Revision as of 00:00, 22 August 2012 editShenme (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers20,747 edits →Romanization system indications: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:12, 22 August 2012 edit undoNoetica (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,370 edits →Internal consistency v consistency across articles: Removed the section; it had most anomalously been wrenched from the archives and presented as if it were current; please don't do that! it's most confusing; start new sections for new discussions♥Next edit → | ||
Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
:The issue of "biological" gender (XX, XY etc.) v. "brain" gender is not going to be solved very soon. And certainly not by Misplaced Pages. From the moment a person is declared legally a different gender from their biological gender, the references ''from that point'' should be to her "legal gender". Mainly because the reliable sources used for any prior time would, perforce, refer to the person's legal gender ''at the time the source was written''. Misplaced Pages is ''not'' a time machine, ''nor'' is it a place to argue "real gender" of a person anymore than it is a place to argue "real religion" or "real ethnicity." The birthplace analogy is, of course, inapt because we are ''not'' arguing that the person's biological gender was changed at birth. It can't. So what we should do is simply follow what the rules say - we use reliable sources and cite their words, and do not try to add our judgements to them. ] (]) 13:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC) | :The issue of "biological" gender (XX, XY etc.) v. "brain" gender is not going to be solved very soon. And certainly not by Misplaced Pages. From the moment a person is declared legally a different gender from their biological gender, the references ''from that point'' should be to her "legal gender". Mainly because the reliable sources used for any prior time would, perforce, refer to the person's legal gender ''at the time the source was written''. Misplaced Pages is ''not'' a time machine, ''nor'' is it a place to argue "real gender" of a person anymore than it is a place to argue "real religion" or "real ethnicity." The birthplace analogy is, of course, inapt because we are ''not'' arguing that the person's biological gender was changed at birth. It can't. So what we should do is simply follow what the rules say - we use reliable sources and cite their words, and do not try to add our judgements to them. ] (]) 13:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
::I've added a note at the top of this thread to link to the ].<br /> — ] ] 13:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC) | ::I've added a note at the top of this thread to link to the ].<br /> — ] ] 13:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
== Internal consistency v consistency across articles == | |||
Hi Noetica, you removed the key part of the sentence – "though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole" – which I'd like to restore: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Misplaced Pages article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole." We don't require consistency across articles, and I feel it's important to stress that. | |||
The lead already mentions internal consistency, so this sentence would be repetitive without the juxtaposition. Also, I think we should restore this point to its own section. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:No I don't think so. This would be oppositional to ]. You can remove the whole sentence, or as ] has done, removed the splice after the comma which would be keeping the current version.] (]) 03:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::] does not require all articles to have the exact same layout. It is a very widely accepted standard, but you can perfectly write articles that don't follow it to the toe. --] (]) 21:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::No, it does require all articles to have the same layout and deviations from it may be the result of individual cases, or that they are new articles to be fixed to the layout.] (]) 23:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::I agree with Curb Chain. My restoring most of what SlimVirgin put in was an intermediate between her preference and Curb's (who had reverted Slim). As I said in my edit summary, the essential point is already clear: Misplaced Pages has a strong principle of consistency within an article. It is unnecessary and unbalanced to insist, in many words, that the matter of consistency across articles is ''not'' important. That it is ''less'' important is perfectly obvious from the context (see the wording that follows on the page). After all, how could it be thought otherwise? If a MOS recommendation includes a choice, how could it be that only ''one'' of the options is to be applied across all of Misplaced Pages? That would be incoherent. | |||
::MOS is a major force for excellence. Its utility goes well beyond how any single article is styled – even though that narrow consistency is acknowledged to be paramount. We have to avoid giving the wrong message, which is all too easily taken by careless editors. I have seen instances of the contested addition used ''against'' consistency of style among closely related articles, at RM discussions for example. Not healthy, not useful, not helpful to readers. | |||
::♥ | |||
