Loading

  • 21 Aug, 2019

  • By, Wikipedia

Wikipedia Talk:Manual Of Style
Wikipedia's Manual of Style contains some conventions that differ from those in some other, well-known style guides and from what is often taught in schools. Wikipedia's editors have discussed these conventions in great detail and have reached consensus that these conventions serve our purposes best. New contributors are advised to check the FAQ and the archives to see if their concern has already been discussed.

Why does the Manual of Style recommend straight (keyboard-style) instead of curly (typographic) quotation marks and apostrophes (i.e., the characters " and ', instead of “, ”, ‘, and ’)‍?
Users may only know how to type in straight quotes (such as " and ') when searching for text within a page or when editing. Not all Web browsers find curly quotes when users type straight quotes in search strings.
Why does the Manual of Style recommend logical quotation?
This system is preferred because Wikipedia, as an international and electronic encyclopedia, has specific needs better addressed by logical quotation than by the other styles, despite the tendency of externally published style guides to recommend the latter. These include the distinct typesetters' style (often called American, though not limited to the US), and the various British/Commonwealth styles, which are superficially similar to logical quotation but have some characteristics of typesetters' style. Logical quotation is more in keeping with the principle of minimal change to quotations, and is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing, than the alternatives. Logical quotation was adopted in 2005, and has been the subject of perennial debate that has not changed this consensus.
Why does the Manual of Style differentiate the hyphen (-), en dash (–), em dash (—), and minus sign (−)?
Appropriate use of hyphens and dashes is as much a part of literate, easy-to-read writing as are correct spelling and capitalization. The "Insert" editing tools directly below the Wikipedia editing window provide immediate access to all these characters.
Why does the Manual of Style recommend apostrophe+s for singular possessive of names ending in s?
Most modern style guides treat names ending with s just like other singular nouns when forming the possessive. The few that do not propose mutually contradictory alternatives. Numerous discussions have led to the current MoS guidance (see discussions of 2004, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2017, 2017 (the RfC establishing the present consensus), 2018, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022).
Why doesn't the Manual of Style always follow specialized practice?
Although Wikipedia contains some highly technical content, it is written for a general audience. While specialized publications in a field, such as academic journals, are excellent sources for facts, they are not always the best sources for or examples of how to present those facts to non-experts. When adopting style recommendations from external sources, the Manual of Style incorporates a substantial number of practices from technical standards and field-specific academic style guides; however, Wikipedia defaults to preferring general-audience sources on style, especially when a specialized preference may conflict with most readers' expectations, and when different disciplines use conflicting styles.

Welcome to the MOS pit


    Style discussions elsewhere

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

    Current

    (newest on top)

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Capitalization-specific:

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

    Move requests:

    Other discussions:

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Concluded

    Extended content
    This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Concluded.[edit]
    Capitalization-specific:
    2024
    2023
    2022
    2021

    Is there a MOS guidance that applies to changing between common terms based on the name of the Wiki article?

