevails on this one talk page shouldn't permit you to control the appearance of every page on Wikipedia. If opposing your power trip is considered sabotage, then so be it Toby. Christopher Parham (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • You poor, deluded person. If I weren't so one-eyed about raising standards on WP, I'd be flattered; but I'm a very different operator from that, and you clearly have no understanding of this. Think what you like. BTW, it's "Tony", not "Toby". Tony (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Christopher Parham, please cease and desist from your personalization of this issue and failure to assume good faith, now; your personalization isn't appropriate here and has sidetracked an important discussion into attacks on Tony's motives and professionalism. You've accused Tony of attempting to "railroad changes without any broad consensus" when exactly what he sought was a consensual discussion. If you have further personal attacks to make on Tony's motives or character, please take them elsewhere; they don't belong on this page. My response to the attacks on Tony is on Tony's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to say that Tony is attempting to sabotage the principle of consensus? If so I'd be happy to amend to that effect. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Replied on your talk page, where personal issues belong.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Usually I would keep a personal discussion on talk but Tony initiated it here and it seemed best not to break the dialogue. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Initiated what here? If you're referring to the personalisation of this discussion—bag your head, Parnham, and get your facts right. I was not the first to do so. Tony (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, arguably I was, and I should probably apologize for taking quite such an angry tone. But it was not really meant to be personal in the sense of "about Tony personally". It was more about the entrenched class that frequents this page, which of course includes Tony. It's precisely the entrenchment of that class that makes unacceptable to me the idea that all disputes need to be resolved here, on that class's home turf. That idea is still a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. I do agree that, other things being equal, inconsistencies between different WP style guides are an indication that there's a problem that needs to be solved. --Trovatore (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Ah, a "probable apology": is that a real one? As for your claim that what you said about me ("power-grabbing" was one of the epithets, was it?) is not about me personally, that's hard to accept: how stupid do you think I am? Tony (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you're stupid, Tony. I don't always like you very much, but I do respect you. But I do see the move as an attempt to consolidate power, not only for you, but partly for you, and I don't apologize for saying so. I do apologize for saying so a bit intemperately. --Trovatore (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
So I regard your entries here as pure power grabbing, too, for your very own purposes. Tony (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC) And PS, you might like me sometimes, as you imply, but I don't ever like you. Tony (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I rather resent your accusation that here is some kind of an "entrenched class". I am not a regular contributor to the various discussions that take place here, I simply want to stay in touch with the evolving MoS. It seems self-evident that if there are discrepancies between the MoS and and project specific specialisations that those discrepancies should be discussed, agreed upon, and formalised. Why that is so hard to understand? Why try to make it personal? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Trovatore, if not here (that's fair), where do you propose? For example, do you like GeometryGuy's proposal for a separate Project? We need some means of even knowing when discrepancies exist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, this discussion is moving more in the right direction -- I'm glad you at least understand my objection. I don't like the idea for a project; I think projects should be to coordinate editors interested in a certain sort of content; I don't see the model generalizing to non-content-based efforts. I'm not sure exactly where discussion should take place. Maybe here would even be OK if the relevant WikiProjects were scrupulously notified, and provided we drop the notion that the central MoS is the one that controls until the discrepancy is resolved. --Trovatore (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Re non-content-based models, I think you need to get out more Trovatore :-) Try WP:WGA, WP:LoCE, WP:WPDAB and WP:WPSPAM for example. Geometry guy 10:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
At least one of those is effectively inactive, relative to its demands, and I would rank another as a continuing failure, despite GGuy's best efforts; so I must share Trovatore's doubts. However, a Project might give those editors who want hard and well-defined rules a place to relax and do the sort of discussion that our guidelines are supposed to supply, so it might do more good than harm. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
There are a whole bunch more such WikiProjects, and even a category for them (Category:Wikipedia WikiProjects). As for WP:WGA, my own efforts have been concentrated on good article reassessment, which is no longer a place where drive-by reviews of the form "Delist. Not enough inlines." are welcome.
However, I think you are confusing the process and the WikiProject. Whatever is one's view of WP:GA, the process is definitely helped by having a WikiProject to support it. Admittedly, WT:GAN continues to be the place where a lot of discussion happens, but I think that illustrates what would happen here too. If we created a MoS WikiProject, WT:MoS will still be a key forum, but there would also be an alternative venue for discussing and coordinating activity between the various pages of MoS.
Some tentative support and an absense of counterproposals suggests to me that this idea is worth further discussion, perhaps in a new thread. Geometry guy 17:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolving the AD issue itself

I think it's more productive to discuss the contradiction itself than to discuss how to discuss the contradiction. With that aim in mind, let me posit my opinion. I'm surprised that "1066 AD" is deemed acceptable. I had a look at the Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage which says "AD should always be placed—in recognition of what it stands for (anno Domini, in the year of Our Lord)—before the numerals it relates to" (link, probably needs subscription). Is there any style guide which allows writing "1066 AD"? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, 2000 AD gets 29,800,000 google hits, whereas AD 2000 gets 30,800,000, so a slight win for AD 2000 there, even though it is a redirect. On the other hand, with quotes, "2000 AD" gets 1,110,000 hits, whereas "AD 2000" only manages 319,000. :-) Joking aside, can we conclude anything? Well, both usages are commonplace. What really matters is consistency within each article (one of the best parts of MoS is the final sentence of the first paragraph).
The literal translation of AD is an anachronism: these days, very few people, including those who prefer to AD to CE, use the phrase "in the year of Our Lord". And if the word "year" is read in the sense of "dating system by year", the sentence reads well with the date first anyway. Geometry guy 22:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The Chicago Manual of Style 14th. ed. in § 8.41 and § 14.27 says that A.D. "properly" and "usually" (respectively) goes before the year. In § 8.42 it says that although expressions such as "the second century A.D." were formerly not accepted in conservative usage, "most scholars and scholarly editors have long since withdrawn their objections to this locution." --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, and the other authorities? CMOS is good in places, and sucks in others. Tony (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Tony (at the start of the section) that we need to resolve the inconsistency one way or the other. I don't see any consensus, so I used the general principle that we shouldn't make any rules unless necessary (avoid Wikipedia:Instruction creep). Thus, I changed WP:MOSNUM to read that both "1066 AD" and "AD 1066" are allowed. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Order of common sections

There's three sections many articles have. These are the "See also", "External links" and "References" sections. I have two questions concerning this:

  • Is there a MOS recommendation on their order?
  • Why is the current practice to place 'External links' below 'References', instead of the other way around?
  • Why is the current practice to place bibliographies or full references below the footnotes?

Especially the last two are questionable. Several long (academic) publications, at least the ones I just looked in to check when I first came up with these questions, list suggestions for further reading (which is what external links are) either at the end of each chapter, or at the end, before the bibliography. Notes are at the very end, after the bibliography. User:Krator (t c) 14:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That comes under the purview of Wikipedia:Layout, not the Manual of Style. While the header on that page describes it as a "style guideline", it clearly distinguishes itself from the MoS, and provides a basic breakdown for those discussing the heirarchy of various style pages of one sort or another:
Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This is covered in WP:MOS#External links (which says EL are last), WP:GTL#Standard appendices and descriptions and WP:EL#External links section (El at the end). The thinking (which I would like to see strengthened) is that Wiki always prefers Wikified content to external content, to keep readers within Wiki and to encourage Wikification of content. I'd like to see the guidelines strengthened to really encourage See also *always* be first, just as External links are always last. The other problem with ELs is that they can grow into a farm, so putting them earlier on in the order can detract. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
And in this case, generalizing our discussions of heirarchies, the MoS page External links section should be subservient to Wikipedia:Layout; it is primarily in the province of the layout project page, and not the Manual of Style project page. Should the MoS ever disagree with the layout page on this point, layout should prevail. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that GTL explicitly states that "it is okay to change the sequence of these appendices"; so if you think that a different order makes more sense, you should not hesitate to use that order. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that one had better add an invisible comment somewhere in the vicinity when using an order other than the "proper" one, or else it is probable that someone else will later change it back. Waltham, The Duke of 16:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's under "Section management" here. Tony (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Trivia sections

I would like a fresh consideration of the advice given about trivia sections, namely that they are discouraged. I've raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections. Does anyone support this request? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.28.142 (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also appreciate a look at this "guideline"--and perhaps a fresh look at the process (or lack thereof) by which MOS guidelines gain official acceptance. The problem with this particular guideline--besides the fact that enjoys very little if any consensus by editors--is that it purportedly discourages trivia sections while explicitly allowing them and discouraging their removal. It makes no sense at all.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
See section just above this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't yet bothered to read the rest of the page before posting here. The Fat Man MoS DEFinitely supports this proposal.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hyphens

Should a hyphen be used in phrases such as "a previously-identified protein" or "naturally-occurring cadmium" or "a spontaneously-active state"? My understanding is that this is incorrect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No W. As MOS says:

Hyphens are not used after -ly adverbs (wholly owned subsidiary) unless part of larger compounds (a slowly-but-surely strategy).

This is a widely accepted principle.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 21:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree: no. The main purpose of a hyphen in that position would be to resolve ambiguity. There can be no ambiguity with adverbs: there is no such thing as "a previously identified-protein" or "naturally occurring-cadmium". However, typing "wholly owned" into my search engine suggests that 41% of writers think it is hyphenated. Certes (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The usual exception applies for contrived examples with multiple adjectives, such as "naturally-dark blonde hair" (she bleached it) versus "naturally dark-blonde hair" (it's always been light brown). Certes (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's a good example. I wonder whether it should be included in MOS. Tony (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses; it is always helpful to have a way to double-check my understanding.

Perhaps someone else would be willing to re-correct the affected pages: previously-identified protein, naturally-occurring cadmium, and spontaneously-active state. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't figured out yet the split between the editors who do things, and those who quibble about how they should be done on the guideline pages. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Or those who quibble about those who quibble. Tony (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I changed naturally-occurring cadmium. There is always the potential that a general rule in the MOS might not apply in a particular situation. However, if one goes to the web site for Science magazine, and searchs for "naturally-occurring" with or without a hyphen, one finds that Science does not use the hyphen. The fact that one of the best science journals in the world does not use a hyphen suggest that this case is not an exception to the MOS rule. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We must acknowledge that the reason for the high percentage of individuals that write wholly-owned subsidiary with a hyphen, as found by an internet search, is due to the fact that conventional practice is not always correct, and that great numbers of users of English are following the natural progression of language along the lines of logic. However, regardless of abiding convention versus adhering to logic, maybe we can all accept that there are different modes of expression of an idea; and, acknowledging the great flexibility of the English language, we can loosen the restrictions and make allowances for these differences. The question is amplified with:

a. previously-identified gene

b. tightly-regulated process

c. spontaneously-active site

d. naturally-occurring cadmium.

The two groups with contrasting viewpoints are:

1. Those that abide convention, insisting that, because there is "no ambiguity" in previously identified gene, the hyphen is superfluous and, therefore, unnecessary. And, so, the declaration was established: For "all adjectival phrases with -ly adverbs, we do not use the hyphen, period."

2. Those that adhere to logic, contending that previously is used in the way that already in already-identified gene is used; therefore, the phrase demands a hyphen in order to show a one-ness of idea.

May I suggest that we recognize the merit of both, and - in acknowledging that both viewpoints are meritorious, and one is not correct and the other wrong - not demand that one vanquish over the other? I would like to propose that the protocol within Wikipedia be to leave the phrases as the contributor of the article had originally written them, whether one way or the other, as we do not change whilst for while, knowing full well that the instrumental-ablative case had dropped out of common usage in English centuries ago and has no contemporary value, yet still recognizing the merit of the archaic form through having acquired the indispensable against from again. And, how many of us would hasten to correct the spelling of thru in the content of the semi-formal writing of a Wikipedia article, but remain with shackles on the hands confronted with drive-thru? The point is that change, sometimes even at the risk of forsaking convention, is for the betterment of our powerful communication tool called English.


[May I also put forth for consideration in this debate a few examples of how [erroneous] convention continues to provide examples of wrong literations of ideas:

1. The use of shall and its variants exclusively in the first-person form and will and its variants exclusively in the second- and third-person forms, completely ignoring not only language history but also logic:

- When a woman utters I should like to meet him, does she mean I am obligated to meet him or I desire to meet him? Due to adherence to an illogical imposition of style mandated by scribes of the king's court centuries ago, we are not sure out of context, and even many times in context. Saying what she means would solve the problem: I would like to meet him (from the Anglo-Saxon willan, meaning to desire) or I should like to meet him (from the Anglo-Saxon sculan, meaning to be obligated).

2. The exclusive use of the relative pronoun who and whom for humans and which for nonhumans, disregarding the historical and linguistic value of that:

- John is the man who spoke makes no reference to any other person, whereas John is the man that spoke singles out John among the other people in a group as the speaker. So, in order to impose an unfounded rule based on pretentious formality, that is many times replaced by who, thereby dissolving the meaning of the idea of the latter statement.

- The phrase the liver secretes an enzyme which converts phenylalanine can be erroneously understood as the liver secretes an enzyme, all of which convert phenylalanine, whereas the liver secretes an enzyme that converts phenylalanine pinpoints the idea that the liver secretes a particular enzyme that converts phenylalanine, as distinguished from enzymes that do not.

3. "All right", as in they are all right, which leaves one wondering whether the meaning is all of them are correct or they are not hurt, which begs the spelling shunned by grammarians yet correct with regard to logic and language history alright:

- already underwent the same metamorphosis, starting with all ready, then all-ready, to the now-accepted already, allowing us now to distinguish between the two different scenarios in already they are here and all ready they are here

[other examples: all together and altogether, all most and almost, all though and although]

4. All natural ingredients, which really means all the ingredients are natural and not the intended meaning: ingredients are completely natural, which is accomplished with the correct written phrase: all-natural ingredients, or, in the manner of already et al., alnatural ingredients

5. All new programs, which means all the programs are new and not the intended meaning: programs are completely new, which is accomplished with the correct written phrase: all-new programs, or, in the manner of already et al., alnew programs

6. Commercial free program, which means a commercial program that is without cost, and not the intended meaning: program without commercial(s), which is accomplished with the correct written phrase: commercial-free program, wherein free is a suffix meaning without, as less in boneless chicken.]Drphilharmonic (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Drphilharmonic makes several useful points there, some of which deserve their own sections. Personally, I would not copyedit an article simply to remove a logically-sound (sic) but conventionally deprecated hyphen, nor normally change it whilst editing for some other reason. Both forms are commonly used and serve their purpose of conveying the meaning. I didn't intend to recommend that "we do not use the hyphen, period". The MoS subsection itself describes its content as "broad principles that inform current usage" rather than a statement of what is correct and incorrect.
Perhaps neither "yes" nor "no" are adequate answers to the original question, a more detailed alternative being: "is such a hyphen mandated, encouraged, discouraged, banned, or does WP have no policy on the matter?". My reply was meant to suggest "discouraged" but on reading Drphilharmonic's argument I think "no policy" would be an equally sound response. Certes (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • While I disagree with Drphilharmonic's emphasis on a particular notion of logic over convention, I would be willing to accept an agreement from Drphilharmonic that he (or she) will no longer add unnecessary hyphens to this kind of phrase. A broad application of this principle is appropriate. For example, I would also be pleased if an original choice of "...is generally accepted..." was not changed to Drphilharmonic's preferred phrase, "...is, in general, accepted...".
  • For the MoS, please note that Drphilharmonic has not named a single style guide to support "logical" hyphenation. This absence of support is doubtless because grammar and style guides from the last century all either deprecate or outright condemn the unnecessary use of hyphens in this context. Therefore, I do not support changing the MoS guideline to reflect what amounts to one editor's personal preference. Cogent or passionate arguments in support of this preference are unimportant, because hyphenation in these phrases is ultimately a matter of convention. The MoS should support the existing convention when the convention does not substantially interfere with meaning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I really like Drphilharmonic's little essay for some of its acute and well-chosen points. I do, incidentally, change thru (only accepted in America) to through, since this is not a purely American encyclopedia. For the same reason I also change alternate to alternative and through to to where the meaning is preserved and is made understandable to all speakers of English. I also change whilst to while for reasons of style; and I supply a more durably acceptable alternative to as per, thusly, and overly. We are free to improve style according to our best judgement, aren't we?
I am against allowing -ly+hyphen in our guidelines. This is contrary to all precedent in publishing practice, and to all style guides; and it tends toward more punctuation, where the modern preference is generally for a cleaner and less cluttered appearance. Some style guides are beginning to acknowledge home education students and the like, where there is no ambiguity. Like it or not!
Adherence to the consensus of all style guides is not compulsory for us; but widespread practice in poorly edited writing is no reason for us to alter our guidelines.
Certes says:

The MoS subsection itself describes its content as "broad principles that inform current usage" rather than a statement of what is correct and incorrect.

But this is not quite right. The qualification in full:

Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here; but the rules and examples presented above illustrate the sorts of broad principles that inform current usage.

That doesn't license just any departure from the rules given; it only says that there is more to say, and that it can't be said here.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 23:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Tangential note: I'm an American and certainly do not accept "thru" in formal writing. Agree with most of the rest at least in broad outline. But I can't think of an example where "through" can be changed to "to" while preserving the meaning -- just what would be an example of this? --Trovatore (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I work 6 pm through 10 pm is only American. In British and other English it's I work [from] 6 pm to 10 pm, or variants. Since this to is accepted by Americans also, it is preferable since it avoids alienating either side. I work Monday to Friday may not be thought ambiguous, since it would surely be taken to include Friday. But if it is thought to be ambiguous, I work Monday through Friday is not available outside of American. Prefer I work from Monday morning till Friday evening, or whatever is more accurately intended.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 03:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree entirely with what Noetica is saying. Tony (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I work 6 pm through 10 pm is not good American English, in my opinion, nor is it clear: When do I walk off the job? At 10:01 pm? At 10:00:01 pm? I work from 6 pm to 10 pm is good American English, and is accurate. I work Monday to Friday in American English does not include Friday, although no one who means Monday through Thursday would say Monday to Friday. In American English, I work from Monday morning till Friday evening means the person's work includes all the hours from Monday morning through Friday afternoon, which includes a lot of overtime, but is only possible for insomniacs. Correct American English would be My work week is Monday through Friday. This topic has strayed rather far from hyphens. Finell (Talk) 03:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
We have indeed strayed from the topic, Finell. I had responded to a query concerning a brief illustration of something. I expected that someone would disagree with my understanding of American English, and sure enough you have. Whether or not I work 6 pm through 10 pm is "good" American English, it is used very commonly. Your particular objection, though, is not apt. 10 pm is a point in time, not a duration in time. So clearly someone saying I work 6 pm through 10 pm works until that point in time, and that is the obvious intention in examples found with Google (check "through noon", perhaps). You claim that "I work Monday to Friday in American English does not include Friday". I'm sure that for many it does. Do a Google search on "Monday to Friday job" "New York". The first hit for me was this one. Go there, read the text, and then report how we are to interpret the working week (from an American online employment agency). As for your penultimate point, it is for that very reason that I added "...or whatever is more accurately intended". All of this just illustrates my point that the American through is, like it or not, often used meaning to (and from an American point of view, vice versa). It also demonstrates even more forcefully that American "through" should be avoided in an encyclopedia intended for all of the English-speaking world. But that is off-topic!
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 12:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


We have the following articles on Wikipedia that use "9 to 5" (sometimes spelled out) as descriptive of a typical workday:
Except for the first listed article, these articles are about and take their titles from major works of peforming art. I found nothing comparable for "9 through 5". This suggests that "9 to 5", and more generally "X to Y", is the preferred usage and more widely adopted. Finell (Talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well researched, Finell. This suggests that usage at Wikipedia is strongly in favour of 9 to 5. (See Ybor_City_Museum_State_Park, though: "Open 9 AM through 5 PM every day...".) That is also more common outside of Wikipedia, as I have never disputed. For through noon, see Palladium_(club). For through midnight, see Typhoon_Ewiniar_(2006), Louisville_Falls_Fountain, Texas_A&M_Aggies_football, and Aggie_Bonfire. And see Tide_Light_Rail:

Service will be from 6:00 a.m. through 10 p.m Monday-Thursday, 6:00 a.m. through midnight on Friday-Saturday, 7:00 a.m through 9:00 p.m. on Sundays, and 9:00 am through 9:00 pm on Holidays.[5]

Other instances like this can be found, of course. I think they should all be changed to to, if this is not standard usage anywhere. You'd agree with this, yes? The real problem with these cases is that they add to the uncertainty of meaning in expressions like grades 2 through 4. A non-American might read those other "incorrect" cases, and think that through just means the same as to, in all ranges. For such a reader, the meaning of grades 2 through 4 will remain ambiguous. Then there are oddities like this, from Busch-Reisinger_Museum:

The Busch-Reisinger is open (other than holidays) from 10:00 through 5:00 on Monday through Saturday and from 1:00 to 5:00 on Sundays.