::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::I believe that the "not necessarily" covers such matters as formatting. This phrasing could cause or prevent trouble either way. If there are more people who think that cross-article consistency is required, then we should re-add the words. If there are more problems with people using non-standard formatting, then take them out. ] (]) 04:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::No, its just too much ]. The MOS is clear in the rules of best practices and explains the rules for style and formatting and have been written all here and in its subpages like a bible. This is just convoluting it more.] (]) 04:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::Sorry, I started this, then forgot about it. I would like the MoS to make clear, as it used to, that style consistency across articles isn't required. The current wording isn't clear enough on that point, especially given paragraph two, so it's important in paragraph four to emphasize the internal aspect. So it should begin with something like: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Misplaced Pages article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole." ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::I agree that this point is not clear. The text after the sentence would allow someone to change all articles in a category to fit one style. The overriding principle is the whole sentence, not just the first part of the sentence. --] (]) 21:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::No, this puts too much emphasis on the fact that articles do not have a standard style which is not true. Articles should be as standard as possible and there is room for deviation but the extra phrase will make it easier for editors to justify their deviation of style from the norm.] (]) 21:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::::The fact is that articles do not have a single standard style. They are many points in which there are two or more acceptable styles: differences for English/British spelling, BC/BCE, date formatting, citation style, etc. | |||
::::::::Anyways, the extra phrase is to prevent people from going in style-fixing sprees. This is a real problem that caused many headaches and arbitration cases. For example ], where someone tried to ensure consistency across articles. It's not intruction crep at all, there is a real need for it. --] (]) 21:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::How do you address incidents when editors use this phrase as reason for egregious formatting idiosyncrasy?] (]) 23:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
== RFC: shall changes in beginning of sentence case be allowed in quotations? == | == RFC: shall changes in beginning of sentence case be allowed in quotations? == |
Revision as of 01:12, 22 August 2012
File:Yellow warning.png | This page (along with all other MOS pages and WP:TITLE) is subject to Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions. See this remedy. |
For a list of suggested abbreviations for referring to style guides , see this page. |
Spacing and Using the hidden comment function to create space between a template and text above it
Is it against the Manual of Style (Misplaced Pages) to add a hidden comment () and generate this aesthetic?Curb Chain (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The Manual of Style states: "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode." (WP:COMMENT)
Does this mean that the above formatting should be used? That is, Should white space be introduced between the last line of text and the top of a footer-(navigational) template?Curb Chain (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
I don't think that Hidden Comments should be used to introduce white space because the simple enter-key will suffice. Secondly, using the enter-key to make lines to make white space is arbitrary and is not used.Curb Chain (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually it says in the last sentence of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Layout#Headings and sections: "Between sections (and paragraphs), there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.".Curb Chain (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Having used the technique and found it less than satisfactory, I agree with Curb Chain on this. LynwoodF (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- In my opinion, it shouldn't be used unless there's a consensus. This is a change to layout. Even if not forbidden, if thousands of pages have this introduced and later it is banned, that's a lot of work to find and undo them. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- There is no consensus that a space should be introduced. Specifically, WP:COMMENT of WP:Manual of Style states: "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode." and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Layout#Headings and sections says "Between sections (and paragraphs), there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article." which is saying that hidden comments are not to be used to create white space, and not to create white space. Specifically, the vast majority of pages do not have the formatting as I presented in the diffs in Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Spacing and Using the hidden comment function to create space between a template and text above it.Curb Chain (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- We should Not use hiddencomments to hack in whitespace.
- If it is agreed that whitespace is warranted, then either a proper technical fix is required for all articles that have navboxes (both for site-wide consistency, and to prevent edit-warring), or if small numbers of articles have layout problems in restricted circumstances then two-blank-lines could be used (as we do above stub-templates).
- A semi-related proposal was floated at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Move See also to after External links recently (to make it an optional layout alternative), but doesn't have much support. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- There is no consensus that a space should be introduced. Specifically, WP:COMMENT of WP:Manual of Style states: "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode." and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Layout#Headings and sections says "Between sections (and paragraphs), there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article." which is saying that hidden comments are not to be used to create white space, and not to create white space. Specifically, the vast majority of pages do not have the formatting as I presented in the diffs in Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Spacing and Using the hidden comment function to create space between a template and text above it.Curb Chain (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Simple Misplaced Pages for inspiration
Editors who want a simple manual of style might find inspiration in these pages.
