Misplaced Pages

talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:51, 15 February 2014 editDirtclustit (talk | contribs)191 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 06:02, 15 February 2014 edit undoDarkfrog24 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,724 edits →Inside or outside punctuation: 1. a deeper explanation of inside-or-outside is given in "Quotation mark." 2. Singular they.Next edit →
Line 838: Line 838:


I am having trouble understanding what is desired, without any examples of what not to do in red, it is almost as if anything is acceptable. Furthermore, the use of pronouns is not clear. For instance, Biblically speaking, in regards to those who went, is "they" used as a gender neutral substitute for she/he? Or does it signify that other than Martha, more than one person came? - ] (]) 04:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC) I am having trouble understanding what is desired, without any examples of what not to do in red, it is almost as if anything is acceptable. Furthermore, the use of pronouns is not clear. For instance, Biblically speaking, in regards to those who went, is "they" used as a gender neutral substitute for she/he? Or does it signify that other than Martha, more than one person came? - ] (]) 04:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

:What this MoS does not want you to do is use American-style punctuation. It requires only British at all times. A more in-depth explanation of how to use British style (also called "logical style") is given in the article ]. If you want a simple rule of thumb, if the period or comma applies to or belongs to the quoted material, the put it inside. If not, put it outside. (Generally, British English does for periods and commas what all forms of English do for question marks.)
: The issue of the singular they as an alternative to the cumbersome "he or she" is a matter of repeated debate on Misplaced Pages. To the best of my memory, the MoS doesn't mention the singular they because we couldn't agree on a rule for it. When it comes to the singular they, use your own judgment. So long as every article is internally consistent, it will look neat enough. ] (]) 06:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:02, 15 February 2014

Skip to table of contents
This page (along with all other MOS pages and WP:TITLE) is subject to Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions. See this remedy.
WikiProject iconManual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style
Note icon
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate.
Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Note icon
For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page.
Shortcut
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228Auto-archiving period: 14 days 

Template:MOS/R

For a list of suggested abbreviations for referring to style guides, see this page.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228Auto-archiving period: 14 days 

Searching and Curly Quotes

Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Register#Quotation_marks mentions that "Mixed use interferes with some searches, such as those using the browser’s search facility." This is fixed in the latest version of Firefox and other Gecko-based browsers. With some community effort it could also be fixed in other open source browser engines like Blink and WebKit (which together with Gecko account for a majority of Misplaced Pages page views), and in MediaWiki's built-in search engine. This would remove one of the main arguments against curly quotes. Mbrubeck (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have curly quotes on my keyboard, so tough. -- Alarics (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Word processors like Microsoft Word automatically insert the appropriate curly quotes when you type a quotation mark (and you can backspace and retype to correct, it in the edge cases where the program gets it wrong). Markup languages like TeX also provide easy ways to author documents with curly quotes using only standard keyboard keys. MediaWiki could potentially provide one or both of these approaches for authors of Misplaced Pages articles. Mbrubeck (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hyphens instead of endashes