Two throughs and a to. Awful.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 00:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Inputting dashes

The text says "The article on dashes shows common input methods for em dashes on Macintosh and Windows." (and similar text for en dashes). Would it be more helpful to editors if we added, before that sentence:

"A simple way to input an en dash when editing Wikipedia is to use the "Insert:" facility in the edit toolbox, where it is the first character offered." and
"A simple way to input an em dash when editing Wikipedia is to use the "Insert:" facility in the edit toolbox, where it is the second character offered."

or words to that effect? The link to the dash article is not useful for practical editing purposes for the majority of editors: a reminder of the existence of the toolbox (is that what it's called?) may be helpful. Now I've reminded myself of it I might start to use en dashes instead of hyphens in dates in dab pages etc (eg John Smith (1899–1955))! PamD (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Pam, I suppose I'd assumed you already did use dashes, which are important elements of style and make the text easier to read, even for those who haven't a clue where to use them. I'd prefer to encourage people to use the proper keystrokes for dashes, and that takes a bit of explaining (it's in the dash article, I hope). Using the toolbox is cumbersome, although is the easiest way on a laptop. I could live with a succinct explanation of how to do the keystrokes in Mac and PC, and mention of the toolbox, I guess, although the clutter aspect needs to be considered. What do others think? Tony (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Tony, I confess to using a vast number of hyphens in date ranges (eg in leads or on dab pages), with a vague hope that some bot or other will pick up on "(1nnn-1nnn) or (1nnn-2nnn)" and convert the errant hyphen to a dash. From the dash article, it seems I need to type alt+0150, or use & and ;. Both are pretty grim. I think the toolbox is probably less cumbersome. Realistically, while we few discuss these things here at Talk:MOS, I wonder what proportion of editors out there are going to (a) know they should use a dash, or (b) if they know, use it, when it's such trouble to do so? And (ducks for cover) ... I can't convince myself it really matters, except to get an article past GAC or FAC! No ambiguity, no effect on screen layout (compared to hard space, say), and the vast majority of readers won't notice a difference... (though a voice-output screen reader might get confused, I suppose). PamD (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course. If you want to write 1999-2000, use en dash, or if 02-21-1990, hyphen is the proper. Using hyphens and dashes and em dashes keeps the article clean (and professionally written). =) --Efe (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Brighterorange (talk · contribs) will run a script if you ask him, but it is still being tested and may miss some, so you need to manually check after he's been through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm now cleaning up many of my past errors - running AWB on my contribs list, looking for word "disambiguation", then looking for "-1" and "-2" to change the hyphens in year ranges to endashes, while taking care not to mangle any ISBNs on the way! Whether I'll remember to use it all the time in future is another question.
In the course of this, I've found two categories where the hyphen seems to be the correct thing to use but which are not mentioned under Wikipedia:Mos#Hyphens:
Could I suggest that these two be added to the section on "hyphen"? PamD (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I would say yes to this, unless the list is going to grow ridiculously. SamBC(talk) 17:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Dashes carry an extra layer of meaning, whether the user is aware consciously or subconsciously. They're a mark of professional writing. Tony (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I cannot agree. The mm difference is barely visible and profoundly unimportant, except to create jobs for copyeditors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Get a proper OS or browser, PMA? You're not seriously using IE or something, are you? Tony (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I think there's a difference in IE as well, but what do I know... here's a quick comparison for people, though.
Used as hyphen Used in range Used as punctuation
Hyphen back-to-front 10-20 Oh - I didn't know that.
En dash back–to–front 10–20 Oh – I didn't know that.
Em dash back—to—front 10—20 Oh—I didn't know that.
  • The top-left–bottom-right diagonal is correct. Now, using hyphens for all three won't stop people understanding it, but they do look less professional and are very noticeable as soon as the reader knows what to expect. Otherwise, things will probably just "feel wrong". SamBC(talk) 14:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • What does it matter what I have? Thanks to the Microsoft monopoly, many of our readers must use IE, deplorable though it is.
    • But any printed book not in some bizarre typeface will show that the difference between the hyphen and the endash is much less than the difference between either and the enmdash. So here. But I see that Sam is willing to endorse Tony's pointless two-point crusade here, is anyone else? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I assume you mean that the difference between them is much less than the difference between either and the emdash... anyway, that aside, would you say that the difference in the table above, between hyphen and ndash, is barely noticable? I tend to notice them, generally, although I don't have the adverse reaction of some typesetting buffs. Furthermore, do you disagree with the essential point of the correctness of using en dashes in ranges and em dashes as mid-sentence punctuation? SamBC(talk) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I see the distinction between the emdash and either of the two short dashes as significant; although if some article were to adopt the occasionally suggested device of using a short dash between spaces as a lighter grade of the emdash, I would not rise up and smite them. But the distinction between the hyphen and the endash still seems to me not worth worrying about.
        • The problem here is, as always, the foolish rule of making every jot and tittle of MOS mandatory at FAC. While FA continues to be worth even the slightest respect, this produces "reviews" which turn down articles for this dashery, without ever considering content. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
          • For example, this bizarre suggestion that MOSDASH might somehow empower us to meddle with Emily Dickinson's dashes... To be fair, this may be a reductio ad absurdum of the suggestion in the previous post; but one of them at least considered the possibility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
PMA, that is a needless denigration of the editor who put forward what you cite here. It is not at all bizarre that an editor should standardize the typographic form of a dash, quoted in a part or the whole of a poem, or otherwise. It is done all the time, by all reputable publishers. Those of us who are actually editing material for print publication outside of Wikipedia know this as a matter of their everyday work. If you don't know these things, please don't display your ignorance in quite such a high-handed and dismissive manner.
When Wikipedia's practices should differ from common standards (as sometimes they should, because the context is new and different), it is not because the common standards that you have such limited knowledge of are "bizarre".
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 04:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[Amended]
      • Also, I'm not sure I agree with any specific proposal, just disagreeing that the difference between hyphen, en dash, and em dash is barely noticeable. SamBC(talk) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a problem with using the xml entities – (–) and — (—)? They're what I generally use. SamBC(talk) 14:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes there is: readability of our edit page source code. 10–20 is much harder to read and maintain than either 10–20 or 10-20. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thing is, at least everyone can see that 10–20 clearly shows that it's not a hyphen. As far as I can tell, it's very hard to tell the difference between all three in a fixed width font, which is what generally appears in the edit box. I haven't tried other OSes or browsers - I'm currently using firefox on MS. Not that it's terribly important in the grand scheme of things, anyway... SamBC(talk) 17:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
True enough; which is why I support letting each article work out its own balance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Teams and clubs singular or plural pronouns  ?

I have noticed that in articles (some featured) about sports, the team or club is often referred to as "they".e.g."The team won the match then they went on to win the league." Is there any guidance about the use of plural pronouns in this context, please?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Corporations too, sometimes. I think it's pretentious, but people seem to accept either singular or plural. It must be consistent within each article. Tony (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It is, however, bad American, although it may be coming in under the wing of the "singular they". In Commonwealth English, it should imply that the team is being regarded as individuals, rather than a singular collective, so the sentence above is embarassing; this may be why Tony sees it as prententious. In Fowler's English, it would alternate, depending on context, but "The team won the match then it went on to win the league. However, the team was sold at a profit and they joined other teams in the same league" is clumsy, however correct. In short, avoid unless you have good reason. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a guideline, but in a recent FAC, this Wiki entry on discretionary plurals was pointed out. This has been an issue on two FACs this week, so clarification is needed and welcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Almost all (if not all) English media outlets will use plural for football teams, i.e. Arsenal are, Manchester United are. Whether team or club should then be are or is, I'm not sure. Peanut4 (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
English plural#discretionary plurals, and the following section follow Fowler closely, and are, as of this writing, sound guidance. A link to this edit may be helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's spot on. Peanut4 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
As an example (relating to previous discussions), ya'll should be aware that I failed a FAC due to an Oppose over this issue, so codifying a guideline would be helpful. Thankfully, the nominator is a gracious editor and didn't bite me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The Fowler example is a good illustration. A straightforward case of WP:ENGVAR in my view. Use of the discretionary plural is correct in an article like History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present) which uses British English, but would be incorrect in an article about an NFL or NBA team. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The more I think about this, the more I think that it won't achieve anything. Whilst I do think it would be beneficial to codify this, mainly to prevent confusion amongst our readers and writers, I don't think it is workable to enforce a consistent rule for all articles. As Oldelpaso says, it is primarily down to english variants. As discussed previously here, the British media and associated organsiations use plural forms. It is not a matter of consistency, for British English speakers, it is a matter of grammar. We use the form that is most appropriate for the sentence in grammatical terms.
I think a guideline along the lines of: For articles that use British English, the most grammatically form is considered appropriate. If the English variant cannot be determined per the guidlines at WP:ENGVAR then an article-consistent form should be used.
Whilst it is vague, I think it needs to be to accomadate all variances. The milhist and ships project recently had the same issue over ship pronouns; whether ships are female or not. The end result was to simply use common sense and follow the existing guidelines to be consistent and inline with WP:ENGVAR. Woody (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Another editor already inserted this; I'm neutral on the entire topic, but Tony and others will probably weigh in later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sure the discussion will continue, it always seems to. The edited version seems good though I am sure other editors will have their opinions. As long as the appropriate parties (ie projects that actually have to enforce this) are kept informed, then I am done for the moment. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, the Guardian style guide (http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/ )says "Teams: sports teams take plural verbs: Wednesday were relegated again, Australia have won by an innings, etc; but note that in a business context, they are singular like other companies, eg Leeds United reported its biggest loss to date." PamD (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The working consistent application The Rambling Man and I have tried to apply in British football articles has been to use the singular when referring to the club, and the plural for the team and for ambiguous references. So, "Ipswich Town were relegated in xxxx" vs "The club was relegated in xxxx" vs "The team were relegated in". Glad someone's trying to clear this all up. When a firm decision's been taken, a big fat notice at the football WikiProject talk page would be great. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a note on PamD's Guardian usage. This should result in what you've heen doing; it;s all foreign to me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Linking units on infoboxes

Just wondering if there was anything out there, perhaps MOS, that discouraged the linking of units of height or weight in infoboxes.Londo06 14:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no rule either way. But I've copied your question over to Wikipedia talk:Infobox Watch to see if anyone else knows otherwise. - 52 Pickup (deal) 16:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
In general, links are used then they are likely to be of interest to the reader. What benefit is there in linking to standard units such as pounds and kilograms? — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that they aren't necessary for a small number of the most common units; but it is a WP:MOSNUM (which blindly says: "Link such units to their definitions on first use.") or Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes issue. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think there are many readers, especially those who want to read en.wiki but for whom English is a second language, who are unfamiliar even with common units, such as pounds, and especially with less common units and with symbols, such as lb and kg. If one is already familiar with the unit, one ignores the link. If one is not, the link is useful. What is the harm to the encyclopedia in having the links? - Neparis (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Minimum image size of images with specified sizes

From the image section:

... Cases where a specific image width is appropriate include:
  • ...
  • a lead image that captures the essence of the article (recommended not to be smaller than 300px, as this will make the image smaller for users who have set 300px in their user preferences).

It seems to me that the rational for at least 300px holds with images with specified sizes in general, not just with lead images. Is there a reason this is only mentioned for lead images? Rami R 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So I'm guessing no one will object if I reword the section so that 300px would be a recommended minimum for all images with a specified size? Rami R 08:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait, but, uh, no, wah! Your logic makes sense but the end result is that we're stuck with either 180 px or >300 px for every image with nothing in between. I'm not convinced that's the way to go. Haukur (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Latin phrases and abbreviations

In the old days of Wikipedia we believed that articles should be accessible to an average reader rather than just people with a college education. With this in mind, a guideline was created to discourage the use of obscure latin phrases and abbreviations within articles, so that we didn't get sentences like: "A recording of his talk in Cleveland, OH in May of 1959 is available (vide infra xa-speakers)." (Charles R. Jackson). This guideline has been turned on its head and now says that such phrases are perfectly fine in Wikipedia, despite the fact that even most people with a college education these days have no idea what such phrases mean. This does not seem compatible with the original spirit of Wikipedia, which sought to provide free knowledge to everyone on the planet (rather than just those who already have a liberal arts education).

I will admit that perhaps the original wording went too far (by discouraging terms like i.e. and e.g.) and perhaps this is why the guideline was nullified. I would like to propose a compromise, however:

Latin phrases and abbreviations
Latin phrases used in academic writing such as nota bene or vide infra (and their corresponding abbreviations) should generally be avoided and English phrases used instead. Phrases and abbreviations which have passed into common English usage such as circa, etc., i.e., and e.g. are exceptions, however, and should be left as the original author wrote them.

Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The present phrasing (the reminder that English translations will be "more widely understood") seems about right. Anyone who genuinely cannot understand vide infra will have problems with many of the books we use as sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The present phrasing makes no sense at all. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Clearer now? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
And even clearer now? I have renamed the subsection, calling it Latin phrases, since that's what it's about, whether these are abbreviated or not; and I've made clear what our existing guidelines require concerning italics. CMOS and New Hart's Rules do not italicise "i.e.", "e.g.", and the like; so this time we are in accord with them and with most current practice (for what that's worth – which is something!).
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 03:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Citation please; the CMOS is online. If true, this is another case where they have been less than literate. For example,, i. e. is indeed common; but it is both common and italicized, because it is Latin, not English. Presumably some authors follow this advice, however regrettable; but any phrasing which results in an FA oppose on the grounds that i.e. is italicized and should not be is a disservice to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I know CMOS is online, PMA. I use it every day, and the print version too. Here is the reference you burden me with finding for you:

Note that "e.g." and "i.e." are not italicized. (6.44)

I'll leave it to you to check your copy of New Hart's. It's at 10.6, to save you a search. Check SOED while you're at it, and any number of other current major dictionaries.
And, PMA, Fowler's:

It is always written as lower case and in romans. (entry for "i.e.")

But why do I bother, PMA? it is hard to resist the conclusion that you have a doctrinaire attachment to certain fossilised notions that have little to do with facilitating a modern, democratic online encyclopedia. So what if "i.e" and the like are originally Latin? They are also English, just as "Samurai" and "blitz" are originally Japanese and German but are now also English.
Once more you accuse others of being "less than literate" (Fowler's too, I see!), while throwing your own weight around as if you were invested with natural authority in these matters. No one is! I am not, Tony is not, you are not. So we appeal to established sources that distil a sort of consensus of literate opinion, and we take that as giving a reasonable default position. We depart from that default position if there is a demonstrated reason for doing so. You have failed, once more, to demonstrate a need to do so.
Now stop wasting editors' time with your ill-conceived pronouncements.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 21:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
How amusing. Noetica claims consensus here for a phrasing he they invented today. At least we should include the code word "normally" making this perversity non-binding. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • As for the personal attack: Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor a language reform institute. But there have been many definitions of democracy in the past century; I must be unfamiliar with the one which involves the font of Latin phrases. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS says that it "aims to make the encyclopedia easier to read in English". I think this includes avoiding using Latin phrases which are not commonly known. I don't understand the significance of PMA's comment "Anyone who genuinely cannot understand vide infra will have problems with many of the books we use as sources": we aren't expecting our readers to understand our sources, we are writing Wikipedia for them instead. If they want to follow up the sources they can do so, but they should not be faced with cryptic academic phraseology on Wikipedia. Many of today's educated people do not understand what was previously widely-used terminology - in a university library we regularly had people looking for the journal called ibid. I kid you not! So let's keep Wikipedia readable.

I'd favour a modified version of Kadari's text:

Latin phrases and abbreviations
Latin phrases used in academic writing such as nota bene or vide infra (and their corresponding abbreviations) should generally be avoided and English phrases used instead. Latin words, phrases and abbreviations which have passed into common English usage such as circa, etc., i.e., and e.g. are acceptable, and are not italicised. See WP:MOSNUM#Dates_of_birth_and_death for use of "c." and "fl.". Latin phrases or abbreviations in quotations are always left as the original author wrote them.

Kadari's wording "should be left as the original author wrote them." seems ambiguous: does it refer to quotations, or is the use of latin abbreviations left as an issue of style where the first author of an article makes the rules, as in UK/US English? PamD (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with roman type for latin abbreviations. I know it's trendy, though. What do published style guides say about it? I see Noetica says many have switched to recommending roman type. Are there any notable sticks in the mud there? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There is very plainly a consensus among the most respected sources, such as Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS), New Hart's Rules, Merriam-Webster's guides, SOED and other major dictionaries, and in the practice of nearly all major publishing houses. It is that terms that are common and have passed into the language are not italicised. These specifically and explicitly include "i.e.", "e.g.", "etc.", and the like. I cite sources above in this section.
Narrowing the focus to Wikipedia, we see this well-established guideline (I quote the wording from mid-2005, and add emphasis):

Foreign words or phrases that have passed into the English language, however—praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps—should not be italicized. If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in an English language dictionary.

The guideline is continuously present in MOS, and is there right now.
It is sheer counterproductive opinion-mongering to exclude those naturalised Latin abbreviations that all respected current sources plainly want unitalicised. PMAnderson cites Fowler's ad nauseam when it suits his or her latest foible, but refuses to respect its judgement when it is cited against his or her latest obstruction to our giving a plain and simple guideline.
I call on editors to revert his or her latest imposition, and go back to a clear indication of consensus both inside and outside of Wikipedia (see recent edits). We do editors no favour if we tiptoe around, planting arcane and archaic quibbles in MOS. Keep it rational and robust; and keep it in accord with almost universal consensus, when we are blessed with such a thing – as the sources I cite amply show we are.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 23:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
In this case, it does look – for better or worse – like there is a consensus among style guides regarding abbreviations of latin words. We might as well follow it. I would agree, actually, to replacing large sections of the MoS with a simple pointer to some fixed style manual or manuals. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Noetica has nailed it. Where do we stand on et al? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
If the standard will be inclusion in English dictionaries, then et al. does not get italics. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
That is a rule of thumb; and as such has exceptions. English dictionaries do include some common foreign words that do and should get italics. Webster's Third International says "abbreviated et al.", and all of the OED's quotations italicize (I am consulting a printed copy of the Second Edition.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we go with that? Diberri's PMID template filler returns et al italicized, so if that is changed, most of the medical FAs will be off. And, becuase it was in line with the old wording, that's what WP:MEDMOS recommends. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
What wording would you suggest? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I try not to wordsmith; that would be frightening. We just need the option for et al in citations to be italicized. Also, I don't know why we have this:
  • Forms like nota bene ("note [well]") and vide infra ("see below") can be useful, especially in footnotes.
since it contradicts this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference between ibid. and nota bene: the first becomes wrong if the text is rearranged; the second doesn't. Which side of this line vide infra and op. cit. fall on depends on what they're doing; both can link safely to the References, which will always be below the text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait, now I'm confused. What I was hearing from Noetica is that we should recommend all these Latin phrases use a roman font, with the criterion being whether they are included in English dictionaries. That I can live with, although it isn't what I grew up with. But if everyone gets to pick their own pet phrase to use in italics, I'm going to pick i.e.. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Just pointing out that if MoS prescribes that et al isn't italicized, which is a change that goes against citations generated for a long time from Diberri's template, every well written and/or FA medical article (also the biology and many others that used Diberri to generate PMID citations) have issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I do see the issue there. It will be tomorrow before I can go to a library and look at the CMOS to see exactly what it says on the matter. The wording proposed above seems to break things into two categories: (1) Latin phrases that should be avoided and (2) Latin phrases that are now in common use in English, which should not be italicized. That doesn't leave a lot of middle ground. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
CBM, here is the main relevant guideline in CMOS:

7.51 Italics

Italics are used for isolated words and phrases in a foreign language if they are likely to be unfamiliar to readers.

At 6.23 CMOS says this:

Note that [et al.] is not italicized and that no period follows et (which is not an abbreviation).

Similar guidelines are found in New Hart's Rules 10.6, saying explicitly that "et al." is not italicised, except "sometimes italicised in bibliographic use".
For the record, Webster's Third International [W3I] does not recommend italicising "et al." or the other abbreviations we have discussed. It simply italicises for mention and for exhibiting the word, and it does that in all its entries – for abbreviations or any word at all. The M-W Collegiate, an updated shortening of W3I that is appealed to by CMOS, does not italicise these either.
Again for the record, OED does not explicitly recommend italics for "et al.", and does not italicise in its own citation practice (see current online edition). The examples it gives in its article for "et al." are all over 45 years old!
Note the wording I have recently introduced for the MOS main rule that I cite earlier:

Loanwords and borrowed phrases that have common usage in English—praetor, Gestapo, samurai, vice versa, esprit de corps—do not require italics. A rule of thumb is not to italicize words that appear unitalicized in major English-language dictionaries.

This is simply a clarification of what has been there for years. For terms that are not assimilated (which can again be judged by absence from dictionaries, or italicising in dictionaries), see what precedes that. There is in fact a duplication that needs to be attended to in MOS:

Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have every day use in non-specialised English.

That replicates the content of what precedes the excerpt I quote, and occurs much earlier in MOS.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 03:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[As later amended]
Thanks for copying those quotes here; it will save me a trip to the library, and help others too. I was concerned whether there was a specific exception for et al. As I said, I'm not averse in any way to simply following the recommendations of the CMOS (or any other established style guide). — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem, CBM. It is important to see what these sources really say, isn't it?
My recommendation, based on the broad modern consensus as I have demonstrated it above, is that we should not italicise "et al." This makes for a simpler and more consistent practice. It would be an easy matter for templates that do not conform to be altered, and that ought to be done when we agreement on this consistent and standard usage.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 03:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Diberri can re-do his template filler, but that won't solve all the citations already generated. It's a template filler, not a template; it's a one-shot deal. Changing it will only affect citations generated from that point forward. New Hart allows for et al in bibliographic use, which is what we're talking about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Pick your battles. Elect the most flexible wording, recognizing New Hart's Rules. Think of the editors when making a small change that has large reprecussions. Can anyone guess how many citations have been generated with Diberri, italicizing et al, and is it *really* worth it to have individual editors changing them all? I'll accept whichever way the grammarians go, but remember that it's the little nitpicking and constant changing that turns people against MoS. We want editors to embrace a flexible MoS, not reject a rigid one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I don't want to nitpick on this! It doesn't matter if there is a legacy of old text that has, for example, "et al." where newer text has "et al." It's the present and the future that matter. If editors cared, they could amend things when they spot them; or a bot could easily fix such a thing. Go with a simple modern way that fits universal best practice – and is easy to remember for its simplicity.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 03:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
And New Hart's describes an exceptional practice of italicising; its recommendation is not to italicise "et al."; CMOS agrees, so do other major sources. A solid consensus.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 03:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
At the moment we say nothing on fonts. It is not necessary to rule on this point; so half-a-dozen editors should not rule on it. I would regret seeing any article refused FA because it followed the usage preferred by the OED; beyond that, MOS doesn't matter a bit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not have the patience, interest, or fortitude to spend one more second worrying about whether et al should be italicized in citations. I'll change whatever I have to change in any article I work on, but the point is, people get sick of MoS over stuff like this, and give up, and stop paying attention. We should try to keep the forest before the trees, and keep guidelines as flexible as possible, particularly when past practices have been entrenched for a long time, even in script and codes written to assist editors using past practice. That's my only point. The verbosity on this page will wear down the most dedicated adherent to manual of style concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think "et al." whilst in common usage (I certainly understood it in high school) is clearly less familarly to our readers that etc, i.e. & eg. There is though a legibility issue in that the italics does help visually distinugish the main authors from the title of a paper.
Hence compare Ng A, Smith P, Org A et al. "Musings on latinisation".  from Ng A, Smith P, Org A et al. "Musings on latinisation".  The run of "... A et al" needs, IMHO, more concentration on scan-reading than "A et al". David Ruben Talk 04:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
And my experience is that journals do in fact italicize; so do the majority of books which exist in print. If there is a recent trend to Romanize books, following the CMOS, I don't see it, and the periodical literature has escaped it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have shortened as far as I think this can be, while still saying something; nothing would be a possibility. If we retain this section, we should probably include the ban on ibid, with an explanation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, PMA. You have unilaterally shortened the section to your taste, and silently removed the dispute tag – as if your version must be the consensus one. I have restored that tag, until we have consensus. I have noted that there is no consensus, because editors need to be informed of that. I have also fixed an error you introduced, which had "nota bene" an abbreviation, and I fixed the styling to make it uniform. If you want to make all of the so-called "Latin" italicised in the subsection for uniformity instead, then I think that would be fine. Any other change needs to be discussed, of course.
Why do you continue to claim OED endorses your view? It does not, as I have pointed out. Again, why do I bother? I have adduced a great deal of detailed evidence that counters what you have said, including about OED, and Webster's Third International, and Fowler's. You do not answer what I take the trouble to find and report here; you simply continue to mislead people.
Don't inveigh against people imposing their own view here, when you are a prime offender. Not only do you appear opposed to MOS itself, you now seem to treat the associated discussion page with contempt. I give hard and verifiable evidence; you do not.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 23:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the dispute tag because I placed it; upon reflection, I don't dispute that wording. I don't dispute Noetica's, except in being much wordier than necessary; there was no need for a lengthy distinction between terms and abbreviations. Does Noetica? Is there a dispute?
I also see no need to state we are not in consensus about italics, but it is harmless.
I said, and I believe I repeated, that all the OED's quotations of et. al. are italicized, because they are. The same is true of some of their quotations for "et cetera", and none of their quotations of "etch", to pick words close at hand.
Please at least pretend to be civil; that is policy, this is merely a guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Although you are not civil enough to respond point by point, PMA, I will accord you that courtesy:

I removed the dispute tag because I placed it; upon reflection, I don't dispute that wording. [...] Does Noetica? Is there a dispute?