- simple:Misplaced Pages:How to write Simple English pages
- simple:Misplaced Pages talk:How to write Simple English pages
- simple:Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style
- simple:Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style
—Wavelength (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
[The first posted message in the fourth page listed (version of 04:59, 3 September 2010) uses the expression "the Complex English Misplaced Pages". That expression is a retronym.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)]
SMOS is not yet ready to be part of MOS
I have removed the template at the head of WP:SMOS that made it a component of MOS. That is premature, and not adequately discussed. No doubt it will be, soon enough. But it is not ready yet, as we can see from the general uncertainties expressed at the talkpage (WT:SMOS). Another consideration: let's not set a dangerous precedent. Already MOS is too big and sprawling, according to Art LaPella (initiator of SMOS) and many other MOS regulars. I'm with them. Although SMOS promises to work against the effects of that sprawl, it may worsen the situation if it is adopted too quickly, encouraging others to be cavalier also.
I have some new concerns: about new editors' experience with those "More" links on the page, but not connected with their styling. I'll raise them here when I have concluded some investigations.
Noetica 01:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- What specific concerns do you have about the endorsement of the Simplified MoS that and how would they best be addressed? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am concerned that the size, scope of coverage, level of detail, modes of presentation, and linking régime have not been adequately worked through. And as I say, I am very concerned (along with many editors, I think) not to set a precedent for hasty acceptance of a new MOS page. We may think that this is a special case; others may not. Everyone can think that way about their own favoured sector of the stylosphere.
- That's as specific as I need to be, isn't it?
- I will say more about the linking. I immediately liked the new "More" markup in principle, but as I noted at Art LaPella's talkpage it would be better at a reduced size. Very intrusive on the page. Now that has been addressed, and there may be more tinkering to come. I think there has been excellent collaboration so far, and I congratulate Art, Telpardec, Neotarf – and everyone involved – for their fine work. But note: nearly all of those "More" links go to some part of WP:MOS, or of another MOS page, or of WP:TITLE and so on. Each time a link is clicked, the whole linked page opens. We have had to live with that unpleasant feature of opaque shortcuts like WP:DASH, WP:SLASH, WP:HYPHEN, and so on. As each of these is followed by an editor pursuing guidance on a cluster of related topics, the whole of WP:MOS is loaded again. Every time. Now, the size of the specific page file is one thing; about 0.5 MB, right? But with the overheads and adjuncts that go with it, we're up around 1 MB each one of those small portions of WP:MOS is sought out. Think of the time this might take, and the monetary cost – in some poorly serviced parts of the world, or with some expensive mobile arrangements. Think of how confusing and alienating these clunky multiple links to the same page must be. Newcomers are not ready for any of that; and we can too easily be unaware of their situation.
- Since SMOS is mainly for less experienced editors, this linking problem looms large for SMOS. We want it to get a good reception, and to be used. I am not confident that it is friendly enough yet.
- I have been researching new ways with transclusion that offer a solution – to the general problem of linking to parts of MOS (and other Wikispace pages), and especially to the intensified version of it at SMOS. I intend to propose something systematic soon. Meanwhile, there are enough independent reasons to "make haste slowly" for us not to rush SMOS into service just yet. I look forward to the present steady development continuing.
- ♥
- Noetica 02:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that a more integrated hierarchical design would be better. I haven't pushed it much because I'm surprised we got the major improvement we have now, and I'm still afraid it's going to dissolve into bureaucratese. Art LaPella (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- A di M has done sterling work in getting this up and running; but I have a problem with the control of the level of detail in the current draft, and with the total size. I'm thinking about twice the size, and the trimming of some details I'd have thought were not first-line stuff (the biblical, etc). I'm going by the stubs and obvious newbie work I've seen on my gnoming rounds: what are the most important things to get across to them? Tony (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I originally went by my own copyediting which is focused on the Main Page. Now, my statistics above do show some things that arguably aren't first-line stuff, but I don't see how "biblical" can be one of them when it's capitalized about 10,000 times. I would think 10,000 mistakes is either a first-line problem or a battle we should surrender. Art LaPella (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- The editors at Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos can change "Biblical" to "biblical" in 10,000 instances.