    Do we have a guideline for dealing with different name, common names for the same thing (Inline-four engine vs Straight-four engine)? The target article, Straight-four engine, has used both names (changed in 2009 and 2022). Sources use both terms but I think the shorted "I4" is used more often in sources. I presume we would follow something like the MOS:ENGVAR where if there is no source preference we go with what the editors used first. Recently an editor, Kumboloi, made a number of good faith changes in linking articles from "inline-four" to "straight-four" to align external article text with the target article name. Is there a guide on this? How should this be handled? Springee (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a policy, our naming conventions policy, which largely doubles as our policy on article titles. Generally, for a given thing there's no reason to use a different name in the prose of any other article than one would use in the article about the thing itself, if that makes sense.Remsense ‥ 论 14:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure where the naming convention says we should change article text in a case like this. The article in question indicates both names are common (A straight-four engine (also referred to as an inline-four engine)). This is also reflected in the two name changes over the years. I don't see where the naming convention says we should favor the target article name vs what the individual article sources are using. Consider a hypothetical, I'm created a Wiki article about the new "CarX". My RS source that says, "CarX uses an inline four engine". Why would I not follow the source vs use the title of our straight four article? This is especially true if if the hyperlink is added later by a different editor. Also, until 2022 the title of the article was "inline". A consensus of 3 editors changed the article name. That's fine but the result is many changes to other articles. If a new consensus of 5 editors reverses the change do we flop back? I think it's less disruptive (makes articles more stable) if we avoid article text changes in cases like this. However, I am interested in knowing what guidance might apply here. Springee (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm interested in understanding this. My motivation in making the edits came down to a suspicion that there was some type of penalty incurred by linking through a redirect page, or that the redirects imposed a maintenance overhead. I hadn't read the naming convention, but if there's no real reason to reduce the number of redirected links, and recognizing that the target page could just as easily be renamed again in the future, I'll stop doing these edits. (Personally, I prefer "inline" to "straight", but I can see how the renaming would help organize the associated pages.) Thanks. Kumboloi (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My reasoning is WP:NC stresses how we are required to name things, as we are un all editorial decisions, based on WP:V and WP:NPOV (in many cases this boils down to the result of WP:COMMONNAME). It has provisions specific to the article title and not the body, but much of it is expressing how to apply V and NPOV in deciding what to call things.
    If we take alternative names as such—e.g. that, all else being equal, we do take inline four and straight four to be synonyms, truly referring to the same thing for our purposes—it makes very little sense to "wall off" which names are used in a particular article, as there are no clear limits on how strictly this would have to be observed. Am I allowed to use any synonymous nouns, verbs, or adjectives in my synthesis that don't happen to appear in my three best sources? On the other hand, naming according to a generalized scope is surely more coherent for a hyperlinked encyclopedia providing tertiary analysis instead of merely refactoring and reshuffling the specific language of our secondary sources.
    Of course exceptions abound, much of the time alternative names and redirects should be freely used according to syntactical and contextual concerns—but I believe this to be correct mindset to assume by default. I don't think any given article that uses First World War needs to be changed. However, in cases like these, I feel it pays dividends to use terminology consistently between pages. If readers are encountering technical or domain specific language for the first time, we create the most helpful and coherent tertiary analysis for them if we zoom out a bit. It makes no sense to prefer Sassanid to Sasanian just because the book we're citing prefers the former—e.g., in an article about a specific battle, or a broad conceptual article not specific to the Sasanians—our deliberately preferring Sassanid simply does not aid the reader in becoming familiar with whatever additional context they're going to go to Sasanian Empire for in order to better understand our other article.
    If I wake up and find this totally incoherent, I apologize. It's hard to speak clearly about naming and reference, though it's one of my favorite things to think about. Remsense ‥ 论 16:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTBROKEN clearly says: "Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]." So if a link already leads to the correct article, but using an alternative name that redirects, that's absolutely fine and nothing more needs to be done. I realize that you're probably not talking about piping, but about changing the link text and link target together – but that too is unnecessary if the existing link target works fine (by redirecting). Gawaon (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kumboloi, thanks for that explanation. It reaffirms my believe that you were acting in good faith (I hope you took my revert that way as well). Springee (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there needs to be a good reason to not use the article title in text (and they do exist), and that can be discussed on a per-case basis at the relevant article (or other) talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Remsense ‥ 论 17:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so long as it is realized that THERE RATHER OFTEN IS A GOOD REASON! National language preferences for one thing. Busywork drive-by changes should be strongly discouraged. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Goes without saying! Remsense ‥ 论 19:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just thought I'd drive by and agree with that. EEng 22:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer the the OP's question is "More or less yes", in the form of MOS:STYLEVAR. Remesense's idea above that article titles policy and its dependent naming-conventions guidelines and essays (which actually defer to MoS on style questions) somehow dictate in-article content. They absolutely do not, or we would simply merge them. However, agreement with the page title can actually qualify as a good reason for a text change under STYLEVAR a lot of time, such as when a old page title (and our mirroring of it in the text) was a misnomer, unhelpfully ambiguous, obsolete, or obscurantist. When such problems don't apply, then having more than one way to refer to the subject is a boon to editors and readers, since it allows us to write less repetitively. But the lead should almost always agree with the title, and start with the term/name in the title and secondarily provide any noteworthy alternative(s). Some exceptions of course apply, such as when a term/name in the title is a colloquialism and used for WP:COMMONNAME purposes in the title but is not the best way to introduce the first sentence (this is especially common at biographical articles, in which we often give the full "Elizabeth" or "Robert" name of someone more commonly called "Liz" or "Bobby" and given that way in the page title).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they must dictate in-article content to a degree at least—it would make no sense to use a particular name in the title and initial definition (I've been assuming congruence throughout, e.g. no disambiguators considered) and then never again. Remsense ‥ 论 03:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a correlation/causation mix-up. What you're talking about is just WP:Common sense (to the point of "Don't be intentionally perverse as if with a goal of confusing readers as much as possible") and a matter of MOS:BETTER. It's not an element of title policy or of naming conventions, which do not address article content (except a few of the worst-written NC pages have a statement or two in them about body content that needs to move out of those pages; I've been cleaning those up as I run across them).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been racking my brain trying to articulate exactly what I mean here, but I do not think it is merely correlative. Hopefully that is a useful thought inasmuch beyond just the trivial truth that the language one is exposed to affects the language they go on to use and think in terms of. Remsense ‥ 论 19:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Commas around incorporated businesses' names