You silently removed the dispute tag once you had amended things to please yourself, as if that resolved the dispute. The discussion had in fact pretty well converged on a consensus for "e.g." and "i.e.", and was working towards one for "et al." But that was nothing to you, it seems. You ignored it in your editing. Since you ask, yes: I do dispute the present content. I edited, but did not impose my own view.

I said, and I believe I repeated, that all the OED's quotations of et. al. are italicized, because they are.

I answered that! But you did not respond. I said that all of OED's citations were over 45 years old. We are interested in current practice, remember? OED reflects current practice in its own citations: it does not italicise "et al." I pointed this out; you ignored the point, because it did not fit with your utterly inflexible stance. (I set aside your illiterate full stop after "et", in your "et. al.")

The same is true of some of their quotations for "et cetera", [...]

No, it is not true, PMA. You are attempting to mislead us, it seems. Either that, or you have simply not understood the OED entry. Every instance of "et cetera", "etc." and variants is in plain roman, not italics – except where italics are applied for mention, or as part of an italicised title. Only one instance of etc. is so italicised: "Also Yours etc., used as an ending in letters." Of course in most of its articles OED does not italicise the headword, since it is rarely mentioned as "etc." often needs to be. And yet again, the practice of OED shows that current practice is against you: in its own usage, OED does not italicise "etc."

Please at least pretend to be civil; [...]

I am civil to you, and to everyone. Don't take my robust response to your incivility as incivility on my part. It is provocative and rude of you to ignore the evidence accumulated against you, and to pretend to be taking part in a discussion when in fact you are merely obstructing, and sabotaging approaches to consensus that the rest of us here are working hard to achieve. If you are immune to correction, go away. Find a forum where your partial truths and manifest partiality will be politely ignored.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 01:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I am unconvinced by Noetica's arguments.

  • Of course the OED uses 45-year-old quotations. Their interest is in the oldest attestations of a usage; they include newer quotations when they differ. The absence of quotations since 1962, in a definition printed in 1989, means (if anything) that et al. is obsolete, or that its usage has not changed.
  • I had not consulted their own list of sources (for those with subscriptions, it is here. It does italicize titles and very little else (names are in caps); if we had a similar list, in which we were only really interested in author, work, and date, we might do likewise. They do, however, italicize c for circa: ÆLFRED, "Orosius tr. c 893 (E.E.T.S. 1883)".
  • I see the Second Edition retains the quotations: " I thought our Author had been such an enemy to all etcæteras, because of the mysterious import..which they carry with them." and "An oath which contained an et cætera in the midst of it." These are not current quotations; but they were only meant to show that the OED reproduces the typography in the originals.

As for civility:

There are now three sentences. Which of them does Noetica dispute?

The choice of tone between "i.e." and "that is", and similar phrases, depends on the context; articles intended for a general audience will be more widely understood if the English terms are used instead.

This seems clearly true; others wish to go further.

There is no consensus on which Latin phrases and abbreviations should be italicized.

Noetica wrote this, and it is the case. Does xe now dispute it? To go much further would be without consensus.

In quotations, all Latin terms and abbreviations ("nota bene", "videlicet", "passim"; "i.e.", "n.b.", "s.v.", and "sc.") should be spelled out or not, and italicized or not, as the original author wrote them.

This is Present quotations as they were written, and as such is consensus. In fact, it is redundant with our general edict, and should probably be removed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Selected points from PMA, conscientiously answered:

I am unconvinced by Noetica's arguments.

Why am I not surprised? :) Argument and evidence, even of high quality, seem to little effect on you. Others like Sandy can feel the persuasive force of what I laid out copiously above. You do not. As I say, you seem to be immune to correction, even when you are demonstrably and factually wrong. I show this above, more that once. But I might as well not have.

Of course the OED uses 45-year-old quotations. Their interest is in the oldest attestations of a usage; they include newer quotations when they differ. The absence of quotations since 1962, in a definition printed in 1989, means (if anything) that et al. is obsolete, or that its usage has not changed.

Whistling in the dark. OED does not even address the matter of italics for these items. If italicising practice changes for them (as OED's own usage shows that it does), OED does not record this with new examples.

I had not consulted their own list of sources (for those with subscriptions, it is here. It does italicize titles and very little else [...]

And your conclusion from that, combined with the weight of evidence from all other major dictionaries, and all major style guides?

I see the Second Edition retains the quotations: " I thought our Author had been such an enemy to all etcæteras, because of the mysterious import..which they carry with them." and "An oath which contained an et cætera in the midst of it." These are not current quotations; but they were only meant to show that the OED reproduces the typography in the originals.

Your point? Your response to my point, that OED has no authentic examples of "etc." and the like being italicised, in anything resembling standard use?

I do not regard

you have a doctrinaire attachment to certain fossilised notions, stop sabotaging MOS and rational discussion (edit summary), sheer counterproductive opinionmongering, or attempting to mislead us as civility. What does Noetica say when xe is not being civil?

They are examples of my robust response to your rude and uncivil refusal to engage in genuine discussion here, and your avoiding all evidence that others can plainly see refutes your unsupported assertions – some of which evidence comes from sources you yourself claim as authoritative. If my pointing out your incivility looks uncivil, reflect on what occasions it.

I hope I have said nothing of the kind about any editor in this discussion. I thought, and think, that CMOS is unwise and perverse in choosing to romanize; Tony has said as bad about it on other issues; but if anyone here works for CMOS, I would certainly retract.

No, you have not been provoked by stonewalling stubbornness in the face of clear argument and evidence, so you have no call to say such things. I, however, do. Why not simply "retract" your failures to engage flexibly in meaningful dialogue?

There are now three sentences. Which of them does Noetica dispute?

I am unhappy with all three:

The choice of tone between "i.e." and "that is", and similar phrases, depends on the context; articles intended for a general audience will be more widely understood if the English terms are used instead.

This is unsatisfactory because it gives little real guidance. What are "similar phrases", when we have just one example? Why is there no distinction between abbreviations and full forms, for which editors might well consult MOS?

There is no consensus on which Latin phrases and abbreviations should be italicized.

As you point out, PMA, I wrote that. As I told you above, I did not write according to my own take on things. It is unsatisfactory that no such consensus is expressed. Of course we need one! We were so close to one, but you refused to move an inch. I wrote it because it needs to be explicit that we have so far failed to give clear guidance on this simple point.

In quotations, all Latin terms and abbreviations ("nota bene", "videlicet", "passim"; "i.e.", "n.b.", "s.v.", and "sc.") should be spelled out or not, and italicized or not, as the original author wrote them.

Your comment on this:

This is Present quotations as they were written, and as such is consensus. In fact, it is redundant with our general edict, and should probably be removed.

No, in fact. It has been questioned before. I questioned it. But because we have no adequate system for recording earlier discussions, let alone the few durable consensus decisions taken here, it is all lost in the uncoordinated dross of earlier futile discussions, as opposed to the current futile discussion. That's what happens, PMA, when you stand against order and structure, and coordination.
In fact, it is common practice, long enshrined in the ways of publishing houses and style guides, to alter the styling (italics, underlining, bolding, punctuation, etc.) for such "small deer" (Coleridge's phrase for the incidentals of language) as "etc.", "videlicet", and so on. Similarly, it is common practice to impose a house style even for quoted dashes, but you have already shown that you are oblivious to these things.
In the earlier discussion, I let it pass. I conceded that, for practical reasons, it was better to keep things simple. But that was provisional, and I am not happy with this ruling. What do we do in citing someone's persistent misspelling of "etc." ("et.c.", "etc"), or the rather common (!) faulty punctuation of "et. al."?
However, to sum up, this is all very wearying. My suspicion that there is really no point at all to this sort of wrangle grows stronger. PMA, you are against coordination; you are against guidelines that look like rules; you subvert discussion based on careful and rational argument, from sound interpretation of evidence. I think I can no longer do anything useful here, if you continue this way.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 07:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Noetica has a high opinion of xer own arguments; xe need not repeat this self-praise; we understand that.
  • As for et cetera: I only brought it up to show that the OED does reproduce original font in their quotations. It is likely to be the most assimilated, and so the most often romanized, of these phrases.
  • The OED does italicize c even in their own list of sources.
  • Our guidelines are not rules; see WP:Policies and guidelines.
  • Noetica disgrees, then, with all three of the present sentences. As far as I can see, the only virtue in any of them is the advice that English phrases may be more widely understood. It would be a shame to lose the advice, but it may be that this page is simply constitutionally incapable of mere advice. Is there support for getting rid of the disputed section altogether? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Anderson, before you accuse others of incivility (you tend to fling it about rather liberally, like holy water), please recall that you've been so rude to me that you voluntarily struck it out when challenged by a third party. Was this once or twice? Tony (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • And I would strike again, if carried away again; that is also civility. Would Noetica? Would you? Have you struck any of the remarks, still on this page, under #Working example of the proposal for MOS coordination? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
      • No, but it was resolved with my target in an amiable way, by engaging subsequently with him. I don't see engagement of that sort from you, and I wish I did. My point was that you bandy about accusations of personal attack; I don't. At least you don't insert "Kettle" with NPA, which weakens the case further. Tony (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • My personal preference is for italics to be used, but I will go along with whatever is the consensus. Some foreign-origin words can be ambiguous without italics because they can be mistaken as being part of ordinary English phrases instead of as part of foreign-origin phrases. Using italics helps the reader scan the text more quickly by reducing the risk of mis-parsing of word groupings.

    "It is quicker to use in situ replacement, but if in situ restoration is cheaper it may be used instead."

    Italics help the reader to identify the intended word groupings more quickly. As far as I am aware, it still is common practice in many popular and technical publications to put foreign-origin words and abbreviations in italics. - Neparis (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, the new wording is even worse than what we started with and is not in line with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. First of all I would like to state that ideally all wikipedia articles should be accessible to a general audience, thus it makes no sense to say that latin phrases are fine, but you might want to use English if your article is for a general audience. That is nonsense. Please read Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible (especially Septentrionalis). Wikipedia articles "should be accessible to the widest possible audience... Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely accessible manner possible." Also, why are you guys so religiously concerned with what other style guides say. Please realize that Wikipedia is a unique project and requires its own style guide. That's why we have a style guide rather than just redirecting to the Chicago Manual of Style. There doesn't seem to be consensus on the italics issue so I don't believe we should say anything about it. After reading through all of this debate, I still believe my original wording is the best:

Latin phrases and abbreviations
Latin phrases used in academic writing such as nota bene or vide infra (and their corresponding abbreviations) should generally be avoided and English phrases used instead. Phrases and abbreviations which have passed into common English usage such as circa, etc., i.e., and e.g. are exceptions, however, and should be left as the original author wrote them.

Kaldari (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

One fourth/one quarter

Is there/should there be a recommended one to use? Obviously one should use one of them consistantly throughout an article... Also, it is my understanding hat the usage of one fourth is limited to the US (possibly Canada too). Is this becaues of the Quarter (25cent piece)? PS. I really hate it when people use it, it sounds ugly...Shniken1 (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there should not be. See WP:CREEP; our rule in such cases is: do as seems best to you, be consistent, and leave other peoples' writing alone unless it needs changing. The OED gives no indication that this is a North American usage, and does give examples going back to Anglo-Saxon; the following quotation is from the Law Times of 1892: The cases requiring pleadings are not more at the outside than a fourth of the contested cases. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You need to know that Anderson's clear aim is to weaken the authority of the MoS. Take his "creep" thing with the contempt it deserves, please. However, I agree with him/her in this specific case, that it's unnecessary to prescribe one or the other. Personally, I'd deprecate the use of "one quarter". Tony (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be clear instruction creep, and Tony's aim to wipe out usage that doesn't suit his personal preferences, in an all-powerful MoS page where people already let him get away with too much, has been made explicitly clear numerous times. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • <giggle> Tony (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, didn't Tony just say that it is unnecessary to specify one usage over the other? Easy, tiger. Either is fine with me, although to me it's always been "one quarter", but I wouldn't go around changing instances of "one fourth" just for the hell of it. And, as the original poster states, they should be used consistently throughout the article. - 52 Pickup (deal) 14:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
While I don't agree with the railing against Tony (nor railing against PMAnderson), it does seem odd to express a preference immediately after saying that we don't need to specify one. And telling people not to use "one quarter", or even recommending it, would upset a lot of people, I reckon. SamBC(talk) 14:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No, there seems to be a basic misunderstanding here; who expects to get their way automatically at MOS? I certainly don't, despite the appalling accusation of this Nygaard person above. I was pointing out my personal view, and also declaring that I don't think it's an issue on which MOS should prescribe a preference. What is "odd" about that? Tony (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Shniken1's point about the quarter dollar, I'd think "quarter" is even more common among those people who think "hundred" is written in digits as "112". People in the USA and Canada don't use quarters for weight, but if we did they'd be 25 lb, not 28 lb. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I (native speaker of UK English) would never use "fourth" to mean 0.25! It's a quarter, always. A quick Google search reveals:

"a quarter of the" - 1,156k
"one quarter of the" - 1,154k
"a fourth of the" - 262k
"one fourth of the" - 1,570k

which was the best phrase I could come up with which was likely to be fractions rather than order. Not very conclusive, but favours quarters. Also:

"three quarters" - 5,900k (but is there a sports term which comes into this?)
"three fourths" - 1,510k

Let's just leave it as an item which requires internal consistency within any one article but enriches the variety of multi-edited Wikipedia otherwise. PamD (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Diacritics and accurate proununciation

I see that the same edit has restored our preference for naive (I agree, but think role a more likely dispute on the same issue), while declaring that we must use diacritics when needed to clarify the pronunciation, with cliché as exemplar. This is incoherent: The reasons for naïve are that it is the French spelling, and that it indicates the pronunciation; cliché has both advantages. The difference between them is that naïve is obsolete. We should draw that line, and so recommend one and deprecate the other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How is "naïve" obsolete? Cite? —Random832 20:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Just pay attention to what you read. I almost never see naïve. Furthermore, cliche works just fine, too, and is in common use, even if not as overwhelming as naive is. Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It may be a US/UK thing. I've seen British newspapers using naïve instead of naive. I don't think it's a globally fair view to say one or other is almost never used. - Neparis (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
And, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naive
naive
One entry found.
naive
Main Entry:
na·ive Listen to the pronunciation of naive
Variant(s): or na·ïve Listen to the pronunciation of naïve \nä-ˈēv, nī-\
Then there is
cliche
Main Entry:
cli·ché Listen to the pronunciation of cliché
Variant(s): also cli·che Listen to the pronunciation of cliche \klē-ˈshā, ˈklē-ˌ, kli-ˈ\
Where the cliché spelling is listed first, but let's not be claiming that it is in any way necessary. Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I still see naïve and cliché fairly frequently, although I'd rather that Wikipedia use naive and cliche for the simple reason that the diacritics are unnecessary and (to me) distracting. Rôle is just stupid, though, since there's no qualitative difference between rôle and role. Strad (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I put café, which may be clearer. If we can't come up with a consensus example, we should rethink the sentence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Clearer? More like jumping from the fat into the fire. In American English at least, it is now "cafe" in almost all contexts other than proper names, and in most proper names as well. Furthermore, the other example is a lousy one as well, especially with the two diacritics. Not only is it often written "resume", but I think, without looking into it in detail, that in modern writing I see the intermediate option "resumé" more often than "résumé". Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
My favourite Guardian style guide specifies cliche, naive, role and résumé. Personally I use cliché, naive, rôle ... and CV. Can we not just stick to being consistent within any one article? Wikipedia is written by a multitude of editors, native speakers of UK English, US English, other varieties of English, and of many other languages. Let's concentrate on getting rid of the "should of", the "wonderfull", and the totally incomprehensible (more difficult, if one can't actually work out what the sentence is supposed to mean!). PamD (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what that section is saying. I can't even decipher where to start, since I can't figure out what it thinks it's saying or what it wants to be saying. We need to write this page in English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've sorted it. I have left the sentences alone, except for one connective. Is that clearer?
It's variations on the theme of Use English; the stress differs from sentence to sentence between You have a choice and Do what English does because we disagree on what the stress should be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Time for archiving?

This talk page is awfully long, and many of the discussions at the top seem to be stale with no new comments posted since January. Would anybody object to them being archived? - Neparis (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Leave them until March; they may be useful in showing the record of this page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
"Please" would have been civil. Why must the whole page remain? It's particularly difficult for users on dial-up. Which bits are you attached to, Anderson? Tony (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This page is currently over 600 kilobytes, which is ridiculously long for people on dialup, with completely stale discussions from early to mid January at the top. What exactly is the problem here with archiving? I think an archive is a useful record of this page. Are you saying it isn't? Who benefits from keeping a really stale discussion from early January on this page until March? Nobody is going to add to the discussion, and once it is archived, people will still be able to look it up if they want to. It won't be deleted or somehow lost if that is what you are worrying about. - Neparis (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we should set up automatic archiving of old threads: same has been done at WP:MOSNUM. Keeping something on the page because "they may be useful in showing the record" is strange; the record is shown the same whether in archives or on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. I do hope that crazy, labour-intensive new-fangled thematic structure has been ditched in the archives. Can't find anything now. Tony (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Centuries and millennia

This sub-section is rather strange and unnecessarily prescriptive, especially as the academic jury is out on the subject. CMOS says particular centuries are spelled out and lowercased. Oxford and Fowler prefer figures (but use words as well). The current text follows:

  • Centuries and millennia
  • Use figures to name centuries, not words (the 9th century; not the ninth century).
  • Do not capitalize century.

Suggested replacement text: Heading: Centuries and millenniums

  • Do not capitalize century or millennium.
  • Use either figures (9th century, 3rd millennium) or words (ninth century, third millennium) consistently throughout the article.
  • Avoid opening sentences with centuries or millenniums expressed in figures.