- —Wavelength (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think that means you don't want "biblical" in SMOS. If so, it shouldn't be in MoS either; don't call it a problem if we don't want to fix it. Since uncapitalizing "biblical" could conceivably be considered irreverent, an even stronger case could be made for removing things like seasons, comma splices, compass points, and anything else I learned in high school from the MoS. Of course neither MoS nor the Typos project has solved the "biblical" problem. Art LaPella (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, it does not mean that. In fact, I prefer the capitalized spelling of that word. I checked one dictionary, and it accepts both. However, out of respect for what seems to be established consensus, I offered a remedy for occurrences that do not conform to that consensus.
- These statements are not mutually exclusive.
- The editors at WP:AWB/T can change "Biblical" to "biblical" in 10,000 instances.
- Other editors can change "Biblical" to "biblical" without using Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser.
- WP:MOS can restrict the spelling to the uncapitalized version.
- WP:SMOS can restrict the spelling to the uncapitalized version.
- —Wavelength (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think that means you don't want "biblical" in SMOS. If so, it shouldn't be in MoS either; don't call it a problem if we don't want to fix it. Since uncapitalizing "biblical" could conceivably be considered irreverent, an even stronger case could be made for removing things like seasons, comma splices, compass points, and anything else I learned in high school from the MoS. Of course neither MoS nor the Typos project has solved the "biblical" problem. Art LaPella (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I originally went by my own copyediting which is focused on the Main Page. Now, my statistics above do show some things that arguably aren't first-line stuff, but I don't see how "biblical" can be one of them when it's capitalized about 10,000 times. I would think 10,000 mistakes is either a first-line problem or a battle we should surrender. Art LaPella (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- "I think that means you don't want "biblical" in SMOS. If so, it shouldn't be in MoS either ...". The logical conclusion is that SMOS should exclude nothing from MoS. The whole idea is to decide on strict rationing. Biblical might be a problem in 10,000 instances, but it seems just too specific here. An editor will have easy recourse to the main section on capitalisation in MoS. In SMOS, I'd have thought the goal was to capture the low-hanging fruit. Otherwise its function is weakened. Tony (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, my thought wasn't that SMOS should exclude nothing from MoS. It was that if we exclude "biblical" because it's more like a typo than a style issue, then the same logic applies to excluding it from MoS.
- "it seems just too specific here. An editor will have easy recourse ..." Assuming you don't want "Capitalization: see MoS" (that wouldn't solve anything), I can't imagine a more general statement about capitalization that would really be used. "Capitalize proper nouns"? The only really good definition for proper nouns is something to capitalize. SMOS is often more specific than MoS. It has instructions that might actually be used, even without reading the long version, because they don't require gurus for interpretation: "Write 12,000 for twelve thousand, not 12.000", not "Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here" (does that mean you expect everybody to go looking for subtleties, as if they haven't read enough style guidelines already?)
- "Its function is weakened"? Well, the MoS has failed its intended function 10,000 times, so that would seem to be as good a function for the SMOS as any. Art LaPella (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Typographical-error issues and style issues intersect (overlap); they are not mutually exclusive. An error in capitalization can result from inattentiveness in keyboarding; likewise, it can result from inattention to style guidelines.