    from looking at MOS:COMMA, there isn't any guidance on how to deal with names with Inc.. multiple articles do any of the following, either with no comma, a comma only before and a comma around the word.

    1. Mumumu Inc. is a company ...
    2. Mumumu, Inc. is a company ...
    3. Mumumu, Inc., is a company ...

    I am aware that the commaless and comma style may coexist (sometimes in the same article!), however the second and third styles should likely be decided upon. Juwan (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    An editing policy question

    When I read Wiki policy and guidance pages, I sometimes find shall used instead of will to indicate what must be done — for example, in the Signs of Sockpuppetry article, we find: "The more signs that are present, the more likely sockpuppetry is occurring, though no accusations shall be made unless, beyond a reasonable doubt, one is really certain."

    Granted that shall is often used this way in government and judicial documents, I think it sounds somewhat at odds with the more user-friendly ambience Wikipedia has tried to create for editors. Besides, shall is not consistently applied throughout the policy and guidance pages — for example, in the same Signs of Sockpuppetry article, we find: "The closing administrator will be required to follow the consensus, even if they personally disagree."

    — For the above reasons, wouldn't it be in Wikipedia's best interests to avoid using the conversationally archaic shall in these articles and replace it with will?? I doubt that this would make editors with wrongdoing on their minds less likely to behave as desired.