Comments? --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Manual of Style has always allowed both. An edit with a plainly mistaken edit summary was made in August, [2], on the premise that the previous standard was to disallow spelled out century numbers, which is incorrect. No where else does the Manual of Style prohibit a plainly normal and acceptable style. See also WT:MOSNUM#Ordinal centuries in WP:MOSNUM. —Centrx→talk • 09:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you raised the matter with me at my talkpage, Centrx. It's good to have the discussion transferred to here.
I do not agree that there has always been a clear guideline, given at both WP:MOS and WP:MOSNUM, allowing for either figures or words to name centuries. As I recall, from time to time there have been no obvious guidelines, vague guidelines, complex guidelines making exceptions for single-digit cases, implicit guidelines but nothing in black letters, and so on.
The best way to deal with this is to have the discussion now. If both ways are to be allowed, let's say so clearly: in one place, without the slightest appearance of contradiction. If we say one way is allowed, it is not clear whether the other way is. There is an implicature, in fact, that the other way is not permitted.
So, disregarding the confused state of past "decisions" (I want to use that term advisedly!), what do we now say the guideline should be?
For my part, I like the way Roger Davies has handled this so far. I prefer naming with figures, myself: but we are not going to get agreement on that, obviously – nor on naming with words.
I therefore support allowing either, so long as there is consistency within an article.
I will convert this to strong support for naming with figures only if there is a push for that (and I have pushed for it in the past).
Reflecting on this, I now think that most editors have gone for figures, over the last few years. And most have interpreted our guidelines as requiring that: whether rightly or wrongly. Since I also favour using figures alone, I now support that option. Naturally I will accept the option of allowing either, provided it is clearly expressed and has consensus in its favour – which I hope it will not! We have to bear in mind the problems and uncertainties introduced by being too undirective, especially for featured-article candidates.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 09:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)– Noetica♬♩ Talk 10:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[Amended]
Oops, I have no position one way or another, but the pages (WP:MOS and WP:MOSNUM) were out of sync, so I just made them agree. Please try to keep them in sync. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no position one way or the other, but I don't agree with Centrx's approach of allowing any normal and accepted style. If that were to be our approach, the first paragraph of our MOS should read something like "Use any style that you find in the Chicago Manual of Style, Associated Press Style Book, . . . . Listed below are some specific rules for using the markup available in the WikiMedia software." Notice that style manuals that are associated with a specific publisher actually make choices among acceptable options (as opposed to style manuals that are intended as instruction manuals for the general writing population, regardless of which publication they are writing for). --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
But we're not being as laissez-faire as that: the proposal acknowledges that the publishing world has two ways of dealing with the issue and invites individual editors to choose the most appropriate for their article. For instance, I might use figures for an article than uses century ranges (e.g. with the increasing use of gunpowder in the 14th–16th centuries...) but words for one with sentences that frequently open with date statements (e.g. Nineteenth-century theatre critics...). I see no advantage in having a "one size fits all" system. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
My statement of "normal and acceptable" was vague and overly generous to the opposite argument. Spelled-out centuries is the standard for all literature, and no where else does the Manual of Style prohibit the professional standard. However, I do venture that no where does the Manual of Style explicitly prohibit any normal and acceptable usage in literature; all the do nots I can find are about blatantly erroneous formats used no where in literature. —Centrx→talk • 22:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
From September 2003, WP:MOS allowed both words or numerals to represent numbers, at first with a default of recommending words and at other times some disputation in favor of recommending only words, and substantial discussion from time to time; for centuries, the examples had numerals without comment or any prohibition on words. From February 2006, the examples included spelled-out ordinals, after a brief discussion. In August 2007, the change was added without discussion under a false premise in the edit summary, [3]. —Centrx→talk • 22:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
That is a drastically oversimplified and misleading account of the history, Centrx. Even if there had been clear and non-contradictory guidelines affecting this issue (which I would dispute), the fact that you yourself acknowledge is that the guideline favouring figures has been in place, and unchallenged, for at least six months. That guideline has been read, respected, and acted upon (in featured-article candidates, for example). Earlier history is not worth the trouble to investigate.
Leave the current guideline in place until there is consensus for change, please. Nothing is gained by impatience, or by appeals to earlier guidelines that are no longer active.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 23:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No, my account is quite accurate. Do you have any reason to believe that many people have read this single sentence buried in a subsection of the style guide? Most people don't re-read the style guide every three months. Certainly the dozens of people in the past who objected to this change, and proposed the opposite, have not read it. Do you have any actual substantive reason why this prohibition, unlike anything else in the style guide, belongs in the style guide? —Centrx→talk • 23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I have used the figures form in at least two featured articles not because I agreed with it but because FAC requires MOS-compliance and I believed it had been incorporated into MOS after due process and therefore reflected consensus. --ROGER DAVIES talk 23:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Centrx, you ask me: "Do you have any actual substantive reason why this prohibition, unlike anything else in the style guide, belongs in the style guide?"
In fact, I use both styles outside of Wikipedia, depending on the context in which I write or edit. I generally like words for such things, and I generally advocate using words for all numbers lower than 100 (again, conditioned by context). That is another discussion we need to get back to.
Here at Wikipedia it is not so much a matter of substance in the abstract as of practicalities. As the evidence below shows, calling for figures rather than words offers the best chance of achieving a proper uniformity, and a clear brief for editors to work with. It is easier to do, and less prone to errors in hyphenation and the like.
That said, I am not pushing militantly for figures only. I just want a proper, well-discussed, consensual, and uncontradicted guideline that will work towards consistency within articles. Above all, let it be a stable guideline, so we don't have to revisit it.
It is for just this sort of reason that we need better procedures for discussion, for centralised registration of changes, and for coordination between all parts of MOS. It is disappointing that people are not joining the current push for that.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 00:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The guideline which will achieve consistency within articles is fairly simple, more or less like this: Within each article, treat centuries consistently; if a given century is spelled out in one place, spell it out in another. Apply some reasonable line as to which centuries are spelled out, and which are in figures, and apply it to all dates in the article. Even that omits the occasionally useful practice of saying "eighteenth century" in text and "18th C." in a table, but that comes under WP:IAR. We will never have to revisit it, and the only cases it will come up in FA is when we do use sixteenth, 18th, and twentieth in the same article, which is an embarassment (although we've promoted worse). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
We could easily use a bot to ensure uniformity, but that would require a strong, actual consensus to use only one format and prohibit the other. There is no such consensus, therefore we do not use a bot. Uniformity is not the issue. —Centrx→talk • 00:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The draft wording above has strong consensus with no outright objections to it and much explicit support. Is this accurate? --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No. See below.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 08:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The draft wording above already has strong consensus with outright opposition from very few editors and very much more explicit support. To avoid hastiness, unless a great deal many more editors express their opposition within the next twenty-four hours, it seems reasonable to implement the proposed draft tomorrow afternoon. In determining that practical consensus already exists, I note that even the most vocal opponent of this change writes: "Naturally I will accept the option of allowing either, provided it is clearly expressed and has consensus in its favour". --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is perhaps unfair to invoke my explicit readiness to abide by a consensus against the case that I make: strenuously, and with detailed argument and evidence. Everybody should be willing to abide by a consensus; I am just the only one to say that I would!
The way I count people in this discussion, we have
6 supporting [But see strong qualification discussed several paragraphs down, added some minutes ago; these are not supporting the current wording. I have been generous in my interpretation.]– Noetica♬♩ Talk 20:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
3 opposing
5 disagreeing with some details, or explicitly uncommitted
Do we think that amounts to a strong consensus? I don't! As I wrote, "I just want a proper, well-discussed, consensual, and uncontradicted guideline that will work towards consistency within articles. Above all, let it be a stable guideline, so we don't have to revisit it."
I note that several of the points I have made went undiscussed. What about the guideline against figures at the start of a sentence? The third element of the proposal as it stands is insufficient. What if we were reporting part of a radio presentation? We could not refashion the sentence to avoid opening a sentence with figures; and if we avoid figures by resorting to words just once, in an article that otherwise uses figures to name centuries, we contradict the second element of the proposal. Such a restriction is a needless imposition, and I am surprised that the Wikilibertarians among us have not picked it up and objected.
I maintain my opposition to the proposal, but I suggest that, if is adopted, the text should except the case of centuries and millennia from that more general guideline. I further suggest that we use the more accepted plural millennia. We need to show hyphenated cases also, so that editors get guidance on the more complex cases. If the following amended text is adopted, I will raise no further objections, for the time being:
Centuries and millennia
  • Do not capitalize century or millennium.
  • Use either figures (9th century, 21st-century music, 3rd millennium) or words (ninth century, twenty-first-century music, third millennium) consistently throughout the article.
  • If figures are used, they should be used even at the start of a sentence, despite the guideline against this practice in general.
I may well want an RFC on this issue in future. This is important matter, and has not been analysed sufficiently. Nor does the proposal have wide support.
One last thing: please don't speak of "tomorrow afternoon", as if we all are in the same timezone. Such an assumption could reasonably be taken as insular, and a slight on many editors here – though I am confident that Roger did not intend it that way.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 09:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The general prohibition against using numerals at the beginning of a sentence is a uniform standard for all written English--you would be hard-pressed to find even a high-school newspaper that starts a sentence with numerals--whereas what you want to prohibit--using words for century numbers is the standard--is the standard in this case, though not nearly as uniform. The usage with quotations is well-defined everywhere, that a quotation retains its internal style, and the Manual of Style is irrelevant to that internal style. —Centrx→talk • 01:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Usage data

Publisher Country Usage
Sydney Morning Herald (Aus) Numerals
The Australian (Aus) Numerals
The Globe and Mail (CAN) Numerals
Times of India (IND) Numerals
Times (UK) Numerals
Guardian (UK) Numerals
Independent (UK) Numerals
New York Times (USA) Numerals
Washington Post (USA) Numerals
Oxford University Press (UK) Words
Cambridge University Press (UK) Words
Harvard University Press (US) Words
Yale University Press (US) Words
University of Chicago Press (US) Words
It seems that news publishers use numerals and academic publishers prefer words.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 11:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Newspapers tend to go for the option with least characters; they're usually against the serial comma too. Space saving shouldn't be a consideration for us, though; I always see centuries written in words in history books. qp10qp (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I assume that the reason academic publishers prefer words is because style guides like the Chicago Manual of Style instruct us to write out centuries in words. That is what I am familiar with. I would vote for words over numerals because forms such "18th-century novel" are harder to read than "eighteenth-century novel". Awadewit | talk 15:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It's the opposite: The style guides reflect or codify what is already done in publications; the style guide is not simply created out of thin air after which authors follow it. —Centrx→talk • 22:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It's both, really. Many publishing houses and academic journals also demand that authors follow already-established style guides. Awadewit | talk 22:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the usage was not invented by the style guide. The format is commonly used and is recommended by the style guide because it is better. —Centrx→talk • 23:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
That is a personal view, and many feel the opposite. Words get very unwieldy when ranges are needed, or several centuries, or centuries and decades, are mentioned close together. But I think both should be allowed. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Both were allowed. —Centrx→talk • 22:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What we've got in Wikipedia

Results from googling on ""ninth century" -inurl:wiki-User -intitle:Talk -inurl:wiki-Wikipedia -inurl:wiki-WP -redirected-from site:en.wikipedia.org" and similar searches (ie Wikipediea article space, as far as can be done)

"9th century" - 39k
"ninth century" - 11k
"17th century" - 168k
"seventeenth century" - 32k

So the editors out there who are writing stuff, whether or not they read (or know about) WP:MOS, are predominantly choosing numbers, though about 20% use words. As long as we're consistent within any one article, that's fine by me. I would strongly resist any suggestion that we should be required to use words for centuries. PamD (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I still have no position, but looking at what is "out there" is a flawed analysis, since there's so much garbage out there. A similar analysis of featured articles would be more telling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You may think it irrelevant, but I don't think my analysis is flawed. PamD (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
PS Is there a way to Google FAs only? PamD (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
If you look at any element of MoS vis-a-vis what most Wiki articles have, you'll probably find same (that most articles out there don't comply with most of MoS and aren't even aware of it: there's a ton of junk "out there"). Looking at the 2 million articles, of which 1.5 are junk, is not instructive about good MoS guidelines. Good writing on Wiki isn't common (the current FA percentage is: 0.08479%). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What's important is not what is most common but what is the most sensible wording for the manual. I agree with Roger that the most sensible wording would give a choice. Consistency within individual articles is what really matters. qp10qp (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I would not endorse surveying FAs because, for example, I have been using numerals recently since that is what is dictated by the MOS, even though that is not what I would personally choose to use or what I think is best. Hopefully all recent FAs would have numerals (they are supposed to adhere to the MOS). Even though I think that words are best, I do think that such minutiae are not worth the trouble of a large debate. Let's leave it up to editors. As Qp and Roger rightly point out, consistency within articles is what we are really aiming for. Awadewit | talk 19:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Let's take it out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, FAs often get a post-FAC copyedit before appearing on the main page. While it depends on who does it, spelled-out centuries have been converted to numerals for quite a while, even when MOSDATE allowed either. Gimmetrow 00:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the advice to use numerals should remain. It's easier to read, simpler, more identifiable, and shorter. Roger, I have OUP's guide to house style issued to authors of scholastic texts, which demands numerals for 10 and above, no mention of centuries. That's what we gave them in the MS. 12:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)
  • As I remarked in the opening sentence Oxford prefers figures but uses words too, which was a simplification:
  • Shorter Oxford Dictionary: M18 = middle 18th century in SOED; 19c = 19th century.
  • Oxford Dictionary of English (2003): Uses figures (20th century and 20th cent.) in narrative but words (twentieth century) in style examples.
  • The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary (2004) uses words in narrative, ie twentieth century = 1901–2000; fifth century BC = 500–401 BC ....
  • The Australian Oxford Dictionary (2004) uses words, per NZOD.
  • The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English uses words, per NZOD.
  • The Oxford Companion to American Law (2002) uses words.
  • The Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs (2003) uses words.
  • The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (1998) uses words.
  • The Oxford Essential Dictionary of Foreign Terms in English (1999) uses words.
  • The Oxford Dictionary of Idioms (2005 ed.) uses words.
  • The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction (2007) uses words.
  • The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare (2003 ed.) Words in headings, numerals in body.
  • The OUP catalogue uses words.
  • OUP titles use words.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 15:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Roger, first of all: where do you want the general discussion of the proposed change to continue? Here, or before "Usage data"? As the originator of this thread, you would be justified in collecting expressions for or against in one place.
Now, I do not think we have a consensus yet. Myself, I firmly believe that the best policy to adopt (if it were practicable) is figures only. They have strong de facto majority support at WP; a clear guideline has been in place for them for months (at least), and editors have followed that guideline. If we look for comparable environments, we should look to Britannica Online. Have a look at a random example, which shows this heading: Russia[:] The 19th century, and this text also: ...no great Russian painters emerged in the 18th and early 19th centuries.. This is clear and definite; it fits well on a heavily populated screen; it looks quite natural in a web environment, and is accepted by readers as standard presentation.
Our guideline needs to be chosen with care and with wider consultation (an RFC, perhaps?); and it needs to fit well with other guidelines currently in place. For example, we have this text, right now:

Numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out as words; alternatively, the sentence can be recast so that the number does not the begin the sentence.

That is independently problematic, and needs separate discussion. For now, just note that it clashes with both of the proposed guidelines for centuries. In an article that names them with figures, there is a conflict of guidelines:

...by the old masters. 19th-century painters, however, and French painters of the early 20th century,...

The best solution is just that, I think: don't be constrained either to re-fashion the sentence or to resort to words, or a gruesome mixture of figures and words. Britannica, in fact, follows the words-to-begin-a -sentence rule, and would have this:

...by the old masters. Nineteenth-century painters, however, and French painters of the early 20th century,...

That is not good to emulate. It makes searching awkward, since you have to search on both 19th century and nineteenth century to be sure of catching everything you want. (Hyphens are ignored in some sorts of searching, mercifully.) That applies to us too, by the way: two searches for every century, as things stand and as they will stand if we have both styles in future.
Let's broaden the discussion to take into account those other guidelines, and to include more editors. These things have never been represented well in MOS; let's do it properly now.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[Amended– Noetica♬♩ Talk 08:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)]
If "searching" were a prime consideration on Wikipedia, we'd be using English spellings, without diacritics, as much as possible, and we most certainly wouldn't be using macrons on letters and several other uncommon letters. Try to find the Wikipedia article which mentions Ichijodani and chess; you ought to be able to do so, but only because it has been mentioned on talk pages before. Gene Nygaard (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, having to consider a mere two known alternatives does not make a difficult search in any case. As I pointed out above, the situation is different when the alternatives are not known. Gene Nygaard (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not searching is a prime concern, it is obviously a concern, to add to the heady mix of concerns we already have. Surely people use encyclopedias to search for information – in ways that we cannot predict. Whatever the story is with diacritics (and there is a important story to sort through there too), centuries are ubiquitous in our articles.
Suppose someone Google's Wikipedia looking for material on 7th-century Spain. A simple example. Here are the results with two search strings:

site:http://en.wikipedia.org "seventh-century Spain"

One hit, in Ildephonsus of Toledo.

site:http://en.wikipedia.org "7th-century Spain"

One hit, in Filioque clause.

The topics at the two hits are quite different, and a link would not be found from one to the other.
Imagine how you would go searching for everything in a more general domain, for the 18th century. This is bad enough when you don't know what standard the site uses, but it's paradoxically worse if the site has consistency within any given article. If only 18th century occurred on some articles, and only eighteenth century in others, two single standard Google searches on these terms respectively would find all of one set, or all of the other set, with no hits in common. Often that might be useful; very often it would be utterly misleading.
Gene, you write that "having to consider a mere two known alternatives does not make a difficult search". But such cases as I present here are simplifications. People do all sorts of searches, with many terms. Some are well-chosen terms, some are not. Even with sophisticated searching, if the practice at a site is not known or not consistent, several terms in a search would have to be doubled. With three such doublings, you multiply either the number of searches or the complexity by eight!
And remember: Google's limit for the search terms is ten words.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 10:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
And rather than arguing for unnecessary instruction creep, and the minor difficulties of having to search for "petrol/gasoline" or "aluminum/aluminium" or "19th century/nineteenth century" and minor things like that, you'd be better off putting your time to productive use by going through Wikipedia and changing, for example, these Google results:
  • Spain "VII. century" site:en.wikipedia.org [4][5 hits (three of them articles), note that in my search Spain is outside the exact phrase]
  • Spain "7th cent" site:en.wikipedia.org [5] [9 hits, three of them articles]
  • "7. century" site:en.wikipedia.org ["7. century" site:en.wikipedia.org] [12 hits, three of which are with the 7th century meaning and in articles]
Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I respond in detail to what you say, and you suggest that I'm wasting my time? My call for a simple uniform guideline that anyone can follow is denigrated as "instruction creep"? Remember that for months we have already had the very guideline in question.
Once again, I find that I am wasting my time answering you. Go away and think about that. Meanwhile, others will read the content and make less partial judgements.
The fact that we have all manner of anomalies in our articles does not argue against clear and decisive guidelines at MOS; it weighs in favour of them, since only such lean, sparse, and well-founded guidelines are respected, and therefore yield greater uniformity. The present mess is not respected.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 21:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[Amended]
The present mess is not respected, largely because it is overprescriptive.
Furthermore, it is not worthy of respect as long as Wikipedia:Manual of Style continues to deliberately flout, through the efforts of editors of the ilk of User:Noetica in this edit, the universal rule that symbols for units of measure are never italicized. This is most definitely not a case where different parts of the MoS are in conflict. It is the rule common to
  1. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Do not use italics for
  2. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Font formatting
  3. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Unit symbols and abbreviations
You don't respect the MoS. Why do you expect others to do so? Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Wild and unsubstantiated accusations. I suggested that you go away and think; it's a real pity that you didn't. That matter of not italicising symbols for units was one that you struggled with big-time, Gene. You relentlessly misunderstood the points that several experienced editors made in an attempt to enlighten you. Your raising it here, in a section on another topic entirely, is a desperate act that I refuse to be drawn by. I simply point out that the record shows just how wrong you were, and (much worse!) remain.
I am not arguing for more guidelines, but for rationality, clarity, and consensus.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 00:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
No, you most clearly are not. That is abundantly evident on your insistence on retaining rules which have no consensus, when you have admitted above "I prefer naming with figures, myself: but we are not going to get agreement on that, obviously".
So you do not seek clarity either in trying to get rules you personally disagree with changed (you have made no attempt to change the explicit rules of any one of those three MoS pages, but rather choose to just deliberately flout those rules, and you insist on keeping rules you want even when you admit you do not have consensus for them. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
For your proposed style to significantly improve search efficiency, (1) readers would have to be aware of our style choice in this matter and (2) the MoS rule would need to be applied consistently throughout the large majority of Wikipedia. I don't see a reason to believe that either will be the case in the near future. As it happens I believe that it is best to allow editors either option; a mandate in either direction would be a no-value-added rule. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

For those who care about what we actually have on Wikipedia:

site:en.wikipedia.org
Google hits
"V. century" 15
"VI. century" 22
"VII. century" 18
"VIII. century" 23
"IX. century" 37
"X. century" 47
"XI. century" 59
"XII. century" 62
"XIII. century" 92
"XIV. century" 132
"XV. century" 156
"XVI. century" 242
"XVII. century" 197
"XVIII. century" 218
"XIX. century" 438
"XX. century" 366
"XXI. century" 77

Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of all that, except to show that Wikipedia is less uniform, less useful, less searchable, less readable, and less respectable as a serious encyclopedia than we want it to be? Clear, simple, sparse, memorable guidelines can help remedy that.
My recent edit that you point to is one that undoes removal of an existing guideline. Here is my edit summary:

Reverted to the guideline that's been in place for six months at least; please do not remove that guideline until we have consensus for change; applied dispute tag; please all: support this & discuss!

Can we set personal difficulties aside, please? Let's discuss, towards a rational and durable consensus.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 00:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The point is, what we really have consensus for is that centuries should be written either in Arabic numerals or in English words, either of which written with appropriate English-language ordinal indicators (-th and the like, not dots or masculine or feminine ordinals or whatever). Possibly also that "century" is generally lowercase and not abbreviated. And, as already specified in a more general sense elsewhere in the MoS, that the ordinal "th" and "st" and the like are not superscripted.
What we do not have consensus for, as you yourself have admitted, is that wording which you keep edit-warring to keep in the MoS.
The MoS should be changed to reflect what we currently have consensus for. Then you can argue for further refinement and appropriate tweaking from that starting point, rather than having to do so from a starting point not supported by consensus. 69.57.89.171 (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That was me; forgot the most important thing: I'm suggesting that we can claim consensus not to have them in Roman numerals. This is a significant problem on Wikipedia because that format is common in several other languages, and many of the English Wikipedia articles are originally imported from other Wikipedias. In other cases, it is just added by editors familiar with that usage which is more common in languages other than English. In case my mere showing that this usage is common on English Wikipedia didn't suggest to you the obvious reason why this is the case, and why it might be helpful to specifically address it.Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where you got the idea that there's no consensus for the current wording ... Tony (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Must be because you think your opinion is the only one that counts. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There is
  1. Me
  2. User:Roger Davies (obvious from proposal here)
  3. User:Qp10qp "Space saving shouldn't be a consideration for us, though; I always see centuries written in words in history books." and "I agree with Roger that the most sensible wording would give a choice."
  4. User:Awadewit: "Let's leave it up to editors."
  5. User:Centrx: "Spelled-out centuries is the standard for all literature, and no where else does the Manual of Style prohibit the professional standard." and more
    • Centrx also claims that the current wording was added without consensus: "In August 2007, the change was added without discussion under a false premise in the edit summary,[6]."
  6. User:PamD: "As long as we're consistent within any one article, that's fine by me"
  7. User:Johnbod: "But I think both should be allowed."
  8. User:Pmanderson/Septrionalis: "I agree. Let's take it out."
  9. and even User:Noetica concedes lack of consensus: "I prefer naming with figures, myself: but we are not going to get agreement on that, obviously"
My apologies to anybody I overlooked, and especially if I misinterpreted anyone's comments or if I have overlooked any changes in opinion by these users after the comments I have quoted. The latest I can find from User:SandyGeorgia is "I still have no position" and from User:Gerry Ashton: "I have no position one way or the other,"
Is there anybody other than you, User:Tony1, and Neotica (who admits lack of consensus, but doesn't act accordingly), arguing in favor of the current wording? Maybe User:Gimmetrow, with a brief comment here?
There is one thing that is abundantly clear in this discussion. Lack of consensus for the current wording is patently obvious, to anyone who doesn't concur with your view that Tony1 is the only one whose opinion counts. Eight people clearly opposed is a landslide against the current wording in the context of MoS discussions (even if it were not also a much larger number than those supporting it). Rarely do we get that many people chiming in on an issue. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Nygaard, I treat your entries with contempt, since you are continually abusive towards me. Try to be just a little like an adult, by not indulging yourself in these personal comments. Tony (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There is not an unequivocal show of support for the current proposal to change the guideline. The list above takes selected remarks only, and does not show that anyone other than Roger is supporting the proposed change as it is worded. Some of those selected remarks can easily be construed against elements of the proposed change. Let me remind people of the exact wording:
Heading: Centuries and millenniums
  • Do not capitalize century or millennium.
  • Use either figures (9th century, 3rd millennium) or words (ninth century, third millennium) consistently throughout the article.
  • Avoid opening sentences with centuries or millenniums expressed in figures.
Given that editors are not endorsing the proposal explicitly, but voicing particular opinions, we should note this: Not one editor has commented on, let alone endorsed, the third of these provisions. Except me. Twice, with suggested amendments. There is therefore nothing resembling consensus for that provision.
Until those changes I suggest are addressed, and until a particular wording does have wide endorsement, there is no consensus. Here, once more, is the wording that I would not argue against:
Centuries and millennia
  • Do not capitalize century or millennium.
  • Use either figures (9th century, 21st-century music, 3rd millennium) or words (ninth century, twenty-first-century music, third millennium) consistently throughout the article.
  • If figures are used, they should be used even at the start of a sentence, despite the guideline against this practice in general.
(See my reasons above, before the heading Usage data.) I could cogently argue that voices in support of consistency in an article conjoined with freedom to choose figures or words are voices in favour of this amended suggestion. There are no voices in favour of Roger's exact wording
Can we now address these suggested alterations? Without such focused discussion, this has been a mere amorphous mass of assertions, and no consensus can properly be claimed for any guideline here at all.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 20:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If there were no consensus on any guideline, then we should not have any, including the present text.
  • There does appear to be consensus on being consistent within an article.
  • If we have any broader guideline, I see no reason to encourage figures at the beginning of sentences here; it is better advice to recast. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Focus, PMA. There is no consensus for consistency in an article, even. The third provision, which I have suggested we revise, contradicts the second provision at least implicitly. It may be invoked to allow for words at the start of a sentence, where figures are used everywhere else in the article. Is that consistency in an article? How about sentence fragments, by the way? May they start with figures? In which contexts? In running text? In captions? In headings? I was going to raise that next, when we had clarity concerning sentences. But we never seem to get that clarity.
Don't pretend these matters are simple. They exercise the best minds in editing, and established style guides have difficulty with them.
As for the imposition that we recast sentences, you do not address my objection to that.
Focus. Attend to the details, because this is an important matter involving very many articles. If we don't work through it thoroughly, we fail to guide editors, and we fail to improve articles. We also fail to make a guidleline is stable.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The requirement for consistency within articles is repeated throughout the Manual of Style. You should at least read the introduction; consistency within articles is an overarching principle. —Centrx→talk • 04:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, this page has a perfectly simple task before it:
  • I see no case that articles need to use the same rule. Articles do differ; and "Tolkien called Lewis' suggestion horrid eighteenth-century versification" may reasonably be put differently from "In the early 18th century, the finances of China were..."
  • There is no consensus on what the rule should be if we were to impose one. I think consistency would be a good thing, within the bounds of reason, but Noetica disputes even that.
  • Therefore we should not make a rule. The complexities of the matter should, rightly, be dealt with on individual articles, article by article.
    • We could usefully say something about the advantages of figures and the advantages of spelling out; but there seems to be little hope that this page will actually serve mere editors.
Therefore the logical conclusion would be to say nothing whatever, and to mark the passage disputed until we remove it. I will now do the latterIt has already been marked; how much objection is there to the removal? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, uniformity is irrelevant to this discussion. We can easily decide to uniformly use words for century numbers and enforce it through a bot--but we would not do that because there would apparently be substantial opposition to enforcing either usage. —Centrx→talk • 01:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I respond here to Centrx's remarks. Centrx, you wrote (way above):

The general prohibition against using numerals at the beginning of a sentence is a uniform standard for all written English--you would be hard-pressed to find even a high-school newspaper that starts a sentence with numerals--whereas what you want to prohibit--using words for century numbers is the standard--is the standard in this case, though not nearly as uniform. The usage with quotations is well-defined everywhere, that a quotation retains its internal style, and the Manual of Style is irrelevant to that internal style.