- —Wavelength (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Right; we were discussing "it shouldn't be in MoS either", which was before your clarification. Art LaPella (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps what's really missing is an overall link from SMOS#Capitalization to MOS:#Capitalization, if someone is looking for specific capitalization issues not listed at SMOS. And similarly for other paragraphs. But I don't think the answer to everything is to direct everyone to MoS. "Biblical" is a major example of how that isn't working. Art LaPella (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with Biblical is that there are so many other specific examples of capping or not capping that could go in ... there's no end to it. And there's so much of a generic nature that is missing. Tony (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- The first 100 Google hits for "George" in Misplaced Pages are all capitalized. Same for "Chicago". But "biblical" is about 1/3 capitalized. There's a difference. That's how I found my "end to it". Practicality. Fix what needs fixing. (Assuming "Biblical" really needs fixing; dictionaries show about equal preference for "biblical" and "Biblical", but that's your job, not mine.) Is anything generic (or non-generic) missing that can be expressed in one short sentence, that's usable by non-experts without needing a guru to interpret it and without yielding to the temptation to write paragraphs of exceptions, and that has 10,000 examples that need fixing? Art LaPella (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Or maybe we need to discuss the good faith assumption underlying my statistics, that Manual of Style guidelines should have some measurable effect on Misplaced Pages, not just give us prestige as style experts. Art LaPella (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Let's forget any moral imputation surrounding MoS—it's there to give licence to editors to fix things, and as a reference to avoid edit-wars in articles out there. Tony (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Then let's fix things. Is there a better idea with the potential to fix 10,000 alleged errors with one sentence? Art LaPella (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Let's forget any moral imputation surrounding MoS—it's there to give licence to editors to fix things, and as a reference to avoid edit-wars in articles out there. Tony (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Capitalization discussion
There is a dicussion and RfC concerning capitalization at Talk:Information technology#.7B.7Bmain.7D.7D case that may be of relevance to one or more sections or subpages of WP:MOS. --Boson (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
"Misplaced Pages" in italics
Editors may be interested in User talk:Jimbo Wales#Misplaced Pages in italics (version of 19:42, 20 August 2012), which has a link to Talk:Misplaced Pages#Italic title (version of 00:47, 20 August 2012), which has a link to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting#'Misplaced Pages' is not in italics (version of 00:46, 20 August 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Date ranges in the same decade?
Hello,
I just came across the date range "1952–4" in an article, and the formatting seems strange to me. "1952–54" looks more correct to me, but I couldn't find anything on it in the Manual of Style (except in the Talk archive, where there is a discussion about the more common form 2000–04 vs. the explicit 2000–2004 in article text; see Year truncation in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_41). Is there a rule for such (year) date ranges within the same decade?
Thanks for letting me know,
--Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- MOSNUM says, "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986)." Good advice, in my opinion. Tony (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. Normal representation would be with two digits. Vertium and done 13:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The Gambia
Colleagues, I was surprised to find the old "the" in the article name. The Ukraine. The Sudan. I believe the original meaning was "the X region". It's billed as the official country-name, and English as the official language. Is it mandatory that we use the "The" in the title? Also, I see that the t is capped in the middle of sentences. What's our line on that? Tony (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is my understanding that The Gambia is the official name (at least in English) as promulgated by whatever political authorities in that country are responsible for doing so, and that Gambia is the older name, now deprecated. Given that (if I am right about it, which I may not be), I think it is clear that the The must be capitalized, because it is part of a proper name, as with The Hague. --Trovatore (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- When it comes to the name, I'd always try to follow country profiles in reliable sources - both the CIA World Factbook and BBC entries for Gambia formally include the "The". I'd look at those instead of - or rather as well as - looking at purely official names. Those two examples are not of course definitive, but they show it's not unusual in publications that are doing a similar thing to what we are doing with our country pages. They don't for Ukraine and Sudan, where inclusion of the definite article is deprecated nowadays and comes across as archaic (for Ukraine, AFAIK because they felt it belittled the country's status, giving the impression of it being merely a region/republic of the old USSR). As for whether to capitalise it in mid-sentence text, my preference would be not to, even if it is formally part of the name. Current guidelines also prefer generally not to capitalise, although (as noted above - edit conflict) the specific example given of The Hague in fact suggests an exception here too, assuming we accept it as part of the name. N-HH talk/edits 09:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the point about the RSs is a reasonable one — we don't let companies, or even individuals, dictate everything about the typography of their names, so I'm not sure why we should do more for states. I do think though that the capital-t is pretty much obligatory here; our preference is for not over-capitalizing, but you have to capitalize proper names. --Trovatore (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'd look to country profiles specifically on the point of including the "The" at all; then to our style guide, rather than those profiles, for whether to capitalise it in text. General rules vary of course - for example, you'll find the Guardian does not capitalise newspaper "the"s, even when they are more formally part of the name. But it too calls for caps in placenames (The Hague seems to be a popular example ... although just to confuse things there, the page including the note on the Gambia calls for the "the" but seems to suggest it not be capitalised). N-HH talk/edits 10:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's a point of general English usage rather than our style guides specifically. If it's being used in its normal grammatical function as an article, then it's lowercase, but if it's part of a proper noun (which I think it is), then it's uppercase. I wouldn't really put too much weight on The Grauniad. --Trovatore (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- All a bit off topic and academic, but my point was merely that it is a style issue, not a clear-cut grammar one with a right or wrong answer, and that styles vary when it comes to capitalising "the" in various contexts, even when it is arguably part of a proper name/noun. See the Telegraph's view on this when it comes to newspapers as against the Guardian's. The former capitalises the "the" when it considers it part of the name (so The Daily Telegraph, but the Daily Mail; similarly, our page titles drop the article for the Mail, in recognition that it does not technically form part of the name), while the Guardian, as highlighted already, has blanket lower case regardless. Nor was my point of course that we should follow the Guardian on this or any other issue - athough it is a perfectly respectable style guide for a major national UK newspaper - it was merely an example that demonstrates the point about variation. N-HH talk/edits 11:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's a point of general English usage rather than our style guides specifically. If it's being used in its normal grammatical function as an article, then it's lowercase, but if it's part of a proper noun (which I think it is), then it's uppercase. I wouldn't really put too much weight on The Grauniad. --Trovatore (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'd look to country profiles specifically on the point of including the "The" at all; then to our style guide, rather than those profiles, for whether to capitalise it in text. General rules vary of course - for example, you'll find the Guardian does not capitalise newspaper "the"s, even when they are more formally part of the name. But it too calls for caps in placenames (The Hague seems to be a popular example ... although just to confuse things there, the page including the note on the Gambia calls for the "the" but seems to suggest it not be capitalised). N-HH talk/edits 10:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the point about the RSs is a reasonable one — we don't let companies, or even individuals, dictate everything about the typography of their names, so I'm not sure why we should do more for states. I do think though that the capital-t is pretty much obligatory here; our preference is for not over-capitalizing, but you have to capitalize proper names. --Trovatore (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- When it comes to the name, I'd always try to follow country profiles in reliable sources - both the CIA World Factbook and BBC entries for Gambia formally include the "The". I'd look at those instead of - or rather as well as - looking at purely official names. Those two examples are not of course definitive, but they show it's not unusual in publications that are doing a similar thing to what we are doing with our country pages. They don't for Ukraine and Sudan, where inclusion of the definite article is deprecated nowadays and comes across as archaic (for Ukraine, AFAIK because they felt it belittled the country's status, giving the impression of it being merely a region/republic of the old USSR). As for whether to capitalise it in mid-sentence text, my preference would be not to, even if it is formally part of the name. Current guidelines also prefer generally not to capitalise, although (as noted above - edit conflict) the specific example given of The Hague in fact suggests an exception here too, assuming we accept it as part of the name. N-HH talk/edits 09:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have the link, but the Beatles' insistence on capped T irritated a lot of editors here when it was last discussed, about ?two years ago. To me, the cap mid-sentence is a bump: disruptive. Also could be seen as pretentious. I know that some universities are going around insisting on it too (I'm only too pleased to defy that wish). Tony (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see it as a "bump" but as just part of the name. The link to the guide from The Telegraph that N-HH gives looks like that one gets it right for newspapers: If the The is on the newspaper's masthead, then it's part of the name and uppercase; if the masthead omits it but you put it in a sentence because it sounds wrong without it (the Los Angeles Times) then it's lowercase. Names other than those of newspapers don't always have as convenient an indicator as a masthead, but the same principle should apply. --Trovatore (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Trans women
Current proposal to modify MOS:IDENTITY is here.