    — But if the decision is made to continue "shalling," then for the sake of consistency couldn't a search-and-replace be done throughout the policy and guidance articles to replace will with shall where the word needs to indicate what must be done? Augnablik (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's fine, really. This is one of those things the MOS exists to obliquely neutralize—i.e. this is a pretty conjectural position and not worth getting into all-in or all-out discussions over. Remsense ‥ 论 17:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “Obliquely neutralize” — there’s a new one for me! 😅
    I just thought it would help lighten the bureaucratic tone of these articles to dial down the legalese, as many editors feel increasingly on edge with all the rules and regulations they discover the more they wade into Wikipedia. Augnablik (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Genuinely, I apologize that I can't talk normal when the situation would benefit from it. Take that how you will. Remsense ‥ 论 17:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or shall. EEng 17:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    😂 Augnablik (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Am losing the will to live here, mate. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The classic rule is that, in the first person (I/we) the unmarked form is "shall", whereas "will" connotes a deliberate choice, but in the second and third person, the unmarked form is "will", whereas "shall" connotes a demand based on the speaker's authority.
    There are two good ways to remember this. The classic one is the English canard about the Irishman in trouble in the lake, who said "I will drown and no one shall save me", so to respect his wishes, they let him drown.
    The other one involves Tallulah Bankhead. I shan't repeat it here. I expect anyone who wants to can Google it. --Trovatore (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]
    Just be aware that you’ve entered the purview of a global encyclopedia, and that means you will encounter forms of English that aren’t necessarily common locally to wherever you live. MapReader (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this one of those rfc:2119 situations where we should stick to a limited number of modal verbs on a sliding scale (must > should > may)? --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MapReader, Although I’m aware of different styles of English in different parts of the world, the shall/will issue I’ve raised here is more about how Wikipedia wants to show officially expected actions in particular situations.
    Not like , “Today I shall go to the beach” … but like, “Administrators shall hold discussions on the matter for one week before reaching a decision.” Augnablik (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevertheless, ‘shall’ is still reasonably common usage in formal, official or legal written texts, in the UK, in a way that I don’t think you can say for the US (but willing to be corrected…), and is not considered particularly user-unfriendly. Your observation to the contrary above is therefore pitched from the perspective of a particular Engvar, which was my original point. MapReader (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MapReader, you're probably right about "how official" shall sounds to UK and US readers of official documents. And frankly, that word is still used from time to time in official documents in the US, even though much more rarely these days. Even so, here's a thought: if will would work equally well as shall in Wikipedia policy and guidance documents, why not use it consistently here so as to make "official stuff" sound a bit less bureaucratic but at the same time affirming of expected behavior?
    Though I'm American, I doubt that any of our UK cousins across the pond would feel affronted if Wikipedia consciously adopted will in its policy and guidelines. Wouldn't it simply be one more example of Wikipedia's intentions of providing as welcoming and user-friendly environment as possible in which to work, while in no way demeaning other varieties of writing?
    Alternatively, to avoid the whole shall/will issue, there are still other ways wording could be done. For example, instead of "Administrators shall hold discussions...,” we could say, "Administrators are to hold discussions ....” Augnablik (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More rules about how rules should be written could be one step forward, two steps back. EEng 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Onbiously, you're free to edit how you want, but as a general rule, surely it isn't WP's object, nor that of the MoS, to try and enforce general language preferences on our editors? MapReader (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You state the onbious. EEng 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, @MapReader, I think it’s time for me to gracefully bow out of the discussion now. My only Intent in making my suggestion was far from an attempt to enforce, though I see how it might be interpreted that way.
    Instead, I was trying to make a case for a slight change in wording that seemed to me could help Wikipedia accomplish its very positive goal of creating an open, light, friendly ambience — just as seniors helping in the Teahouse and elsewhere are asked to do with those who ask questions. I know that as some editors get involved with Wikipedia, they come to feel weighed down by many rules and regulations and even become fearful they might make a slip and face serious consequences.
    It was this I hoped my suggestion might help prevent in the long run, with the flip-side benefit of editor retention. Augnablik (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Archimedes § MOS:'S (redux)

     You are invited to join the discussion at Archimedes § MOS:'S. Remsense ‥ 论 21:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Specifically, input would be appreciated regarding the treatment of derivative proper names (e.g. Archimedes' principle) in running text versus the titles of dedicated articles. Thanks! Remsense ‥ 论 07:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, I detest and/or, which the MOS backs me on, but (besides ... instead of the clearer [...] in quotations) I also detest Archimedes's. Can't we just use the Latinate genitive Archimedis? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who does not particularly despise Archimedes's, I would cast my even less ramified ;vote for that. Remsense ‥ 论 05:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion on American football bio leads

    See here. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Usage of historical place names in infoboxes

    Some feedback here would be nice. Thanks --Flominator (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    When are words being used as-words?

    It seems to be required by MOS:WAW that any statement that uses constructions like:

    • This concept is called Example, ... (also termed, known as, referred to as, etc.)

    italicize the term. However, this is almost never consistently done even in many of our FAs (see Introduction to general relativity, used as an example in the MoS), and many other publications are unbothered. Am I worrying about something that doesn't make a difference in the clarity of many passages?

    I just struggle with paragraphs like (adapted from Chinese characters § Zhou scripts):

    It just looks weird that maintaining a natural flow in more jargon-y passages requires two terms to be italicized and one not to be. It looks arbitrary, and might even confuse readers if they notice? Remsense ‥ 论 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that either of the phrases in the example qualify as words as words. WAW, I think, applies to things like, "Of all the nouns, birdcage is the best." Or, "...some egghead discovered a misprint of the book, with relative misspelled." I would use quotation marks in the example you provided.

    Unless, of course, I'm mistaken. Primergrey (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Order of explanation for placing ref as per MOS:REFPUNCT

    Hi

    I am finding an increased number of refs in the middle of text, and I wondered if it could be confusion to the current wording. If the editor/reader deos not read more/further than the first sentence of this section of the paragraph, they may well put the ref in the middle of a sentence and not after punctuation as it appears to first suggest that: "All reference tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space. Apart from the exceptions listed below, references are placed after adjacent punctuation, not before."