It is widespread, yes. But it is not universal by any means. Frequently people don't notice exceptions, but believe that practice is uniform and conforms to expectations. Frequently style guides are vague or mixed on these matters; some allow that usage in technical contexts and online is different from general usage. Excerpts from two major style guides (emphasis added):

New Hart's Rules (11.1.2): ... On the Internet different rules may apply: figures tend to be used more than words. / ... / It is customary, though not obligatory, to use words for numbers that fall at the beginnings of sentences: ... In such contexts, to avoid spelling out cumbersome numbers, recast the sentence. [No special ruling for centuries at the start of sentences.]

M–W Manual for Writer's and Editors (p. 98): Year numbers are written as figures. If a year number begins a sentence, it may be left as a figure but more often is spelled out ... [No special ruling in the case of centuries.]

As for usage in quotations, I don't know why you mention it here, Centrx. But in fact it is not as clear as MOS-editors assume, by any means. Both New Hart's and CMOS call for typographic changes and various "fixes" in quoted material. The matter is ill understood here, and needs to be addressed separately.
Later you write, Centrx:

Again, uniformity is irrelevant to this discussion.

Please explain why you keep saying that!
PMA, you write: "I think consistency would be a good thing, within the bounds of reason, but Noetica disputes even that." Please explain why you say that. Where do I say or suggest that consistency is not a good thing? I continually call for uniformity and consistency. Read again, and respond. It is not reasonable to attribute such things to me without evidence.
Once more, I point out that the proposal before us (and which I alone appear to be addressing!) is itself inconsistent. That is why I suggest amendments, which also no one has addressed.
Please focus on specifics. What is your concrete proposal for this guideline, people? Is it Roger's? My proposed modification of Roger's (as a compromise, moving away from my preference for figures only)? No guideline (PMA's suggestion)?
And what about sentence fragments, in running text, captions, and headings?
Focus!
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 04:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Response to Centrx's recent remark (see way above):

The requirement for consistency within articles is repeated throughout the Manual of Style. You should at least read the introduction; consistency within articles is an overarching principle.

That seems to be addressed to me; but I don't know why! Both Roger's proposal and my suggested re-working of it share the wording concerning consistency. In any case, editors in general (as opposed to us MOS-editors) may well not read the general guidelines near the beginning, and often consult MOS quickly for an opinion on an isolated matter. So some redundancy is good.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 04:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Disallowing numerals at the start of sentences is far more standard than disallowing words for numerals. A rule analogous to the rule you keep inserting would be requiring only numerals at the beginning of sentences.
  • If some stylists advocate the alteration of quotations, the fact remains that the Manual of Style does not. Regardless, you are not repeatedly replacing a rule to preserve quotations, you are repeatedly replacing a rule to prohibit numerals, a rule without any reference to quotations. You are free to add a separate line noting that the style in a quotation be preserved, but it is unnecessary.
  • Uniformity is not a reason by which either style would be better. Uniformity can be instituted on Wikipedia by the use of an automated software robot that replaces all instances of "9th century" with "ninth century". So, the guideline can be decided on the merits of each style itself, or in default as it has always been that both styles are acceptable, as there is no consensus to require one and prohibit the other.
  • My concrete proposal is simply to delete any prohibition on the use of words to represent centuries, which exceeds the pre-existing rule for numbers in general. Such a rule contradicts the standard literary style; it contradicts the long-standing specific wording in the Manual of Style; and it contradicts the style guide's general principle that the style guide is not a hammer with which to enforce one acceptable style over another acceptable style. A wiki is not conducive to plenary legislation. Any such legislation would be ignored, such that the MoS would be a lie, or it would produce conflict, which it has in the past. The side issues about quotations are side issues and are irrelevant the replacement of the prohibition on spelled-out numbers with centuries. —Centrx→talk • 05:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Centrx, I still don't know why you are talking about quotations in the present discussion. Where does that matter come up, in connection with naming centuries?
You write:

If some stylists advocate the alteration of quotations, the fact remains that the Manual of Style does not. Regardless, you are not repeatedly replacing a rule to preserve quotations, you are repeatedly replacing a rule to prohibit numerals, a rule without any reference to quotations. You are free to add a separate line noting that the style in a quotation be preserved, but it is unnecessary.

I'm sorry: I don't understand what you're driving at. Where am I "repeatedly replacing a rule to prohibit numerals"? And what have quotations got to do with this?
You write:

A rule analogous to the rule you keep inserting would be requiring only numerals at the beginning of sentences.

What? Excuse me: the only guideline that imposes on editors a rule about what may occur at the start of sentence is one that entirely prohibits numbers at the start. I do not prohibit words; nor do I prohibit numbers, in certain cases.
For the rest, you appear not to have registered the fact that I have repeatedly laid out here: that I am willing to compromise! I have laid out a definite proposal, based on Roger's. Could you please now focus on Roger's proposal, and on my suggested alterations? Alternatively, don't describe your own proposal: make it, in concrete terms.
Meanwhile, the other major encyclopedia online, Britannica, uses figures – and it actually conforms to Roger's guideline, but without the re-structuring of sentences; it uses words at the start of sentences and sentence fragments. No one has taken up this point! Why do I make points, if they are not noticed or addressed? What about those sentence fragments, hmmm?
You say there was no consensus for the existing wording. Yet it stood and was respected and consulted for at least six months. Why do I have to repeat that?
Finally, who is suggesting that MOS be used as a "hammer"? Not me! The question of the standing of MOS is a separate one, and beyond discussion of particular guidelines. And anyway: how does a prohibition on figures at the start of sentences not "hammer" editors, as you put it?
Work on clearing up your confusion, Centrx. It isn't helping. Focus on concrete details, backed up by the sort of direct appeal to practice and sources that I have been able to adduce.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 05:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Work on clearing up your own confusion. In particular: this edit, by Noetica, is the first and only post in this discussion to claim any objection to consistency whatsoever - by claiming that consistency is not consensus. If Noetica does not object to consistency, this is false; if xe does, then the statement above, that xe does not, is false. Enough of this; let Noetica make up xer mind. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Impotent hand-waving, PMA. I did not object to consistency. I fervently wish there were a consensual commitment to consistency, within and even beyond articles. Isn't that clear, from all that I have said? Where you point to, I wrote this (with emphasis now added):

Focus, PMA. There is no consensus for consistency in an article, even. The third provision, which I have suggested we revise, contradicts the second provision at least implicitly. It may be invoked to allow for words at the start of a sentence, where figures are used everywhere else in the article. Is that consistency in an article?

I regret that the suggestion from Roger is both inconsistent itself, and recommends inconsistency in articles! If you were paying due attention, you would see that my suggested amendments counter inconsistency in articles. I want there to be consistency in articles, as I continually say, without ever contradicting myself. Of the proposals mooted so far, mine is the only one that provides for such consistency.
The only seeming exception to this in my opinions conforms with those major style guides of which I have cited chapter and verse. They see that, in some contexts, figures are allowable at the start of a sentence. We do not acknowledge that, so far; we are not so flexible, so far. We, so far, have guidelines that "hammer" our editors with a simplistic rule.
Strange, that people should appeal to a "universal practice", when they have not studied these things and cannot support their assertions with facts or sources. We would do well to allow figures at the start of a sentence, in many circumstances. I have never written in support of the guideline that forbids that.
A pity you did not heed my suggestion that you focus, PMA. You might then have understood what is plainly before your eyes.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 06:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
"Where am I "repeatedly replacing a rule to prohibit numerals"?": [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. If you really have this bad of a memory, you shouldn't be editing at all; and don't patronize everyone about "focus" when your own long-winded statements are the most dissipate and confused out of everyone's. —Centrx→talk • 03:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Centrx, I am at a loss to see you are trying to say. First you went on about quotations: but the current section has nothing to do with quotations. I have not said anything about them in this section, nor edited the guideline concerning centuries with anything relevant to quotations. I asked you to explain, above; but you did not.
Now what's this latest ramble all about? What's this "rule to prohibit numerals", which you claim I was "repeatedly replacing"? Do you understand what replacing means? Do you understand what numerals means? If your vocabulary is really that deficient, perhaps you should not be editing at all.
What I did was restore a guideline that you continually removed, that had been in place for months, and that was under discussion. No guideline that I ever put in place "prohibits numerals"; nor any guideline that I removed. What could you possibly be saying?
I should remind you, yet again, that I am the only editor to have focused on Roger's specific suggestion. I took it seriously, critiqued it, made suggestions to improve it (not just concerning figures at the start of sentences), and compromised (another word for you to look up, perhaps) away from my own favoured position. I proceeded with clear reasons, citing evidence from the most respected sources – sources flatly contradicting what you had said, and to which you gave no adequate answer.
Where is your readiness to compromise, Centrx? Where is your lucid and concrete contribution, backed up with citations?
Did you perhaps wonder why I write at length, and repeat myself? Whenever an editor does not understand plain statements the first time, nor answer questions the first time, I repeat and elaborate. If you don't address the topic to hand, nor the proposal to hand, I call you back to it. And if you attack me, of course I defend myself. That is ridiculously easy to do, with such inept attempts; but it may require many words.
Now will you focus on Roger's proposal, and all of my suggested alterations to it? That's what we're here for, in this section.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 07:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Quite obviously, I miswrote "numerals" for "words". Where is your intelligence and sanity? —Centrx→talk • 17:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
O, now I understand! You have several times mixed up your words, so that no one could make sense of them. I quoted them back to you, for you to clarify. At last you reveal that you have "quite obviously" made an elementary error, writing numerals where you meant words (every time!). And this is somehow my fault? My intelligence and sanity are to be questioned?
I'll let others make a judgement on whose intelligence and sanity are brought into question by that little episode, if anyone's.
It was mysterious what you think the word replace means. You say I was "repeatedly replacing a rule to prohibit [words]". But replacing is ambiguous. I was not substituting something for a guideline against naming centuries with words; I was restoring it (when it had been in place for six months at least, and you had removed it). Please in future formulate your sentences more carefully, and don't leave it to others to wrestle sense out of what you write. If you must do so, don't impugn the intelligence of those with demonstrated superiority in that department, who must come to your aid.
Obviously there is no sense at all to be squeezed out of your remarks about quotations, which explains why you do not answer my questions about them.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, that is the only instance where I used "numerals" but meant "words". Also, there is only one text that you have been repeatedly replacing and only one prohibition we have been discussion, so even a sentence like "you have been repeatedly replacing the prohibition on bananas" in the context of this discussion is understandable by the substitution of one word; and the content of the diffs is unequivocally obvious.
  • Replace: "1. trans. To restore to a previous place or position; to put back again in (or {dag}into) a place." Also, "restore" carries some implication that the text restored had been lost to some detriment rather than merely removed, so my use of that word would not have been as accurate.
—Centrx→talk • 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Pretty desperate, Centrx. First, forms of the word replace, including replacement, occur a dozen times in exchanges between you and me above, before you finally say what you had in mind. You repeat your original uses, and I repeat them back to you, asking what you mean. Sometimes you use replace with its object being a thing restored (replace X = restore X) , and sometimes a thing usurped (replace X with Y: you write "replaces all instances of '9th century' with 'ninth century' "). Since your usage is inconsistent, and the object you explicitly give is numerals instead of words (wrongly and repeatedly: about eight times in your statements and my querying of them), your meaning was utterly unclear. Of course I am aware of the less common dictionary meaning that you reproduce above (without citation); I pointed out that the word was ambiguous, not that it had only the other much more common meaning. I, eventually, diagnosed that problem with your wayward and inconsistent use of replace, not you. (See my last posting, above. It's undeniable: "But replacing is ambiguous.")
Will you please take some responsibility? And while you're at it, will you please learn to count? Better though, will you stop this time-wasting, and address the original topic of this section, which has been raised freshly in a new subsection below, for better or for worse?
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 06:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now read through this interminable discussion, including this latest post.

  • I see only one reason presented for having consistency between articles at all: use of "7th century" and so on as a search term.
    • This seems an insufficient good to justify a universal rule against all local considerations of euphony and space. "7th century" is a lousy search term; it's too common, and the same content will too often be expressed by "In the next century", "in the Dark Ages", "under the Tang Dynasty".
  • Roger's original proposal seems reasonable, although there may be reasons for inconsistency within an article: Table headers may require figures, and "in the 18th century" and "eighteenth-century prose" may be natural in different paragraphs. If I thought that this page would be treated as a guideline, and with common sense, this would not be serious.
    • If there were consensus for it, I would join, but there is not.
  • All Noetica's "compromises" seem to have these same defects in more acute forms.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

PMA, there is no genuine discussion here any more, interminable or otherwise. There is a fragmented nest of confusions, breeding ever more confusions.
The fact you can't see reasons does not mean they are absent. You have not addressed the detail of Roger's proposal, in all of its parts; only I have done that. We need analysis, but analysis is impossible unless we agree to focus on concrete detail, in a disciplined way. As I point out below, in a section you started and which fragments things even further, I have indeed offered a compromise. You scare-quote it ("compromise") as if it were not a genuine compromise; but you give no evidence against its being a perfectly workable solution. It is simple; it yields perfect consistency within any article that respects it; it is not radically against any established guideline in style guides (as I have shown, with no response in discussion here), and already we have precedent for exceptions to our draconian edict that figures should not appear at the start of a sentence.
We need to look at this in a new disussion, because this one has failed. Call an RFC, I say. Later, when things have calmed down. The issue is too important to bumble through like this.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

All personal attacks aside...

I don’t know why MOS-related discussions seem to so often quickly degenerate into personal attacks, but it’s a shame. If we can re-don our coats of respectfulness and cordiality over an issue that is far from the most pressing of the world’s – or Wikipedia’s – problems, then perhaps an RfC is unnecessary and we can once more rationally discuss Roger Davies’ fair-minded and well-intentioned proposal. For the benefit of those who may have forgotten, his suggested replacement text is

Heading: Centuries and millenniums
  • Do not capitalize century or millennium.
  • Use either figures (9th century, 3rd millennium) or words (ninth century, third millennium) consistently throughout the article.
  • Avoid opening sentences with centuries or millenniums expressed in figures.

For my part, I generally support this phrasing: it is consistent with the consensus extant before the inadvertent change; it is consistent with an enduring modus vivendi native to Wikipedia to permit variation between articles but consistency within an article, and the third bullet is consistent with the most common general usage. The one change I would recommend is to clarification of whether the second bullet’s “consistently throughout the article” also applies to article titles and section headers.

We can play the “Yes, but this style guide says …” game all day long, but why bother? There’s no general agreement among the leading guides, anyway. There are only two circumstances for which I can see where it might be preferable to force acceptance of one style over another. One would be for category names since a shorthand form is more utilitarian – but that’s not a MOS issue. The other might be for article names. No, not for searching – since redirects for the other stylings should make the issue moot – but rather for sorting, since “18th” and “Eighteenth” go to very different places. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You really want to pursue this now, and not wait till things cool down, when we can have a fresh discussion with wider participation? If so, here is my suggested amendment of the original proposal, once again. It is a compromise, since the removed guideline (not an inadvertent guideline, in fact) called for figures only, while this version allows both, but with complete consistency in any article:
Centuries and millennia
  • Do not capitalize century or millennium.
  • Use either figures (9th century, 21st-century music, 3rd millennium) or words (ninth century, twenty-first-century music, third millennium) consistently throughout the article.
  • If figures are used, they should be used even at the start of a sentence, despite the guideline against this practice in general.
Some notes on the suggested changes:
  • 1. Millennia is much closer to being standard usage than millenniums is.
  • 2. The examples should show hyphenated cases, since these are quite common and should be done in the way that is universally accepted. Twenty-first-century music is especially good to include, because it is especially subject to uncertainty. Editors might appreciate guidance with it.
  • 3. The only cases that are at all likely to turn up at the start of a sentence are hyphenated ones. (Try to make a sentence with an unhyphenated one: it's quite hard.) The numbers are therefore attached with a hyphen to what follows. They are also very simple ordinal numbers: they will nearly always range from 1st to 21st (for CE centuries, anyway). Let's not follow blindly what we mistakenly take as "universal principles". The rationale for prohibiting figures at the start of a sentence was always a matter of possible confusions arising from the role of the full stop, and the like. (In fact, this is more of a problem with figures at the end of a sentence, for obvious reasons. But rarely is the end mentioned in these MOS discussions.) There is no risk at all of such confusion with 20th-century art at the start of a sentence. If you think there is, say how it could arise. Rather, inconsistency leads to difficulties in scanning a sentence: "Nineteenth- and 20th-century art...". Do we really want that? Must we be compelled to recast such a sentence in order to avoid such an atrocity? Why? I have cited style guides that are more permissive, for the sake of readability. We ourselves make exceptions in our guidelines, allowing figures at the start of sentences. Naming centuries should be such a case, allowing editors the freedom to write in a natural style, while at the same time keeping an article perfectly consistent.
Askari Mark, you say that there is an issue with headings. I agree. They are sentence fragments; so are many captions. These should all be discussed too, as I (alone!) sought to discuss above. But setting them aside just for the moment may be preferable.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 00:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Twenty-first-century music is a bad idea; we should not enforce it on those who do not like it. Fowler's twenty=first-century would be better advice for those who must hyphenate in both places.
  • But that is my own view. This page should permit either, or twenty-first century, and let usage reach its own level.
    • If indeed one is found to prevail throughout Wikipedia (through, of course, the independent decisions of editors, not the meddling of some bot), well and good. We have consensus of the encyclopedia as a whole, which will enforce itself; we can note it here for convenience, or not; it won't matter.
    • If none does, as is likely, so be it. We are large; we contain multitudes.
  • I still hold, as I did eight hours ago, that there are obvious reasons why absolute consistency may not be desirable in every article. Where such reasons do not exist, it should be encouraged; but we should do that with a general be consistent clause, not repeat it twenty times.
  • If only one editor discusses something in exhaustive detail, humility might suggest that the detail doesn't matter to anyone else, which might in turn suggest that there is no consensus for a rule about it. This page does not have to, and should not, rule on everything; it contains too much already. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Focus, PMA. And take care to write accurately. What is twenty=first-century, I wonder? However that is worked out, the case is more complex than any other, and has to be confronted. Many style guides make the mistake of showing examples only for simple cases. That is a refusal to give guidance where it is most needed.
I propose an amendment that effortlessly allows for perfect consistency in any article, and freedom to write natural sentences. The fact that we need not always aspire to perfect consistency does not count against the version I offer! It just so happens that we can achieve perfect consistency, this time.
Address the reasons I give in tightly argued detail, or we'll descend into the same time-wasting futility yet again.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 01:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I certainly shall not use the "imperative voice", if only because there is no such thing. The imperative is a mood, not a voice. A pity that you perennially want to discuss WP:CREEP, when the compromise suggestion I offer is among the simplest and most permissive we could formulate. It has the bonus of permitting complete consistency with the use of figures or words in an article. No other suggestion does that. Why is it not "instruction creep" to prohibit naming centuries with figures at the start of a sentence? Look (for once) at the reasons I bring to the table, for my eminently rational suggestion to allow such a perfectly natural practice.
  • My apologies, my command of terminology is clearly slipping; most embarrassing for a Hellenist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Will you now focus, PMA?
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 02:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Stepping back from this: the substance of Noetica's tight weaving is that it is often silly to spell out centuries at the beginning of sentences; so it is. The solution Noetica proposed is a mandatory exception to the mandatory rule against figures at the beginning or end of sentences; the rest of us do not see the necessity of amendments (and eventually amendments to amendments), plunging ever deeper into the Labyrinth of English syntax.

The problem here is that the prohibition of figures at the beginning of sentences is a mandate, and should not be. It's not just centuries it mucks up: While figures at the beginning and end of sentences are generally bad ideas, they are not always the worst solution; sometimes they are the best available solution. 1093 and 3511 are the only existing Wieferich primes;... and ...and therefore Davout did not receive his orders until 5:30. are perfectly good sentence fragments, and, depending on context, it may be very difficult or impossible to recast them without clumsiness, worse than the potential confusion of figures (which is less dangerous in these cases; who would take "5:30." as a decimal?).