I know this has been brought up many times before, but now I feel it needs to be brought up again, because I have one comment still:
We know that the trans woman template says that trans women should be referred to with she/her throughout. However, go to Talk:Alexis Reich. It appears that there are still some Wikipedians who disagree. They say that trans women should be referred to as he/him if they are notable for reasons that have nothing to do with being transsexual that relate to their life before the operation. (Yesterday I tried to see if anyone could notice this, but the discussion didn't go beyond me and User:Berean Hunter. He absolutely supports the statement in the sentence I wrote above beginning with "They say that..." and I want to know what other people think currently. Georgia guy (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I find that the best way to explain this is that back before the gender transition, Lara W. thought herself to be male but she was wrong. It's as if a country music singer always thought she was born in Memphis but then looks up her birth certificate and finds out that she was really born in Nashville. Even if the old sources say "Memphis native Claribelle Johnson," we should still say "Claribelle Johnson was born in Nashville." New information has come to light. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- The issue of "biological" gender (XX, XY etc.) v. "brain" gender is not going to be solved very soon. And certainly not by Misplaced Pages. From the moment a person is declared legally a different gender from their biological gender, the references from that point should be to her "legal gender". Mainly because the reliable sources used for any prior time would, perforce, refer to the person's legal gender at the time the source was written. Misplaced Pages is not a time machine, nor is it a place to argue "real gender" of a person anymore than it is a place to argue "real religion" or "real ethnicity." The birthplace analogy is, of course, inapt because we are not arguing that the person's biological gender was changed at birth. It can't. So what we should do is simply follow what the rules say - we use reliable sources and cite their words, and do not try to add our judgements to them. Collect (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've added a note at the top of this thread to link to the current proposal.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've added a note at the top of this thread to link to the current proposal.
RFC: shall changes in beginning of sentence case be allowed in quotations?
Shall case changes in quotations be allowed at the beginning of a quoted sentence? For example, suppose the following sentence is to be quoted:
A penny saved is a penny earned.
May it be quoted in a Misplaced Pages article as follows:
*If an entire sentence is quoted in such a way that it becomes a grammatical part of the larger sentence, the first letter loses its capitalization (It turned out to be true that "a penny saved is a penny earned").
The bullet above appeared in the MOS until today. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Discussion of case changes in quotes
Allow changes. As the initiator of this RFC, I support allowing changes as formerly described in the MOS because it is in accord with two American style manuals that I have access to. In particular, Chicago Manual of Style 16th ed. section 13.8 and the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association 6th ed. section 6.07 allow this type of change. However, the third style manual I have, MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers 7th ed. in section 3.1.2 shows this example:
Joseph Conrad writes of the company manager in Heart of Darkness, "He was obeyed, yet he inspired neither love nor fear, nor even respect."