From the discussion at Talk:Epstein–Barr virus#Requested move, it came to my attention that, as currently written, the line "A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities." (line A) contradicts the line just before it, "An en dash is used for the names of two or more people in an attributive compound." (line B). Line A is easily read to imply that entities such as Comet Hale–Bopp (one of our examples here) should be hyphenated, not dashed, contrary to what line B says. They are properly dashed, though. In a few cases, such as the examples accompanying line A (McGraw-Hill, Guinea-Bissau, etc.), there is properly a hyphen, not an endash. What seems to distinguish line A's category is that these are no longer simply seen as named after two entities, but as entities with a single name. --JorisvS (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I can attest to the confusion caused by line A in the Talk:Epstein–Barr virus#Requested move. Lines A and B, to me, seemed to suggest contradictory ways of writing "Epstein Barr virus": hyphenated as a single entity, or en dashed as an attributive compound named after Epstein and Barr. Walternmoss (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
In an earlier discussion about en-dashes vs. hyphens, there was some agreement that the wording of this section of the MoS needed to be clarified, but nothing happened – partly, I think, because Noetica said he would look at it, but he left Misplaced Pages. JorisvS is right that the key difference is whether the separate entities are seen as distinct. Since the Epstein–Barr virus article explains the origin of the name from two people, an en-dash is clearly appropriate. "McGraw-Hill" still seems to me a problematic case. I don't see "McGraw" and "Hill" as the origin of "McGraw-Hill", so a hyphen appears appropriate to me. However, it might be that someone more familiar with the publishing industry would be aware of the two entities, and would use naturally use an en-dash. Can this subjectivity be avoided? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with previous discussions about this, but ... is there any reason why WP:COMMONNAME wouldn't apply to questions like this? --Stfg (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, that has been the fiercely (sometimes viciously) debated issue on more than one occasion. In one corner are those who would answer that WP:COMMONNAME should apply, and that the relative usage of en-dash vs. hyphen in reliable sources should determine usage here. In the other corner are those who would answer that COMMONNAME does not apply to style issues, and that in the interests of consistency Misplaced Pages should apply its own style rules regardless of sources. Let's not start this debate all over again. (It applies to en-dashes vs. hyphens, capitalization of the English names of species, logical quotation style vs. traditional US quotation style, and doubtless a number of other issues. In every case the second position has been upheld.) Peter coxhead (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
There was a pretty heated discussion on the Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) talk page about the en dash (primarily me ranting). What the argument arose from, was the fact that I had never recalled seing an en dash used in any of the scientific literature...until pointed out by several other wikipedians in a minority of papers. From my count, a hyphen is used in EBV ~98% of the time in article titles archived on PubMed. I was fighting very hard for the hyphen w/o knowing about this WP:COMMONNAME rule, as it intuitively made sense to use the "consensus" or most-common form of the name to me. Eventually I changed my mind. What really turned me around was the recognition of the utility of the en dash, it's grammatical appropriateness, and (most importantly) the discovery of its use in several "key" or "landmark" papers. Ultimately, I think the source material (particularly for technical matters) should guide naming conventions on Misplaced Pages. In the EBV field there is a diversity of naming, so my attempted compromise solution has been to look for precedents in the lit. that jibe with the Misplaced Pages guidelines, good grammar (to the best of my knowledge), and that allow for some sort of consistency in the naming of pages. It's tough. Walternmoss (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
So, what about adding "... if these are no longer seen as named after two entities." to the sentence about the hyphens? Any problems with saying that? --JorisvS (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Only that I've no idea what it means. But I've no idea what the present wording is supposed to mean either, so the addition won't make it any worse. In fact I think I know what it's supposed to mean. If the compound is "attributive", then it's dashed. That means if it qualifies another noun, as in the Hale-Bopp case, where it qualifies "Comet". (Presumably in the example with "just" Hale-Bopp, without the "Comet", the compound is still regarded as attributive because the noun is still understood.) But if the compound is the whole name, then it's hyphenated. The union of two cities seems to be an example of a different sort, that perhaps ought to have a separate bullet point. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
So, how do you think we could rephrase it? --JorisvS (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Somewhat like this, perhaps? W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, can you actually suggest that directly on the talk page rather than actually editing the MOS and posting a link to that edit? The MOS needs to be stable and changes need to be discussed first. N-HH talk/edits 12:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
No they don't. Pages on which anti-Wikipedians try to enforce an ad hoc "no change without discussion" policy are the ones that have the most problems, because the normal channel by which problems are fixed is closed off. If you object to my changes, say why, and then we can have a discussion. Otherwise you're just making things worse with your groundless reverts. W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
@W. P. Uzer: this MOS guideline is a bit different from the average article. It has been struggled over for years, and hyphens and dashes are one area where development has been especially challenging. Please note the banner at the top of the project page itself, where it says "Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus." This applies especially to issues that are under active discussion here and where there are differing views. Please also take care about dubbing the people around here as "anti-Wikipedians", as this sort of language escalates the kind of tension that can arise here, which we're all doing our level best to avoid. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. This is not a substantive entry for an individual topic, where of course not every change needs pre-approval or prior discussion and consensus, but a site-wide guideline page. There's a rather obvious difference in content and purpose, and hence in terms of the need for stability, as the banner here makes clear. I have no idea what an "anti-Wikipedian" is. N-HH talk/edits 15:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