The way to permit complete consistency is to permit it; by taking down the artificial wall that prohibits it. Since I see qp10qp has already suggested this, I shall now do a draft. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In doing so, I am reminded that what we already had, here was a mandatory exception (one of several) to a mandatory rule. Noetica proposed a mandatory exception to the mandatory exception to the mandatory rule. Don't let's go there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Detailed response to you, PMA:
  • I have (in this new dawn of the collaborative spirit) supplied an apostrophe that you omitted, immediately above. You might like to revisit your peoples', somewhere far above, which I forbore to blue-pencil.
  • You pretend to speak for "the rest of us". You do not, though; and you speak inaccurately. If you did not see problems with Roger's proposal, perhaps you needed to pay closer attention. The problems I remark on are not from any deep consideration of syntax. They are perfectly apparent if we just look freshly, instead of merely chanting misremembered slogans from some style guide or other.
  • I'm glad you now agree with me: it is silly to demand words to name centuries at the start of a sentence. This is what Roger's proposal called for, and what I seek to amend.
  • In fact, Roger's proposal called for a mandatory exception to the overarching mandate that we have for consistency in articles. My amendment simply reiterates that overarching mandate for consistency: nothing new or "creepy". There will always be clashes of mandates: that's why we have to discuss and analyse. We have a weak and ill-argued "mandate" against figures at the start of a sentence: hinc illae lacrimae.
  • You have noted some such problems with our guidelines for numbers as words or figures (see #Numbers, below); I and others have done the same, months ago. There needs to be more discussion of all that, and it does connect with the current discussion of centuries.
  • The question of what to suggest and what to mandate is a very general one. My proposal mandates no more than Roger's does, and at least mandates consistency, rather than mandating against it. But the general question can't be addressed fully here. It belongs, ultimately, at WP:MOSCO. And of course, one species of consistency will often preclude another.
  • Will you please address again the matter of hyphenated examples, in my amended proposal? I queried your point about Fowler's, above. I still can't see what you're getting at.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 23:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The double hyphen is Fowler's preferred solution to hyphenation when some terms are more closely bound than others. (I believe he even discusses it under "Hyphen", but with Fowler one never can tell.)
The example he began with was a proposed Lloyd George-Winston Churchill goverment. This is illogical (who is this George Winston?); the two proper names should each have a strong internal bond, and be more weakly bound together: Lloyd=George-Winston=Churchill goverment. (All this presupposes the rule that compound nouns should be hyphenated when used attributively, which is more British than American, but Fowler was very British.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
O, that Fowler's (the original: see p. 244, the entry "Hyphens"), and that double hyphen. But no: Fowler had the "stronger" hyphen in the middle: Lloyd-George=Winston-Churchill G[overnment]. He also proposed a "long" hyphen; it is interesting that this innovation, which he said would "hardly find acceptance", has in a way been accepted, since many now use an en dash in complex cases: Post–Franco-Prussian-war developments. The innovation is not taken up in either Gowers' revision or Burchfield's current "revision" (a completely new work, in fact, with glances back at Fowler's original).
And your response to my other detailed points responding to you, PMA? Or would you now rather wait till things are sorted out for figures versus words generally? I'd be happy to come back to this matter of centuries later, as I suggested above.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 01:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Poor example of subset terms

Section "# 14.5 Avoid contested vocabulary" presents this rule for "subset terms": "Do not use two subset terms ('Among the most well-known members of the fraternity include ...')." This is a poor example on several counts. First, it's an imperative sentence, which isn't necessary to demonstrate the principle; a simple declaratory sentence would suffice and is more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Second, it should have a comma after "fraternity." Third, and crucially important, it's a case which actually contradicts the rule, because continuing the sentence logically would lead to something like this: "Among the most well-known members of the fraternity, include Albert Einstein." Note that two "subset terms" appear in the sentence, and quite properly. Unfree (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfree, I also dislike that example. But I think you misread it. That it can be misread adds another reason for concern.
If it is taken as an imperative it is grammatically and stylistically fine, except perhaps for the comma you mention. But I think it was intended as an ungrammatical splicing of these two:

Among the most well-known members of the fraternity are...

The most well-known members of the fraternity include...

If the editor responsible intended this, it is not very apt. People do speak like that on the hop, but it is an unlikely error in moderately literate written text. I think we could simply leave it out, since the point is made well enough without it.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Experience leads me to suspect that
    • This was a real example.
    • In the original, include was declarative, and therefore simply wrong.
It is easy to underestimate the diversity of our editors; this includes overestimating their lower bound. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfree, I think your take is wrong on all counts. WRT the comma, you may be confusing expressions such as "... She bought two suits, including one of wool." Now, what is so hard about the notion of doubling up subset items in this example? We could have "The most well-known members of the fraternity include Albert Einstein" (note no comma, in any case); or "Among the most well-known members of the fraternity was Albert Einstein." Tony (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I won't comment more on the comma, since it is hardly relevant. But the example is not good, even if it occurred naturally and is to be taken as non-imperative. The intended parsing is unclear, so the example is not helpful.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 08:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Years and commas

See this article: Mark Victor Hansen.

There's a list of things that happened. Should the years be followed by a comma, like this?

  • In 2005, he co-wrote,
  • In 2004, Hansen was
  • In 2002, The University
  • In 2000, The
  1. Or not, like this?
  • In 2005 he co-wrote,
  • In 2004 Hansen was
  • In 2002 The University
  • In 2000 The
  1. There's quite a lot of cleanup needed on that article anyway. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. I would use the comma, although I believe omitting it to be defensible; but repeating the same construction in this manner is bad (because monotonous) writing, comma or no comma. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. I agree with PMA, but add that the more formal the register and the longer the sentence, the more likely such a comma is appropriate. WP scores well on both accounts. Tony (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. I think people here forget that comma is supposed to represent something; am I the only one who makes this slight pause after saying "in 1989"? Waltham, The Duke of 13:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    I do pause, and would use the comma myself, but its importance varies with the length of the phrase being divided off. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Referencing style

I know its not here, but the guideline on use of Harvard system for referencing also kind of falls within style because of external links. It seems that editors are unaware that the Harvard system recommended for use in Wikipedia (and other similar systems like Chicago), also applies to the referencing of online sources.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Calendars

Should calendars be drawn using Sunday or Monday as the first day? There are templates that do it one way or the other and it seems reasonable that there should be a standard. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There's certainly no standard in the real world - I make a conscious choice between two leading brands of looseleaf diary pages because one starts the week on Sunday, one on Monday! Are there that many calendars in WP, enough to make consistency matter? PamD (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue comes up in the effort to consolidate templates. There is a template that I want to use to update the calendars that are on the date articles, but the current template has Monday first. I want to change it to Sunday first, but I don't want to get in trouble if there is some sensitivity to having Monday first. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a standard and it is followed widely, at least in international contexts (of which WP is one): secular weeks start on Monday. — Christoph Päper 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The usual American, and I believe Commonwealth, usage is Sunday through Saturday. In Quaker English, Sunday is the "first day" of the week. But this, again, is a matter on which it is not normally necessary to legislate; in contexts, such as this template, where we must decide, it would be more appropriate to follow English-language practice than an international standard; Continental usage should be decisive on other Wikipedias. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this helps, but according to this article, "Most business and social calendars in English speaking countries mark Sunday as the first day of the week." I would think that it would come down to what is the common practice. Regardless of the ISO standard, what do calendars look like for the most part in English speaking countries? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 04:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In the UK, I can't recall ever NOT seeing the week start on Monday. The article quoted above seems plainly wrong (now changed as othwers on the talk page had pointed this out - always Monday in Australia too it seems). Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
PS See Start the Week - 9.02 am Every Monday. Johnbod (talk) 04:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[←] Look in either Chambers, or the OED – Sunday is the first day of the week. It's all biblical, of course: "... and He rested on the seventh day" (Genesis 2:2). Then people come along and say "ahh, but the day of rest is Sunday, so Sunday's the seventh day", forgetting that Genesis is Judaic in origin, and the Jewish Shabbat is Friday/Saturday.

Apparently the British Standards Institute agrees with ISO 8601, but I haven't found the relevant standard (not that I looked hard). Carré (talk) 11:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

But the Christian Sabbath is Sunday! I am surprised to see the OED does indeed say what you say, but I can assure you it is not possible to buy a week-per page/view diary reflecting this arrangement in a normal UK store. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
So how can this be handled in this environment if it is clearly different in the UK and the US? The majority of pages here with calendars on them have Sunday first. No one has complained about that and the pages with calendars starting on Monday are (I believe) much lower traffic pages. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
What sort of pages have calendars? Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
All of the date articles January 1, etc. Month articles January 2007, etc. Year articles 2007, etc. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
What the Christian Sabbath is is largely irrelevant for that side of things, since the whole concept of the day of rest comes from Judaism. However, historically Christians have always met for worship on the first day of the week... Sunday (see this sermon from Durham cathedral). For what it's worth, Britannica also has Sunday as the first day of the week. More (non-UK) evidence? German for Wednesday: Mittwoch, midweek; Portuguese: quarta-feira, fourth day.
I've been editing Sunday (and have several pages of stuff which I've omitted from it), and there it already says that in the Judeo-Christian tradition Sunday is the first and in some cases also considered the last day of the week (it's a theological argument so you go find who to argue it with), while Monday is also considered first by some. Details among all the days probably belong in already mentioned Week. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
As to what to do about it? That's much harder – all of the Judaic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have Sunday as day 1, but the secular world appears to use Monday (ISO and BSI). Once upon a time I found some official UK government website that specified Sunday, but that was a good 5 years ago now, and since then gov.uk has been redesigning their websites to make it easier for them to gather all sorts of personal data, to which they have no right, to burn onto CDs and lose in the post... I mean easier for us voters to use. Carré (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Most calendars seem to have Sunday in the first column. Is that common enough usage to follow until that changes? -- SEWilco (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Please read the above - this seems to be a US eccentricity; in the rest of the Western world they have Monday. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to standardize based on most common usage (if not in the world, on the English Wikipedia)? If there hasn't been any dispute over predominantly using Sunday first, it seems reasonable that standardizing on Sunday first would not cause many waves. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
That is a matter to be discussed at the various templates you have in mind, not here. If I were discussing there, I might prefer Sunday, as what I am used to (Johnbod would differ, it seems); but I do not see any great value to a ruling here. Where templates already exist, I would not alter them: that would appear to be a matter of divergent national usage. Let sleeping dogs lie. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
If we are talking about every date page, I believe they should stay with the existing variety that the existing templates on those pages currently have. It is because they list every event regardless of national variety, plus I do not see a current consensus here to change it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Retaining existing variety would require duplicating a template. That is my whole question. In order to make the calendars on the date articles self-maintaining, I want to use a template that currently has Monday first (but the date articles have Sunday first now). Maybe I'll try to find someone to help me write a parameter into the existing template to allow for the choice. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The parameter is a good idea anyway; which template? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There are seven starting with Template:Calendar/MonthStartSun. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Cast Listing - Film, TV, Novels

Is there a place in the MoS for "CAST LISTING"?

I have seen bolding:

I have seen italics:

I have seen neither:

I have seen quotes:

With a dash:

There needs to be a consensus for Film, Television, Novels, etc. Please point us in the right direction...

WikiDon (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is WP:MOSFILM, but it seems muddled in this area. —Random832 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree we need more clearly defined EXAMPLES, if you look at three different films you will see three different styles. This is similar to the issue I brought up about need examples of HOW a film article should look. I think the a film article STUB should include an empty preformatted list for the cast. EraserGirl (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You left out

Based on WP:MOSFILM, the preferred format is "none of the above". It instead calls for prose about the casting, a guideline much more commonly ignored than followed. - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Providing a non-English name

Under what conditions should a non-English name be provided for a person, place, or thing. For example, it is clear that Chinese dictator Chiang Kai-shek should have his Chinese name provided next to the commonly used English transliteration. The novel War and Peace should have it's original name next to it as well. What about an American actress such as Ming-na Wen or Shannon Lee? Is this the right place for addressing such an issue, or is it already addressed elsewhere?Readin (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The question is covered by Wikipedia:Naming conventions--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Not entirely, although some of the naming conventions do discuss it. WP:NCGN rules, within its field, that a name used by 10% of the English sources should be mentioned; this is probably a reasonable rule of thumb. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
In the first case mentioned there is no single Chinese form of the name, nor of the name Sun Yat-sen. Neither is a Mandarin (Pǔtōnghuà) form.
Bu the way, Chinese names do not have transliterations. They have romanisations.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 08:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

mr3105 said this topic is covered by Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which section covers it?Readin (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any support for saying this?

The following text has been restored by Noetica with an edit summary stating that xe disagrees with it, and that the section is therefore tagged.

In quotations, all Latin terms and abbreviations ("nota bene", "videlicet", "passim"; "i.e.", "n.b.", "s.v.", and "sc.") should be spelled out or not, and italicized or not, as the original author wrote them.
  • Some editors will support the rule on the grounds that all quoted text should be presented exactly as given; they should regard this as redundant with our guidance on quotations.
  • Noetica disagrees with our guidance on quotations, and therefore with this sentence; but why is this exception useful? The section on quotation is what is disputed and should be tagged, unless Latin phrases are the most important exception to the general rule. There's something to be said for making such an exception, but why on this issue, and why here?

Neither side, in short, has a coherent reason for including this sentence: either it is redundant or it is wrong, and neither should be in MOS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As you know, PMA, I have objected to the whole section, in several of its recent permutations. Why single this sentence out for discussion, when the whole question of italicising so-called Latin phrases needs to be settled? We were close to a consensus on a few points before, but you dissented. You are welcome to, of course. We all are! But I think we need to take a fresh look at the whole matter, when we are ready for that. I'm not sure that we are ready yet.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 08:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be "settled". It needs to be left alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Time to reflect

I'm appalled by the way the current discussion in WT:MOS#Centuries and millennia has gone. If a simple and minor change cannot be rationally discussed without edit-warring and filibustering, there is no longterm hope for MoS. The shenanigans over non-breaking spaces did MoS a great deal of harm and the discussion about MainMoS supremacy over Project MoS exacerbated it. Ominously, in several recent discussions in Milhist, editors expressed the view that MoS process was remote, out-of-touch and prescriptive. In short, to personify MoS, it is bossy and overbearing. All this is bad news indeed as MoS's only authority comes from the wider editing world and, broadly, they either ignore or are indifferent it. The only area where MoS has any real authority is in FAs, where articles are required to comply with it. Perhaps the time has come to consider the nuclear option of uncoupling MoS from FAC. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm very much in sympathy with that view, Roger. MOS is in a shocking state, and always has been. There have been improvements in clarity and consistency over the last twelve months, I think. But the difficulty in having a rational discussion towards a fair and durable policy for hard spaces does indeed highlight the deep faults in the current system. As things stand, there is now a guideline that can quite naturally be interpreted to require very many hard spaces. If we want exceptions, they are not made explicit. A shame, really: after all that talk.
But the whole MOS idea needs rethinking. I have said again and again that we need to review procedures and structures, and just about everything else concerning MOS; and I'm very glad that more people can see that now.
There is an opportunity to fix things! Let's put our effort into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style. That seems to be the best hope for reform. For too long we have staggered along in the dark.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 08:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, the MoS has deteriorated sharply is the past twelve months. Some of the worst examples, in my opinion, are the various changes sneaked in under the guise of various "consolidation" attempts.
A lot of the problems are based on Noetica's views that we ought to be prescribing every minute little detail, and refusal to accept what consensus we do have, and most of all, refusal to accept and edit-warring over it when things we do not have consensus for are removed.
Refusal to follow the rules of the MoS on the main MoS page itself doesn't help, either. We do in part lead by our example. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Making the MoS work is a colossal and probably doomed labour. People like Fowler and Follett spent lifetimes working on their guides to usage; and manuals of technical style like Chicago have to be updated regularly and exhaustively. It is asking too much for us to reinvent the wheel, though it is a worthy challenge.
I know there's a school of thought that it would be a good thing if all pages in Wikipedia followed the same conventions; in my opinion, that is publishing-house thinking. Wikipedia isn't like that: it's a huge, decentralised mass of volunteer efforts by people of all backgrounds and nationalities; in this lies the reason for its success, and I am convinced that over-regulation would kill the goose. I therefore believe that the MoS should be as unprescriptive as possible (in other words, rather than attempt to enforce one style, it should be the mother of styles—informing Wikipedians about good practice in non-Wikipedia publishing, and endorsing any valid alternative usage). The only style disputes I have been in on Wikipedia have been against people who wanted to change an existing style because of something they'd read in the MoS: it's divisive. Far better if editors concentrate on consistency within articles. Though I largely try to conform to the MoS, I actually take the CMS (and its sister, Turabian) as my guide, because I know it is more authoritative and reliable (and our MoS sanctions the use of other guides). Where our MoS becomes more prescriptive than CMS, I'm afraid I go with the latter. So in this case, I will ignore any wording that tells me not to write centuries in words, but I will mind my own business about pages that use the other style and will conform to it if I edit them. qp10qp (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with the first three sentences of your second paragraph. I would note that in addition to alienating people for no good reason, MoS prescriptiveness results in editors wasting time making edits that don't meaningfully improve the encyclopedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
One of the worst features of things as they stand is the supremacist attitude held by some that whatever's in the MoS somehow necessarily trumps whatever's going on anywhere else in Wikipedia. I sympathise with and share the desire to standardise style and layout (when it's not taken to extremes), but when contradictions are discovered, they need to be discussed and a consensus sought - which might indeed be that no standardisation is needed on this particular point, or that (heavens above!) a project page might provide a standard that can be incorporated into MoS.
MoS must be able to take advice from the community (particularly the projects) as well as dish it out. That's my greatest hope for the new Wikiproject:MoS - that it will discover or create the feedback mechanisms that will steer MoS back away from unilateralism. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Gene Nygaard writes:

A lot of the problems are based on Noetica's views that we ought to be prescribing every minute little detail, and refusal to accept what consensus we do have, and most of all, refusal to accept and edit-warring over it when things we do not have consensus for are removed.

O, I don't think we should be prescribing every minute detail. Far from it! Several times I have called for, and fought for, tolerance: so long as we have consistency within an article, and clarity and consistency in our guidelines. For example, I like spaced en dashes: but I have always respected the alternative em dashes, and very often replace ens with ems in articles for consistency.
As for hard spaces, I pointed out a consequence of the guideline that we had, and still have. Without such a consequence being pointed out, people may not be able to give it a consistent interpretation.
I have called for sparse, clear, simple, guidelines, and I still do. It's hard to achieve, of course. All sorts of people have got their own agendas to push. Countering that is really hard work. Remember the campaign for curly quotes and apostrophes, and how hard we had to work against that? Remember the silly prohibition against ever italicising names of units, even in mentioning them, or where they occur in italicised titles?
And even now we have mindless prohibitions against ever putting figures at the start of a sentence, and other draconian rulings. O, except where there is an address or similar at the start of a sentence. (Explain that exception, someone! We can write "10 Downing Street is the PM's residence", but not "1066 was the year the Normans expanded into England". Go figure, as they say.)
What standing any of these guidelines have in Wikipedia is a completely separate issue – one that I am pleased we can now address at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style.
And do I edit-war? No. I may defend existing guidelines when they are removed while discussion is still underway. Check my record, since you seem to care so much. My style is predominantly in favour of long consultation. There are several article in which I have discussed at great length without ever editing in them, except to protect them from vandals and to point out a need for discussion or citation. And I will defend myself if you attack me. At length, if necessary.
People come in here thinking they can easily "fix things". They can't. Meanwhile, it does them no credit if they scapegoat the most vocal and conscientious critics of the present chaos.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 08:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Your good work is much appreciated; this page is always a hot kitchen.
On the question of words for numbers at the beginning of sentences, I think it good practice but that it shouldn't be made compulsory. We should leave editors room to manoeuvre on it. qp10qp (talk) 12:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

acronyms (when they have become nouns in their own right)

When is it sensible to stop writing in full acronyms on first occurence? An example I saw quoted was laser, which is now a generally accepted word on common usage. Yet it is an acronym light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation (LASER), but it is rather stupid to say this when first using it.