Jc3s5h (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Surely it is a basic rule that a direct quote that incorporates the beginning of the speaker's sentence preserves the capital letter needed to start that sentence. Evident in all these first pages on the first google page of a search of "grammar of direct quotes": Kevin McE (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think the one you are arguing is not a good example of the last point in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Allowable typographical changes, but I also agree with that point that a sentence-initial quote can be downcased under the stated conditions. The MOS specifies that as an allowable style, at least, so if you want to change it, talk about the guidance instead of tweaking the examples. In the other stuff you're changing, either you don't understand or don't like WP:LQ, but that's the style we've adopted. Some have argued that LQ is a UK thing, and you're arguing the opposite; but it's neither; just a style. Dicklyon (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- It is not just a style. In British English it's right and in American English it's wrong. Leaving periods and commas outside the quotation marks absolutely is a British thing, whatever else it may be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think the one you are arguing is not a good example of the last point in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Allowable typographical changes, but I also agree with that point that a sentence-initial quote can be downcased under the stated conditions. The MOS specifies that as an allowable style, at least, so if you want to change it, talk about the guidance instead of tweaking the examples. In the other stuff you're changing, either you don't understand or don't like WP:LQ, but that's the style we've adopted. Some have argued that LQ is a UK thing, and you're arguing the opposite; but it's neither; just a style. Dicklyon (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The "as formerly described in the MOS" situation has been restored; it should only be changed if there's a new consensus to NOT allow lowercase at the start of the quote in sentences like the example with "a penny saved". The quote about Conrad does not appear to be the type where downcasing is in order; it's just a quote, not an integral part of the sentence. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Maintain current MoS for now. It seems to me that there is something different between "a penny saved is a penny earned" and "He said, 'He was obeyed, yet he inspired neither love nor fear.'" I can't put my finger on it, but the two groups of style guides seem to be describing two different things. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
In general, as I pointed out in a section higher up, capitalization can be changed in direct quotes to match the surrounding material, which may mean either capitalizing a previously lowercase letter or removing the capitalization from a previously uppercase letter. One rule I have seen is to use a capital if the quoted material is a full sentence and independent of the rest of the sentence with the quote:
- He said, "Leave me alone."
but not if the rest of the sentence depends grammatically on the quoted material:
- It is vital to "be content with your life", as Aesop's moral directs.
In any case this is not a matter of grammar, as someone suggested above, it is entirely a matter of style. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Certainly quotes used as direct speech (where the punctuation may indeed be described as 'speech marks') should rarely have or need (depending on one's point of view) their capitalization changed, whereas in indirect speech, where the quotation marks serve more to delineate the portion of the text that is word for word attributable to the source, more leeway will be both needed and, generally used. Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC).
Maintain current MoS. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (p. 1029) gives a similar example, with no capitalization following "Mr Crabb stated that ' . . .", describing the construction as a blend of direct and indirect reported speech: " . . . the reporting verb is followed by that, normally a marker of indirect reporting, but what follows that itself is wholly quoted. --Boson (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Maintain current MoS (allow changes), for the same reasons as above. Although in the little sequence of reverts between Deor, Jc3s5h, and Kevin McE, I would have to agree with Deor and Kevin McE; there the "The situation is..." is an example of a quotation that is not "a grammatical part of the larger sentence". Leonxlin (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Allow changes conditionally: Like most dichotomies "allow or disallow" is a false one. It should be permissible to do this to aphorisms like the penny example, and with spoken quotations, but not with written ones in which capitalization is provably in the original source. An exception should probably be poems and songs which capitalize the first letter of every line (usually) as a matter of stylistic convention, not grammar. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 04:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Retain. It's hard to think of instances where the fact that a mid-sentence quote started the original sentence really needs to be communicated to the readers. Tony (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: If there's a question about the propriety of changing the capitalization, many times you could consider starting the quotation with the next word. For instance, why not just say, "It turned out to be true that a 'penny saved is a penny earned'" if you're worried about (not) capitalizing the "a"? AgnosticAphid talk 22:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Retain I think it makes a lot of sense to keep as it is. It just visually flows a lot better to me for some reason, like it would help me to read it aloud better if I had to. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion unarchived for further discussion before it is closed by an uninvolved admin. See WP:ANRFC]. Cunard (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Romanization system indications
Quite apart from questions about a system, how should a romanization system and romanization be specified in an article? I've changed an indefinite mention in Ey Iran from
- Ey Iran (Template:Lang-fa, "O Iran") UniPers: Ey Irân is a famous and popular anthem in Iran.
to
- Ey Iran (Template:Lang-fa, "O Iran"; UniPers: Ey Irân) is a famous and popular anthem in Iran.
I compared with how the pinyin system is mentioned at the beginning of Beijing. But any detailed look at anything leaves one confused. Like, why is Běijīng linked at all, if it just loops back to the article? Shenme (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)