    Can we consider rewording this to: "All reference tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, and should be placed after the next adjacent punctuation with no intervening space. The exceptions to this are listed below."

    This would then read as a two-part instruction rather than the current which appears to be one instruction to place it directly after the text.

    Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No, you don't have to wait for punctuation to place a reference. The current wording is fine. Gawaon (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It clearly states that we do, in the current wording - "references are placed after adjacent punctuation" Chaosdruid (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's saying that if there is adjacent punctuation, the ref goes after, but it does not preclude placing a ref immediately after the relevant text when there is no adjacent punctuation. Schazjmd (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've always understood the part about punctuation to mean only that if the text to which the footnote applies ends in a punctuation mark, treat that mark as part of the text you're footnoting and put the footnote after it. There's no implication that you have to defer placement of the footnote to the next punctuation mark that appears. And certainly not to the end of the sentence: the guideline covers commas as well. Largoplazo (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Upgrade MOS:ALBUM to an official guideline

    Over at Village pump (policy), I proposed upgrading MOS:ALBUM from an essay to an official guideline. If this talk page is the preferred venue, I apologize. I also apologize for the delay in notifying this talk page. Please see the discussion if you have any input or opinion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Upgrade_MOS:ALBUM_to_an_official_guideline.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    New discussion at Talk:2018 Crozet, Virginia, train crash

    I've tagged it at the top of this page as well, but also putting the invitation here to participate in a new discussion on the use of MOS:GEOCOMMA in article titles (such as train and bus accidents) at Talk:2018 Crozet, Virginia, train crash#Requested move 15 January 2025 - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Usage of 'Notable person' vis-a-vis that of 'Notable people'

    In the course of editing, I very often come across a section header with 'Notable people' and only one entry, so modify the grammar.

    Several days ago, after making such a change, the edit was reverted outright, in conjunction with a statement to the effect that the heading is 'Notable people' regardless of the number of entries listed. It seems to me that, per https://en.wikipedia.org/key/English_plurals#Miscellaneous_irregular_plurals, the reversion was incorrect. Hushpuckena (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Honestly I think we should use "persons" as the unmarked plural of "person" Wikipedia-wide. Encyclopedic writing is a very formal register, and "people" has other baggage, often not intended.
    That said, what sort of article is this? Are these city articles, or what? --Trovatore (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been no negative intent on my part when using 'people', but so it goes.
    These articles have been on various communities and I have made such changes for years, but till now have never had any editor state that grammar is immaterial. Hushpuckena (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some section headings are either by guideline, like WP:ELORDER for "External links" or MOS:NOTES for "Notes" and "References" etc., or by tradition and common usage, like "Notable people", "Awards", "Published works", written as plurals, even if there's only one entry. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed; keep it plural, also like "Languages" in the sidebar (even for only one language) and like "Media" in the Commons template (even for only one file there). Doremo (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Oxford spelling and commas

    As far as I'm aware, serial comma inclusion/omission is always treated separately from spelling conventions; MOS:SERIAL doesn't say anything related to MOS:TIES. However, when an article employs Oxford spelling ({{British English Oxford spelling}}), would it be reasonable to require the serial comma? (Of course, this wouldn't prohibit removing it to avoid local ambiguity.) On one hand, it seems a bit odd that editors of a specific article must follow one prominent component of a specific style guide's instructions while being free to ignore another component, and because en-gb-oxondic is a narrow group of articles and compliance requires a little training, these articles are already having their spelling/grammar watched by editors who are familiar with everyone else not being aware of the standards. But on the other hand, I can imagine it being awkward to require serial commas on a small portion of the encyclopedia, while the rest of the encyclopedia merely requires internal consistency; it might lead to confusion because a small set of articles has rules different from the rest. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The serial comma and Oxford spelling are not related to one another save from the fact that Hart's Rules and the Oxford English Dictionary share the same publishing house on the River Isis, and they are not intended to complement one another in any particular way. As you've noticed, this is conflating apples with oranges stylistically. More concretely, our guidance on serial commas is not dependent at all on what variety of English is being used—instead, it should be consistent, and possibly depend on what is best for eliminating ambiguity in each article on an individual basis. Remsense ‥ 论 22:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So Hart's Rules doesn't demand the use of Oxford spelling? My thought process:
    • Oxford spelling says that Hart's Rules follows Oxford spelling
    • Style guides are created to be prescriptive on this kind of thing, so Hart's Rules will require a specific spelling system
    • Hence, it's highly likely that Hart's Rules will require the spelling system that it uses
    Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oxford spelling is just that—spelling. As an ENGVAR, it is merely British English with etymologically-minded spelling conventions. Remsense ‥ 论 22:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As for Oxford comma, I refer you to a reply I gave some years ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Does Wikipedia use honorific titles?