My immediate concern was G8 and NATO, both of which are normally used conversationally in their abbreviated form, and indeed are used this way as the titles of their respective wiki articles. The long form title is largely meaningless both in the sense that the actual words convey no useful meaning, and in the sense that they would not be recognised so do not help explain what is being referred to. The correct proper name is therefore the acronym letters, not the long form. Sandpiper (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It’s never necessary to expand acronyms, otherwise they wouldn’t be acronyms. If it’s important at all, link them to their article instead – this is hypertext after all. — Christoph Päper 16:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I find that reply comforting but confusing. the text on the article page says:
Write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence. Readers are not necessarily familiar with any particular acronym such as NASA (pronounced as a word) or initialism such as PBS (pronounced by saying the letters themselves). The standard practice is to name the item in full on its first occurrence, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, which seem to contradict your comment. Presumably someone here must support the article wording as it stands, so can explain, or perhaps some rewrite is needed? Sandpiper (talk) 09:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You would only expand it, if you need to explain it and the expansion provided a satisfactory explanation. If you need to explain it, you can as well link to its article. In the lead of those articles, standard practice is indeed expansion first with acronym in brackets (and this would also be done for acronyms that don’t have a separate article).
The current guideline is blindly copied from style guides targeted at printed texts that are not encyclopaedias. — Christoph Päper 13:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, expanding them can often obviate the need to go somewhere else to figure out what it means. A link to ERP isn't half as helpful as a link to effective radiated power, a term that people might well understand as much as they want to without having to follow any links, if it is spelled out on first use. A blind insistence that having a link obviates the advantages of spelling out of first use is downright foolish. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was obvious that one would link the acronym to the article describing the actual meaning in context, not to the disambiguation page (if one exists, which is quite likely for two- and three-letter acronyms). — Christoph Päper 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Look in a dictionary. I don't have the most recent dictionary, but mine has laser and scuba, does not have G8 or NATO. Adding three words in parentheses – G8 (Group of Eight), or Group of Eight (G8) – is not a burden on our readers or our editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Well mine has NATO, though not G8. It may be too old to have recognised G8. For a moment when I saw ERP, I thought EPR, which certainly illustrates a difficulty with initials. However, we still have some contradictory views here. While North atlantic treaty organisation imparts some meaning (without really explaining anything), group of eight hardly helps at all. The issue would be whether inserting explanatory expansions really is a trivial increase in size of an article worth the added information, or confusing clutter which may be completely irrelevant to the context in which the letters are being used. both EPR and ERP impart something when expanded, ERP being much more useful because it really is self-explanatory (at least in the technical context it is likely to occur), but group of eight? I get an image of a parrot saying 'pieces of eight'. Normal usage is to say G8. (as indeed NATO)Sandpiper (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Consistency within articles WP:ENGVAR

Shouldn't it be possible to allow spellings that may be minority spellings for the variant of English an article is written in so long as those minority spellings are in fact used in that variant and so long as they have overlap with other variants of English? For instance when in the US I've noticed "grey" and "centre" and "axe" used fairly frequently while -ize endings are still used by some publishers outside of north america. Do we really need to revert such universally recognised spellings just to reinforce the contrast between variations in spelling? I can certainly understand the need to avoid words like "tyre" in a north american english article or "color" in a british english article but why crack down on the minor variants that get used in multiple english orthographies?Zebulin (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You make a very good point. British English and American English have a huge amount of overlap and, in reality - the signal words apart - it's very difficult to say where one starts and the other begins. Featured articles tend to use primary spellings partly to make it absolutely obvious that the spellings are not typos or spelling of the wrong variety that have crept in. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I generally agree with Driftwoodzebulin, with one proviso. In the U.S. companies and places that want to seem old or a bit exotic sometimes use U.K. spellings in the name of their business or place. I think "centre" would be an example of that. I don't think such usage should be considered evidence of how the word is normally spelled in the U.S. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. In AmE centre is "awful, pompous, and artificial"; grey is merely foreign — it is perhaps most common in the trademark of a prestige mustard. But, as elsewhere, this is intended only to resolve disputes when they arise; if nobody objects to axe, it's harmless.
If British editors do not feel comfortable writing in a foreign tongue, they need not; but they should not object to having their usage regularized. American editors writing on, say, Lord Dunsany should accept the same constraint. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This from someone who until now has appeared to object to any kind of regularisation. Is it only when it suits you? Tony (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Tony: Your frequent personal aspersions, which are personal attacks and fail to assume good faith, are uncivil and also counterproductive (that is, they are the opposite of persuasive). Please examine your behavior. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 15:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Finell, I do examine my behaviour, every day — as I examine my stools. Both are fine, thanks for asking. Tony (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It was precisely the right amount of information to get my point across, thank you, Xnderson. Tony (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Tony: Obviously, I should have been more direct in the first place, so I will rephrase. Your personal insults directed at those who disagree with you are unjustified. Discussion of your excretions, even to make what you think is a "point", is inappropriate on Wikipedia and infantile. Your offensive conduct drives away those who might otherwise agree with you on the matters at hand, and is therefore counterproductive. Please stop it and be civil. Finell (Talk) 03:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Finell. As for the substantive point: no, I support consistency within articles, and always have; varying between British and American English is normally a pointless distraction, and I have yet to see a good reason to do it. (There may be good reasons to be inconsistent on other stylistic features, but that's for other sections.) Varying between fourth and quarter, which either a Briton or an American may choose to do (for example, if one paragraph uses "fiscal quarter"), is another matter. I trust Tony will read this carefully, and attempt to reply without invective. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The discussion of Press-up, below, has provided two minor reasons for varying between the Englishes. This is characteristic, and why this page is a guideline, full of rules of thumb, and IAR is policy. This page should be phrased and treated as advice: almost all of its rules admit exceptions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I find this tagging curious: as far as I can tell, Noetica does not dispute any of the text actually present, but instead would like specific additional text, to which Centrex objects in detail and Roger Davies and I object in general.

This really will not do. But there may be a radical solution: much of the section in question says that we do not impose a single solution on such points as AD 1066 vs. 1066 AD; some of it contains useful advice on such things as the exact meaning of BP.

Most of this is worth saying, but does it need to be said here? Almost all of it is WP:MOS (dates and numbers); the rest of it can be merged. If the dispute tag stays, we can most simply resolve the dispute by replacing the section with a link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it curious that you unilaterally removed the entire disputed subsection, PMA, and thought that this would warrant removal of the dispute tag annexed to it – even while discussion of its content was underway.
I suggest we leave the tag in place until we have a resolution. The question of simply linking or merging this section with WP:MOS is separate; and it is independently controversial. It has nothing to do with achieving a rational and helpful guideline for naming centuries. I suggest we continue working towards an acceptable compromise solution on this question. I have proposed a compromise; see earlier discussion.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 21:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus on it; Noetica's view (including xer "compromise") appears to be the minority, and to have no hope of being consensus. When, and if, we attain consensus, we can put in what we agree on. In the meantime, the tag is misleading, since Noetica does not, as far as I can tell, dispute the remaining matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice try, PMA. But in the end, still empty rhetoric. Enclosing the word "compromise" in scare quotes (as shown) is a particularly cheap trick. In what way is my amended suggestion not a genuine compromise? I repeat (as it seems I must): I am the only editor to have engaged fully with Roger's proposal. Even Roger has not addressed the detail as I have. My favoured position is to use numerals only for naming centuries. I argue cogently for that, citing evidence and sources. But I put forward a compromise! I have sought to keep the discussion focused on concrete matters, including precise wording. I have sought to keep the discussion focused in one place. You are among those who have fragmented it, by raising it here instead of in its section (above). You have been vague and inaccurate in the discussion, as I have shown in that section. And now, what do you mean by it, in "there is no consensus on it"? If the tag, then that's the nature of tags indicating a dispute! If the original proposal, or if my compromise proposal, then of course there is no consensus! That's why the dispute tag is there, and that's why we need to discuss – until we have a clear consensual guideline on this important issue of naming centuries. Your unilateral deletion of the disputed subsection serves no good purpose.
The tag says this: "The following section's wording or inclusion in this policy or guideline is disputed." The omission of the words that you have removed is disputed; so, therefore, is the wording of the section.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 21:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This [tagging], of the section on Latin phrases, however, is even closer to misrepresentation. The dispute, which has been thoroughly discussed on this page, is not over the sentence tagged; it is over other material, which Noetica, apparently alone, would like to add, and which is quite thoroughly controverted. Since, however, the topic was raised by other editors actually disputing the sentence, it seems simplest to remove it also; there is no consensus for it — one would require coming up with a general policy on the use of Latin phrases at all, and no case has been made that we need one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Whistling in the dark again, PMA. And again fragmenting discussion of an issue. Misquoting (and misunderstanding) Wittgenstein in your edit summary is another cheap flourish that has little bearing on what's going on. The facts: we had a guideline concerning phrases borrowed from Latin. It had two or three provisions, in its various forms. Some details were disputed. There was discussion, and we were close to consensus. You disrupted the process, claiming that there were too few editors involved to settle the matter. (Curious how you use that argument when the drift of opinion is against you!) I adduced compelling evidence that you were wrong, and that you had read and reported sources inaccurately. And then you started deleting the relevant content. Now nothing of it remains. Great! No guideline, even where the case was practically settled, for some it at least. Congratulations: I will not revert you.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 21:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Misquotation? Of a phrase which is not English, and has been variously translated? What does that mean? Misapplication, perhaps; I do not claim that this Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen is logical, or theological, necessity; but the translation was fairly literal, more literal than some published versions.
  • Let others judge whether Noetica's account jibes with the actual discussion, which is here. For my part, xer "compelling" reasons do not compel; and they do not seem to have compelled others. A Germanist may recall another cliche, this one concerning Eigenlob.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Amusing, if not particularly useful, PMA. Your translation with should is inept enough to count as misquotation, with its ethical or prudential connotations. More literal and less misleading is must.
Let others judge whether complete removal of a long-standing guideline on which we were having fruitful discussion is a useful contribution. I am never surprised that you never find my reasons compelling: I intended by that term rationally compelling, not compelling to those who work to a fixed agenda, and refuse focused discussion.
But in fact, PMA, others want to move on. So do I. Let's stop all this. Don't provoke me by obdurately ignoring all evidence that I lead against your assertions, and I will not "jibe" against you in return. But if you continue, I have a right to call you to account. If reasonable discussion cannot achieve that in your case, I will resort to other means. As do you, narcissistically conceiving of yourself as right no matter what any editor or any acknowledged style guide or major dictionary says to the contrary.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 01:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I see that the OED regards "jibe with" as chiefly American; but the definition is To chime in (with); to be in harmony or accord; to agree., as a footrule with the foot measured, or the melody with the descant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Conveniently, as usual, passing over in silence OED's other meanings for that verb, PMA?
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 02:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
No, specifying the one I used, in case this were another instance of provincial misunderstanding. Jibe as "quarrel, scold" should not have with, in modern English it takes at or a direct object; nor is the sense possible: "Noetica's account scolds the actual discussion" is nonsense, which I should prefer not to have attributed to me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Permil (‰)

Presumably permil (‰) is treated in the same fashion as percent (%)?

Could the page mention this if so?

Thanks. Verisimilus T 17:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be; but permil should be explained at first usage, and avoided if at all convenient: it is approaching obsolescence.
Until it becomes practical for this page to provide mere guidance, we should not worry about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Numbers as figures or words

This section has, on reading over it, several problems.

  • The "general rule" should not be phrased prescriptively. That is a rule of thumb. It has already accumulated eight exceptions; there's a ninth at WP:MOSNUM, and there should be at least one more:
    • The present general rule would require: After the exposure of the fraud, the stock declined from 101 to nine. Idiom is 9 (even at the ends of sentences).
  • The wording of the rule, a hard line with a major exception, is unnecessarily complex.

I propose we say:

In the body of an article, small and simple numbers are spelled out in words; complicated numbers are expressed in figures. A good rule of thumb is:
  • Whole numbers from zero to ten are expressed in words,
  • Numbers which are expressed in one or two words may be either figures or words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, half)
  • Other numbers should be in figures (3.75, 544, 21 million).
There are several idiomatic exceptions; for these and other details, including the presentation of large numbers, see: WP:MOSNUM#Numbers.

We can also have links to the individual sections of WP:MOSNUM, if they will be useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No view positive or negative on any of this, apart from to say that you probably want to say "complicated" numbers, or some other expression, rather than complex numbers, as that means something very specific and only tangentially related to this (anyone writing out complex numbers in words is just being silly, or demonstrating how silly it would be, I think). SamBC(talk) 16:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course we do. Thanks. (Amended above.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Present text of section

This change to the present text seems to me unfortunate: There are several exceptions: implies that the list that follows is complete. It is not (and is not likely to be); that's part of its problems. Therefore include, rather than this text or comprise, seems appropriate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is surely a matter of giving just some included cases, I agree. But the grammar was "unfortunate" as things stood.
In the end, such a detail is trivially easy to fix. We need to address the whole thing, not just the placement of deck-chairs. See the section below: we have the opportunity to collaborate on making a good guideline. Let's do it!
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 00:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling for a complete overhaul

Of course I agree that the guideline needs fixing. But this is not an easy one. (Don't blame me: it just isn't!)

I have made Noetica's long post into subsections, in the hopes of discussing separate points separately. If this is a problem, feel free to refactor, but I hope this will be clearer.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Your refactoring is OK, but I did not divide things because I was just surveying some issues, not proposing anything concrete yet. See below.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 21:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Setting the break: 10 or 100?

For specific whole numbers (as opposed to dozens, tens, hundreds, etc.) many editors, and many style guides, prefer a default something like this:

All specific whole numbers under 100, in normal use, should be in words, and all other specific numbers should be in figures.

This is great for general prose. An example with ages shows the sort of uniformity it yields:

Blake is eight years older than she is. When he was seventeen and she was nine, that was a huge gulf; but now that he is fifty-nine, eight years seems like nothing at all.

Some points in favour:
  • Numbers under 100 are easy to name with words, having no more than two elements.
  • Numbers under 100 cover a great range of cases: nearly all ages of persons; all years within a century (They've been together since ninety-three).
  • Most percentages mentioned in ordinary prose are specific numbers under 100, except for the very special case of 100%. So uniformity is automatic for those too.
  • Numbers over 100 are rendered in words differently in British (two thousand and eight) and American (two thousand eight), but numbers under 100 are not.
  • Since a break at 100 keeps very many everyday numbers in words, far fewer awkward cases arise that require exceptional treatment than with a break at 10.
I am sure that others can give the points in favour of 10, or 11, as the break at which we switch to figures. Wherever the break is set, it is reasonable immediately to provide one blanket exception:

In tables and similar presentations, and in statistical, mathematical, or technical contexts where there are many numbers, figures should be used.

And here is another useful and common exception:

Where one numeric expression modifies another, one is in words and the other in figures, for clarity (We ordered twenty-three 2-litre flagons of shiraz, or ...23 two-litre flagons of shiraz).

There is much more to say on this subtopic; but I just want to show some of the terrain to be traversed.
  • Meanwhile, we do need to decide rationally whether our guideline should set the break (or prefer complete freedom); then where any break or breaks should be set (10, 11, 100, 101, ...?); and then whether to set one, two, or more standards, with consistency within an article.
    • As Noetica observes, all whole numbers <= 100 are two words or less; so the chief difference of xer proposed text would be never expressing them as figures.
    • I think this is a bad idea; whether such numbers are best expressed as words or figures depends on the field of discourse (largely whether 40 or 60 of something is an extraordinarily large number of them.) Aged eighteen, but often 18th century, 87 destroyers, 16 aircraft carriers, 48 states (but fifty states).
      • I would write They've been together since '93. Spelling out is barely intelligible (and 1993 would be still better, unless we are discussing Anatole France). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • We can add Noetica's rule of thumb, as an alternative, to make clear there are choices. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
No, PMA. I have not proposed any text yet. I have simply exhibited a widely accepted principle, to balance the present restrictive principle that we mandate a break at 11. I agree with you: a mandated break at 100 is a bad idea. So is the present mandated break at 11. Very often (as I have pointed out already), figures alone are best, even for numbers > 10.
I agree also about years like '93, for Wikipedia; but as we have seen in discussing centuries, several experienced editors do prefer words for these things. (I do sometimes, outside of Wikipedia. I had to adjust when I came here.) I don't agree that They've been together since ninety-three is "barely intelligible". Many good writers do it like that, and their readers experience no difficulty. But if that is at all perverse, so is a sentence starting like this: Twenty-first- and 22nd-century robotics will be... . So, I say, is this alternative: Twenty-first- and twenty-second-century robotics will be... . I prefer this, myself: 21st- and 22nd-century robotics will be... .
All this has to be negotiated as an integrated issue, to make room for editors to write well, and to guide them.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Turabian (A Manual for Writers), §2:23 says "All measurements are expressed in figures. The general rule is to spell out all [exact] numbers through one hundred (e.g. thirty-five) and all round numbers that can be expressed as two words (e. g. five thousand). Exact numbers over one hundred are written as figures." I usually go by that. Bubba73 (talk), 01:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
And §2:28 says "Figures should be used to express decimals and percentages. The word percent should be written out, except in scientific writing, where the symbol % may be used." Bubba73 (talk), 01:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Figures or words starting a sentence?

Most style guides set, and most publishers work to, a rule like this:

At the start of a sentence, specific whole numbers of any size are often given as words. This avoids confusion in parsing a string that includes the full stop, or other marks used to show the end of a sentence.

Most style guides and publishers implicitly or explicitly allow exceptions. We should not work simplistically with this. For example, the case of centuries has come up for extended discussion, above. In their case, there is hardly any possibility of confusion if figures are consistently used:

This drew to an end in the 17th century. 18th-century instrumental music had a different harmonic basis.

  • We need to be much clearer in settling the logic involved with numbers starting a sentence (and indeed ending a sentence, which I set aside above, to keep things simple); then we need to be clear in how we set it all out. We should not lightly impose an obligation to recast sentences to evade what is really a perfectly soluble problem.

So I call for more thorough discussion of this important guideline (which affects very many articles), rather than just tinkering with the uneven legacy of earlier discussions. Only a fresh, careful, and analytical discussion will yield a respected, durable, and friendly guideline. – Noetica♬♩ Talk 23:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    • I wholeheartedly agree that we should not be simplistic. But there are two ways of doing that:
      1. Working out an exact rule when to, and when not to. This would include many factors: tone, emphasis, euphony, the exact shape of the preceeding sentence and its likelihood of being seen as an abbreviation.
      2. Including often given as words or some such language, and the reason; which does not make this a simplistic rule of never.
    • The first choice strikes me as deeply impractical. Trying to work out exact rules for English idiom would be a very long process, which would result in something as long, and as unreadable, as the Internal Revenue Code; or rather, each legislator would pursue xer own usage into xer own Internal Revenue Code, and there would never be consensus on details. (And the result would have no influence on anybody aside from its authors because no-one would read it.)
    • Better to remind editors that there is a reason to avoid beginning sentences with numerals, and let the collective intelligence of Wikipedia work out individual problems as they arise. This is both the Wiki way, and the anglophone way; we English speakers have no Academy, and Wikipedia doesn't need one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, PMA. We agree that a simplistic rule like the present one is no good, but that there is sometimes a reason for avoiding figures at the start of a sentence. In this case, perhaps you will not find the principle I presented above rebarbative, just to distil some common thinking on this. I'll now modify it to include endings:

At the start or end of a sentence, specific whole numbers of any size are often given as words. This avoids confusion in parsing a string that includes the full stop, or other marks used to show the end of a sentence.

This needs polishing. I just made it as accurate as I could, rather than readable as a guideline. Fractions are different; so are "generics" like hundreds, dozens, and the like. But we could have something like that, and then list a few important cases in which figures are always preferable, or at least consistency in an article – countering the force of this principle.
I do not share your belief in the capacity of some Wikipedian "collective intelligence" to manage this well: unless it be through the formation of rational guidelines that are then respected and followed. It is absurd to expect such thorny matters of style to be sophomorically thrashed out anew at every article, efficiently and with high-quality results. We can do without such politics here, anyway. Take it to WT:MOSCO.
I could draft a complete proposal for this whole matter of numbers as figures or words, or you could. But I think more discussion is appropriate before we move on to that. What do others think about all this?
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 21:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer not to speak in general of parsing; better to explain the difficulty, such as because periods next to figures can be mistaken for marks of abbreviation or for decimal points. But I think we are heading in the same direction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
PMA, I understand at least one reason for not using the term parsing, given its earlier meaning; but it is apt if we take it in the modern computing sense. Anyway, the term is entirely dispensable, and I never intended its use in a final guideline.
Do we agree that the whole section needs reworking, then? There seems to be no interest from others in the absence of concrete suggestions. Should I put up a full proposal for consideration, or would you like to?
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 05:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead, if you can phrase one. I would make a general guideline and then refer to NOSNUM, and alter that by including several suggested rules. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I could and would. But things are in such a state here and at WT:MOSNUM that there is little hope of getting reasoned discussion, let alone consensus. So let's just add it to the pile of matters to be addressed when things are on a better footing, yes? There's quite an accumulation already!
At least you and I will be able to work better on this next time, it seems.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 04:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Lack of jurisdiction