    I remember reading a while ago that Wikipedia does not use honorific titles in referring to people, e.g. Albert Einstein or Einstein instead of Dr. Albert Einstein or Dr. Einstein. I can't find anything like that today. Did I imagine that? Is there any style guidance on use of titles such as Doctor? MOS:HONORIFIC is just about using special honorifics associated with a person who is the subject of a biography. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:JOBTITLE and its subsection MOS:DOC says to avoid "Dr" and similar titles.  Stepho  talk  06:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As a general rule, we also don't use even less specific honorifics or courtesy titles (I'm not super-sure of the distinction between the two), like Mr, except in quotes. See MOS:MR. --Trovatore (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ENGVAR question

    Based on a dispute at Bicolor cat. Does the fact that the article has, and has always had, a clear ENGVAR title control what variety the body uses? Seems obvious to me, but the guideline doesn't actually state what to do.

    In this particular case, the article was created as the stubbiest of stubs in 2002, with the creator using "bicolor" in the title (and the article has never been moved, I double checked) while using "bicolour" in the one-paragraph body. Over the next few years contributions included both spellings, and both appeared in the body at the same time. However, noting the inconsistency, a wikignome edited the body in 2008 to consistently use "color" and that ENGVAR was used consistently and continuously for 16 years until last September when, citing the ancient stub in Theo edit summary, someone changed the body ENGVAR to use "colour" making it inconsistent with the title. I changed it and was promptly reverted. I argue that there was no consistent variety at all until 2008, and that having a variety consistent with the title (which again, has never changed) is the only logical and valid ENGVAR. oknazevad (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Flip a coin if you want, but pragmatically a move is a "more substantial" alteration, so I would go with the title form. Remsense ‥ 论 23:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick spot check of the article's early history confirms that it started as "bicolor". Since there are no close ties to any country for this term, there is no reason for it to prefer either British or US spelling, so we fall back to the spelling used when the article was created. The use within in the article should match the articles name, so "bicolor" is the correct spelling for this article. As said above, this is all following WP:ENGVAR. Note: I say this as an Australian who would naturally use "bicolour".  Stepho  talk  23:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with oknazevad that it never had a consistent style until oknazevad's change to make the body consistent with the title. The previous change to use "colour" throughout the body does not count because the title remained inconsistent. I agree with the comments above that going with the original title is a smaller change and therefore better, but we can reach the same outcome by a different argument: oknazevad's version was the first consistent version so we should go with that. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I was not the editor who made it consistent in 2008 (which was done with this edit. In fact, I had never edited the article until today, after I noticed the obvious clash between the title and the body. A quick look at the history showed that it had been changed last September. I was just changing it back to the consistent ENGVAR the article had for over a decade and a half. oknazevad (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I stand corrected. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop making this claim. It was inconsistent before I edited it: [2]. I noticed the inconsistency and looked at the oldest revisions to decide on which variety to change to. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your implied claim that it was never consistent until you edited it is clearly false: the 2008 version that oknazevad links to is consistent. And your implied claim that your edit (I assume in this version) made it consistent is also false: there is no consistent spelling even if one ignores the obvious inconsistency between article and text. One could interpret your comment here as meaning merely that the version immediately prior to yours had inconsistencies (as did the version after your edit) but that is not a valid reason to choose one spelling over another; one has to look at the history. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. The version before the one you just linked to has one errant ENGVAR use. The alternate spelling in the first sentence is not only typical but expected. The only other use is in the title of a reference, and that should not be altered. oknazevad (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=1271302510"