This is a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) issue, and should be discussed there rather than making changes here and then going and claiming a need to coordinate with MOS which shouldn't be dealing with it in the first place. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is precisely these attempts to go beyond your jurisdiction which leads to inconsistencies in our guidelines. Discuss issues such as this at the place where they logically should be discussed. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Gene, whom do you mean, in this phrase "your jurisdiction"? Several people are discussing (or ought to be). Is it really so very clear which issues should be discussed primarily at WT:MOS, and which at WT:MOSNUM? Discussion of using figures or words for centuries began at WT:MOSNUM; then Roger Davies diverted it to here instead. Why did you join that discussion here, instead of insisting that it continue at WT:MOSNUM? Was it because Roger is not one of the people you have on your list to rail against?
Please be evenhanded and consistent. We can't tell what you will want next! And more importantly, don't sabotage repairs that Sandy and I have made to common provisions at WP:MOS and WP:MOSNUM. Centrx altered an important guideline without consultation in either forum, and that needed to be fixed quickly. Even so, it was discussed, and the discussion was amply pointed to in edit summaries.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 06:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
And as I write, Gene, thanks to your small-minded and legalistic intervention WP:MOSNUM calls for "ten" (a word), while WP:MOS calls for "10" (figures) – with WP:MOSNUM locked and uneditable. Great. Why did you not object to Centrx making the change in question in the first place, on 24 February, without any consultation anywhere? Somewhat partisan, once more? I'll leave it to you to fix the mess you have caused. How do expect FAC to operate, with contradictory guidelines?
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 06:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Making things simplistic for FAC reviewers is of no concern whatsoever here. That isn't the role of the MoS. If they can't base any arguments for change on logic and the existing rules, then maybe they shouldn't be involved in messing those articles up in the first place.
This is the very essence of "style" when it comes to numbers; which numbers should be in words and which should be in figures, and which it isn't worth trying to specify comprehensive rules for, is clearly in the province of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
Yet not only has this discussion taken place at some place other than MOSNUM, it has done so without anybody ever having called this out-of-place discussion to the attention of the people at its talk page, and then you have the unmitigated gall to come and say that you need to make undiscussed changes on the MOSNUM page to "coordinate" it with this page.
You never went to WT:MOSNUM and informed the people there that this discussion was taking place, did you, Noetica? Of course not—but you were the first one, and the last one as well, to try to change the rules there, not only without discussing it there but also without telling anyone there that it was being discussed at another, inappropriate forum.
In your last edit summary at WP:MOSNUM, you said:[16] "Revert; see WT:MOS; it doesn't need to be discussed at WT:MOSNUM too, because it's a simple matter of coordination that we'd all want to see; read edit summaries, where all is explained anyway"
Guess you made your disdain for the MOSNUM editors pretty clear. It's hard to imagine anything reeking more from lack of coordination than what has gone on here.
Now, the important question: Will you ensure that this main MOS page is coordinated with the Manual of Style page which has the primary responsibility in this area? Will you fix it so we no longer have that discrepancy you are so worried about as to whether to use 10 or ten, and we no longer have any nonsense about the "end" of a sentence, etc., or do I need to do that as well? And if I do, will you refrain from edit-warring about it? Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yet again you ignore the plain facts, Gene. Here they are, repeated at length for those who are slow to understand:
  • An editor (User:Centrx; an admin, who should know better) made this change to WP:MOS, without any consultation whatsoever. He or she made the same change at WP:MOSNUM, at around the same time, again without any consultation whatsoever. The edit summary spoke of a change of wording, not alerting us to the change of content.
  • User:SandyGeorgia noticed that something had changed, which affected the core Wikipedia work conducted at WP:FAC. She drew attention to it in discussion here (see below: #Where is the change in spelling out nine to ten?). After considerable misunderstanding and effort (occasioned by Centrx's misleading edit summary), I managed to track the rogue edit down.
  • Since the edit summary was deficient, and there had been no discussion, I notified that I was reverting it. I did so, with a complete explanation and reference to discussion here.
  • Since exactly the same disruption had occurred at WP:MOSNUM, I repaired things there also, fully noting what I was doing, and pointing to discussion here. (That's coordination, get it?)
  • I did not insert any note at WT:MOSNUM. Just how much work do you expect of me, in rectifying the egregious errors wrought by Centrx? Everything was duly noted here, and my changes pointed to the full explanation and discussion here.
  • You compounded the problem by legalistically insisting on the rights of your territory, where clearly everything reasonable had been done to fix things with due recording of every move. The present situation is a mess (WP:MOSNUM locked, with no way to restore coordination with the old consensual guideline), and you have had a large part in bringing that mess about. Myself, I have simply a restored long-standing guideline from unwarranted attack.
  • Once more, I am leaving it you to solve the problem you have now compounded. If, as you say, you don't care about the victims of your petulant selfishness, there is little I can do about that. But it is on display for others to take note of.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 10:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Centrx was, according to his/her edit summary in your link above,[17] merely reverting an undiscussed change:
  • (→General rule: Use previous language, which is more accurate and concise)
Centrx was, in fact, accurate in that claim.
The change by Centrx was, of course, correcting an undiscussed change by none other than the User:Tony1 who chimes in below without addressing the issues, rather just attacking the messenger. He made the undiscussed change from "ten" to "nine" along with a deceptive edit summary (Taking the plunge; the relevant sections are not yet pasted into MOS-central. Still time to consider a few straggling unresolved issues.) here. It was hidden away as part and parcel of a comprehensive edit disguised as a "housekeeping" task.
That was just Tony being Tony. Part of a failed attempt at a power grab, founded on a mistaken belief that he could take over the main MOS page, make his own rules here, then go out and in the guise of "coordination" and of "removing inconsistencies", make the same changes on the MOS pages which should have primarily responsibilities in these particular areas, such as WP:MOSNUM for the quintessential number style issue involved here. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Power, power, power; it's all I care about. My role in the world is to grab it, to muscle in, to elbow aside, to slay all before me—especially this Nygaard person, who continually issues personal attacks. Why don't you give them a rest? On the substantive issue (the residue from the personal attack), I think you're referring to a change at MOSNUM that resulted from discussion on the talk page some time ago; it was duplicated here when guidelines on dates and numbers were finally inserted from MOSNUM. If you've always been so interested in numbers, where were you when MOSNUM discussed the issue? Power, power, power. Shall I write a poem on it and me ... and my buddy Nygaaaaard? Tony (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm finding Nygaard's aggressive actions in this matter hard to take. Same old strategy he's used on me: cast aspersions on the person who dares disagree, and frame them as power-hungry. It just won't wear. Tony (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No surprise that you'd attack me, to divert attention from the fact that you are the one who made the undiscussed change of the longstanding rules from "ten" to "nine" in the first place. You probably just hoped everybody would overlook that little, well-hidden fact. But you didn't hide it away well enough—see above. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Gene Nygaard, go away. No wait... first read what I say below in answer to your wanton slanders. Then go away.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 00:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
What you say below is that there was discussion of and support for a change from "ten" to "nine" as a cutoff point on WT:MOSNUM back last July.
However, that is completely different from what you used as justification for changes on WP:MOSNUM, in your edit summaries there. You were using this March 2008 section of discussion in WT:MOS to justify your reversions--you were not using a July 2007 discussion on WT:MOSNUM to justify it. That's why you got reverted, once by me and once by User:Fnagaton. Your edit summary claims did not justify the changes you were making.
Apparently, Tony1 knew last July where the discussion belonged. It is unfortunate that you have now forgotten that, and tried to use a discussion here to change things that are primarily in the province of WP:MOSNUM and not WP:MOS. Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Gene, you now effectively admit your latest error, though in a singularly ungracious way, below. You made it necessary for me to scour the archives to undo the damage your slanders cause, but still you will not take responsibility for your other bumbling deeds, flying in the face of consensus as recorded in the archives. I reverted an undiscussed and unconsensual change by Centrx (dated 24 February). I went through perfectly adequate discussion, and provided the fullest edit summary I could at both WP:MOS and WP:MOSNUM. Not only did you accept Centrx's change (which undid a documented consensus, and was completely undiscussed anywhere), you accused me of not discussing, and of a breach of consensus.
I don't propose to waste any more valuable time talking to the likes of you, Gene Nygaard. Just go and fix the mess you've now made, and don't bother us any more with narrow, legalistic excuses to support patently spurious edits. I've done enough hard work to rectify your errors and Centrx's: so has Tony, and so has Sandy. Stop disrupting our worthwhile efforts towards consensus and stability.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 05:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't need to go looking for other reasons which might justify your edit. When you haven't discussed it and your edit summary claims a reason that is not sufficient for your change, that is good cause for me (and for Fnagaton) to revert it. Had you chosen to discuss it the first time, rather than just reverting for the same faulty reasons, you might have discovered the earlier discussion sooner. Gene Nygaard (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Tempting as it is demonstrate once more how mistaken you are, Gene, I will not. Someone has to draw this disgraceful episode to a close. No more! Just fix the problem, OK?
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 06:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You need to focus on actual justifications for one wording or another, rather than this lawyerly procedure nonsense. The lawyerly procedural nonsense is not going to get you anywhere anyway, since the original wording was the product of extensive discussion and consensus among numerous editors and re-agreed over the course of years, whereas the alteration made by Tony1 was done without any discussion. The "single-digit" rule is arbitrary, "given as" is vague where "spelled out" or "written out" is clear, "figures" is less precise than "numerals", and the descriptive statement is excess that does not help the reader. Also, the Manual of Style is a guide for editors, not an iron-fisted rule book, and it cannot handle every possible contingency if it is to be clear and useful. —Centrx→talk • 09:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You need to stop your puerile attempts to patronise those who are way ahead of you in this game, Centrx. You are the cause of the present confusion, and the failure to coordinate the guidelines at MOS and MOSNUM. As demonstrated (to the satisfaction of anyone takes the trouble to read what I have retrieved from the archives), there was perfectly adequate public discussion (at WT:MOSNUM) about the text that had stood for months, until you reverted it without clear explanation and without any discussion whatsoever, anywhere. If you are hungry to disrupt a page, do it at MOSNUM, and leave MOS alone. Here, the reversion of your vandalistic return to some imagined past guideline was discussed, as no one can deny. Go away and think, before coming here and resuming a time-wasting exchange that no one here wants or is interested in. We have other things to attend to, thank you.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 11:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've searched the archives with a few terms from the revised text and found nothing. There was discussion in general about re-organizing the page, but evidently nothing substantial about that wording. Anyway, address the objections to it if you think it should remain. —Centrx→talk • 17:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Usage of hyphens, item two

In this section, it says that:

"The hyphen is usually used when the letters brought into contact are the same (nonlinear, subabdominal, but non-negotiable, sub-basement) or are vowels (intra-atomic, pre-existing, semi-intensive, co-opt)..."

As one can see, the vowels coming into contact are the same; either better examples ought to be used, or hyphens are not really used when two different vowels come into contact and therefore the phrasing ought to be changed. I have no idea about which is valid, but I am confident that someone else does. Waltham, The Duke of 13:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, the last statement may be false; I do have a feeling that hyphens should be used for all vowels; this would mean that the phrasing is correct, but better examples are needed. Still, I am not certain, and I am in no position to offer good examples anyway. Waltham, The Duke of 13:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a trend among some North Americans to jam together such words as preempt. Needs to be accommodated. Tony (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The OED uses coexist, although one quotation is co-exist. On the other side, they use co-executor and co-factor although all the quotations omit the hyphen (and, at least in the mathematical sense, cofactor is the standard spelling). Both are valid; the best advice would be to follow usage, but use the hyphen if usage is undecided and it avoids confusion (either by having ii which is hard to read, or by having a spurious diphthong). If we do not advise, we should leave it to editorial judgment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
"Jam"? This ain't roller derby, Tony. The preference for closing such compounds is past being a trend at this point in American English; it's well-established style. Almost all the words hyphenated in the relevant MoS section appear closed in Merriam-Webster's, the standard American English dictionary: nonnegotiable, subbasement, preexist, retarget—likewise, all non-, sub-, pre-, re-, and similar compounds are given as closed (nonnative, subbranch, preelectric, reengage). The exceptions are to keep hyphenated those compounds where closing would result in a double a or double i. Many cases with a double o (such as co-opt) are kept hyphenated, while long-standing compounds are closed: cooperate, coordinate. Aside from the specified double vowels (and homographs, addressed elsewhere), no exception in favor of hyphenation is ever made for words that are "uncommon"; for instance, the regrettable adjectives intraday and preheadache are given as closed. Almost every U.S. publishing house style sheet that I have seen that addresses hyphenation refers the editor/proofreader to Webster's (many also refer to the Chicago Manual of Style, whose overall approach to hyphenation is very similar, if less consistent).
A nonscientific examination of the New York Times and Washington Post show they are in all observable respects in accord with this style. A quick selection from the Times, again using the example words from our MoS section: "Iran Declares Its Nuclear Plan Nonnegotiable", "Strength Renewed, a Grand Old Building Is Back" (note "the Capitol's subbasement understructure"), "A State Finds No Easy Fixes on Health Care" (note "consideration of preexisting medical conditions"), "President Putin Talks of the Future as Premier" (note "We will have to retarget our missiles"). The Times likewise tends to avoid the double a and i. The double o is again on a case-by-case basis, with more words closed than is true of Webster's; coopt is specifically recognized.
The MoS should be emended to reflect the current and verifiable state of the language.—DCGeist (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
How about pro-active? If I were Fowler, I would simply oppose using the non-word at all, but we're not Fowler. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It's an awful word, but it's an awful closed word. Closed in Webster's. Closed in CMS. Closed in the Times. Closed in the Post. Except for specific homographs and cases with double a, i, and sometimes o, the leading touchstones for American English style are really very consistent and in unanimous accord at this point: close all those compound words formed with prefixes.—DCGeist (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Is there a reason this discussion has so far been restricted to American English? A quick sampling of the online-searchable Compact Oxford English Dictionary indicates that prefix-formed words have the hyphens in in British English, at least according to one of the leading British dictionaries. SamBC(talk) 18:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Then we should say that this is one of the points on which national usage differs; but the full OED is in fact slightly inconsistent, and is not consistent with its cited evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think the MoS should explicitly address both American English and other national varieties on this matter, as it does concerning other issues. And--supporting PMAnderson's observation--it's my impression from reading the London newspapers every summer for a few weeks that there's much less consistency on this matter in Britain, at least in journalism, than there is in America.—DCGeist (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
My personal impression of living here for my whole life is that the hyphenated version is considered more correct, but the unhyphenated versions can be acceptable (except in the case of homographs, double-a or double-i, etc etc, and even then a lot of people don't see why). Some words have been largely integrated unhyphenated (like cooperative), but these are exceptions. However, that's all just from my own experience. SamBC(talk) 19:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
If I may give a layman's opinion on this, given that in some places these words are hyphenated, and in other places they are "closed", as I believe the correct term is, shouldn't then the Manual of Style advise the editors, if it should advise them anything, to hyphenate most words for the sake of clarity? After all, those who are used to un-hyphenated words will still make sense of the hyphenated ones, while the opposite is not necessarily true. Besides, the current version of the MoS more or less suggests this. Hell, I wasn't thinking of any drastic changes when I started this thread, although I could certainly see the possibility of it growing into a full-fledged debate (in the loose sense), as most things do in this page. Waltham, The Duke of 01:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
No, we should not. If we do, it will be taken as a requirement by boneheaded FA reviewers. Having an article on the Capitol in Washington fail FA because an American editor has written subbasement, sound American English, following the Washington Post, is the sort of thing that costs us good editors.
On the pure question of good practice, if an Englishman can read the Post, and I do not know of any complaints they can't, he can read our article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
And an American woman? Tony (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Many of them will prefer not to, after this recent fiasco; but unless Tony agrees with Charlotte Allen, I don't see the point here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
We can read it and understand it, and those of us who are educated and pedantic will fume a little, and a lot of us will have to read some things twice and so on, in my experience. SamBC(talk) 13:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that MOS ought to note that it's effectively an ENGVAR issue and to be consistent within articles, and thus not have articles failing FAC for their choice, only if they switch back and forth messily. SamBC(talk) 13:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Although its heartening to see so many people care about good grammar, this talk section is reenacting a battle that played out more than 150 years ago. (did you catch re-enacting?)
Only five years ago the word "cellphone" was still commonly written as "cell-phone". Ten years ago the term was "cell phone." This process by which new words are coined is as old as the English language itself. Twenty years ago we still had 'de-coder', forty years ago 'tele-vision', sixty years ago the 'aero-plane' and 'air-craft', eighty years ago the 'auto-mobile', ... All gone the way of 'pro-create', 'pre-meditate', and 'para-medic'.
No one thinks twice about 'therefore', 'nevertheless', 'whoever', 'whenever', 'whatever' and 'however'. But we still write 'where ever', because it still puts our teeth on edge to put two instances of the vowel next to each other. Which is why we also still write 're-elect' (and not 'reelect'), and 're-edit', 're-entry' and even echo Kirk's command to "re-energize." But as the words 'preempt' and 'reenact' demonstrate, the space between '-e e-' will vanish eventually.
The point is,... there aren't any hard-and-fast rules. What was invalid yesterday, might be valid tomorrow. Short of a MOS proclamation that The New Yorker's use of diaeresis to mark transitions is the penultimate example of sophisticated orthography, there isn't much to tell editors about hyphenation. Not only would any guide be quickly obsolete, a WP guideline (or is it 'guide-line'?) would exceed its mandate as it tries to explain why 'in-laws' is hyphenated, but 'outlaws' is not. :p -- Fullstop (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge the validity of some of your points, Fullstop (British for "Period", hehe), but we are not discussing the hyphenation of to-morrow and suit-case here. We are discussing the hyphenation of words which are hyphenated in a large part of the English-speaking world. To some people it matters nothing if cell phone is written as cellphone in the United States; they will still view it as bizarre because they are not as used to this mentality of sticking words together. We surely ought to put things into perspective, and I agree that we should not be too prescriptive in how language is used in article-writing, but I do not believe that we can afford to allow too great linguistic disparities proliferate within Wikipedia just because there are articles about different parts of the world. This is supposed to be an international project, not a patchwork of national ones; a compromise must be made, even if only a one of a limited scope. And yes, the rules do change. (They do so in the US a lot faster than in the rest of the world, however, so I would not call it an example perfectly representative of any global tensions.) But we are here to discuss the present, not the future, even if the latter surely ought to be taken into consideration. The "futility", in a sense, of some of the efforts here, whose fruits are doomed to eventual erosion, is not an important factor in my opinion. Not only is it an unavoidable element of the mechanics of Wikipedia, but the Manual of Style is supposed to be helpful at all times, as are all components of Wikipedia, with first and foremost its articles. And that's our difference from paper encyclopaedias: we can adapt. Fast enough not to be concerned about delays.
Personally, I dislike forms like reenact. Apart from the obvious intiuitiveness issue, about which you were more or less correct, it is also bad orthography: the hyphenated version correctly indicates a succession of two vowels, while the unhyphenated one suggests a simple ee sound. If I didn't pronounce re-enact as "ree-eenact", reenact would seem completely unintuitive to me. And I'd like to think that I'm not alone in this. Waltham, The Duke of 02:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's very hard for a MOS such as this one to cover these issues of hyphenation prescriptively: it's an unstable part of the language, and will continue to be. So mapping ENGVAR, personal preferences and flux over time onto each other is bound to be appallingly complicated. The existing references to these issues (at least the first two) in MOS already present a flexible frame, don't they? Tony (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Right. And, MOS would have to defer to dictionary spelling anyway. So it might as well defer to a dictionary to begin with. As item #2 already does. -- Fullstop (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Which dictionary? Hyphenation varies massively between UK and US dictionaries, at least. Even with deference to dictionaries, there's an essential ENGVAR issue. SamBC(talk) 12:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
One which records the relevant national variety of English. Should we add this? Does it really need to be spelt out? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>
One case where hyphens are not normally used with adjacent vowels, whether the same or different vowels, is the attachment of prefixes to units of measure: kiloamperes, milliamperes, gigaohms, microinches. When I say "not normally used", I take into account that we do have people who put hyphens in "kilo-volts" and most anything else (not same letter adjacent, not vowels), often accompanied with miscapitalization as kilo-Volts and the like; I've changed several of them on Wikipedia. Rarely, things like kiloangstroms. While I've seen "ku" used as a unit symbol, I don't know that I've ever seen "kilounified atomic mass units" or a hyphenated or en-dash variant or even one with a space after "kilo" spelled out, nor such usage without the "unified" adjective in the proper name for this unit.

Furthermore, there is a trend away from the old practice of dropping one of the vowels, something not mentioned in this MoS guideline, in some cases: kilohm→kiloohm, megohm→megaohm. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

see also

Please could someone point me towards a full discussion of what is and isn't appropriate in a "see also" section. I have been wandering around the community and policy and MOS pages for a while, and can't see what I need. Thanks. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:GTL and the talk page. In a newer or new-ish article, See also is where you park articles that later need to be worked into the text. In a "mature" article, See also should be minimal, links should be worked into the text, and See also should only be links that are highly related but don't have a place in the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If in doubt, leave it out! Put another way, if you can't work it into the text, it may well not belong. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Good one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

WikiProject Manual of Style

I have promised in a few places to take forward the idea of a WikiProject to coordinate the multiple pages of the Manual of Style and facilitate communication between its editors. I think this is an approach which may work; it is, at the very least, worth trying. For it to be successful, it needs to have its scope clearly defined and to have the support of a wide range of editors involved with Manual of Style issues. Also, although the following is not a requirement for starting a WikiProject, it is common to propose new WikiProjects at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. I think doing that would be helpful in this case, but I also think that first it would be a good idea to have some discussion here. For information, I would also note that suggestions for starting new WikiProjects can be found here and here.

A first thing to agree on is the name of the proposed WikiProject. I was really hoping to think up an excuse for calling the project MoS DEF, but I see that this joke has already been made, so I suggest instead a straightforward title following the heading of this section. I'm not sure about the capitalization, but think it's best to follow the usage here and elsewhere.

As a tentative scope, I suggest something along the lines of "The purpose of this WikiProject is to coordinate the multiple pages which form part of the Wikipedia Manual of Style and to provide a forum for editors interested in the Manual of Style to resolve discrepancies and discuss related issues", but that is just a starting point to stimulate discussion. I have no wish to play a leadership role in the proposed project, but will be happy to facilitate in a Wikignome-like way and would encourage those who like the idea to do the same. In particular, I think it is very important that the project is as inclusive as possible, and is supported by editors with a wide range of views: it shouldn't, in my view, take a stance in the debate between those who want a more prescriptive Manual of Style, and those who want a more flexible one; instead it should provide a neutral forum for discussing such issues as they apply in each particular case. But these are just my thoughts: many other thoughts are needed! Geometry guy 17:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess the priority could be discrepancies and those points having been highlighted as most contentious (?) initially. Not a bad idea I guess as issues seem to crop up from time to time. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
No opinion on Project name, but I hope the Project's scope will include discussion of how pages are added to {{style}} and how discrepancies are identified and discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I supported this above; this should probably be the place where ironing out discrepancies happens. Let's see a draft; it would be nice if it mentioned the princriple on which Jitse settled the AD 1066 matter above: we shouldn't make any rules unless necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
How about "MOS DEFRAG"? Considering all the fragging that arises over this issue, defragging would be a pointer in the right direction. Askari Mark (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that the WP:UE be the first addressed in regards to article titles since there is an increasing tendency to use languages other then English in titles based on citation of policies by national governments and international organisations, but not taking into account teaching practices of the English-speaking world. It seems to me that an article begins with a title, and as the Lewis Carroll saying goes "Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end; then stop." ;O) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be in favor of the Project addressing any particular guideline first; the initial goals in my mind would be to discuss how pages get listed at {{style}}, discover where inconsistencies and overlap may exist between pages, how to streamline and maintain consistency, etc. I don't think the Project should be set up to "police" a given guideline, or it will certainly fail. (Does anyone remember the Extra-Long Article Committee? That is not what we want and hopefully not a goal.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Having a central place where people can nuke it out regarding MOS issues sounds like a good idea. I'm not sure if that would be better accomplished by a WikiProject or a noticeboard (although the difference would be quite arbitrary). As long as there are no self-appointed rulers with veto powers over whether something is changed or added to the MOS, it should be all right. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I support this move. At the very least, a page where users can point out inconsistencies between the MOS and its sub-pages is required. The project could organise its membership to audit selected sub-pages for inconsistency, overlap, and internal structure (reporting back their findings, and not necessarily taking unilateral action). The project might develop guidelines for how pages might become affiliated with the MOS in the first place. Tony (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Starting with a sound explanation of which there should be any barrier to becoming "affiliated with MOS" in the first place. (Empire-building, of course, is not a sound reason.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I support the move to start a WikiProject to sort out the sprawling and unmanageable hydra that MOS has evolved into. Personally I would like a title with the idea of coordination in it: WP:MOSCOORD or something like that. The terms of reference and the agenda should not be set now, except in the broadest way. There is a great deal that is very general to work out, before we get down to specifics.– Noetica♬♩ Talk 06:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Including coordination in the title is setting the terms of reference. We have discussed the idea of having this talk page coordinate all of MOS, and we disagree over that at least as much as anything else; I would prefer not to begin with the assumption that a new page, about which we know nothing, will do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my slowness in following this up, given the general support for the project idea. It seems to me that "WikiProject Manual of Style" is the right title, but several useful shortcuts have been suggested here. I agree with all comments that the mission and/or terms of reference of this WikiProject should not be set in stone. However, we have to start by saying something about why the project is needed and what it will do. Its role will evolve according to perceived needs and benefits. If the project does not have the support of editors of manual of style pages, it will just become a talk shop, so I think we are safely within the grounds of "primum non nocere" here!

I am willing to initiate a proposal/draft taking into account comments made here, but have been distracted by a few other things in the last couple of days. Geometry guy 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Style would be shorter, and allow us to discuss more than this unfortunate Manual. Phillip Bard Shearer has long since questioned whether calling this a Manual encourages the bullying tone so characteristic of these pages; and this should certainly be one of the things under consideration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've now formally proposed this WikiProject at WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Manual of Style and have made a draft project page here. Please feel free to express your views on the draft and tweak it. Please also indicate your interest in the project on the WikiProject Council page, and the draft itself. Thanks, Geometry guy 23:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:WikiProject Manual of Style is now up and running, and discussions are beginning at WT:MOSCO on its principles and how it will operate. I encourage editors here to contribute, bearing in mind the coordination issue that the project has been set up to address. Geometry guy 10:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)