In this case, someone who would prefer to keep a problem rather than solve it, because by keeping it we achieve "stability". Or simply someone who doesn't get (or who opposes) the idea that "everyone can edit". Sadly, there seem to be more and more such people around, not only on this page. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Who says I'd rather keep the problem for the sake of stability? And who says your edits solved anything anyway? The first of the two I reverted together removed an entire sentence, claiming it was repetition when it wasn't, since it included the suggestion of using alternative, more common words. The second, which related more specifically to the hyphen/endash point, shuffled text around and added the confusing and confused claim about "a compound which qualifies another noun", when we are actually taking about names and proper nouns. Nor did it do anything to solve the actual underlying problem with this part of the MOS, which is its apparent internal contradiction. That's what's already being discussed, and it doesn't help to have the current text being shuffled around as that discussion takes place. N-HH talk/edits 15:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
All right, now you're providing reasons, good. If you'd done that to start with, rather than inventing quasi-procedural justifications for your action, then we would have made progress far more pleasantly. W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The "quasi-procedural justifications" were a perfectly valid reason for reverting, without or without any fuller explanation of the problems with the content of the edit. If you'd made your proposal here, I and others could have responded substantively to that from the outset. However you try to rationalise this, the bottom line is that someone asked you for your suggestion; instead of explaining any proposed changes and awaiting comments, you simply edited the page and then pointed them to that edit. That is not how the editing process works, not least because if everybody went about it that way, especially for unclear issues and especially on site-wide guidelines, it'd be chaos. N-HH talk/edits 17:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
No, that's exactly how the editing process works, or is supposed to work. Even on a site-wide guideline (so what? I didn't change the substance of any guidance), we first try to make things better by making things better. It's honestly the most effective way, and the secret of Misplaced Pages's success. I won't respond any more on the topic since I know people like you are inaccessible to the light, but I remain in diametric disagreement with you on this point. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
All this patronizing lecturing doesn't advance the issue. I still don't know if anyone objects to my changes, and if so, for what reason. This is exactly the kind of behavior which makes "development especially challenging". It would be a whole lot less challenging if people only reverted if they disagreed, and explained why they disagreed. That way we wouldn't waste time on non-issues and meta-issues, problems would be fixed without fuss, and discussion would be focused on such genuine problems as really require it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The revert wasn't "groundless". The grounds were that it restored what had been agreed by a prior consensus, until such time as a new consensus might be agreed. Had you made your proposal here, people would surely have given reasoned opinions of it. Please remember that the MOS represents a previous consensus, which it's fine to change, but not OK to ride roughshod over. --Stfg (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
So I changed it, which you say is fine. I didn't "ride roughshod over it"; I didn't change any of the substance of the advice, just tried to improve the way it was worded. If someone disagrees that it was an improvement, that's fine. The implication of the original reasoning was that it didn't matter whether or not it was an improvement, it was that attempted improvements are not welcome here per se, which is obviously not a helpful attitude to take. W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, what I said is fine to change is consensus; it isn't OK to change text that was hammered out in a consensus-building process, without first changing the consensus by means of discussion. --Stfg (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, there is no attempt to "change the consensus", just to better express what the consensus is. That oughtn't to require long process, or we'll never achieve anything. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I have seen arguments over the years about em-dashes, en-dashes, hyphens, minus signs et al. I have not read all the walls of text about the arguments so maybe my question has already been answered somewhere but I have not seen it. For the reader or anyone for that matter what difference does it make which one is used? Do reader or writers for than matter gain more insight into a subject if the "correct" one is used? Do we lose some understanding if the incorrect one is used? I do not see any reason to worry about this minutia but maybe there is a good reason to spend so much time on dashes. Can someone explain to me why we need to spend so much time and space on this? 69.255.176.248 (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, for readers who understand normal English punctuation, the distinctions signaled by punctuation are useful and make it easier to understand the material quickly. Dicklyon (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I suppose we spend the time and space here, at a central point, so that editors don't end up spending even more time and space debating the point on many diverse articles. Also, it's fun to apply one's mental capabilities to something that doesn't really matter (hence chess, crosswords, etc.) W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
There is also always the solution, suggested by me and others in the past, of going back to what many publishers and readers, especially online, are quite happy with: which is to only ever use a hyphen for all such joins (including prefixes) and to not worry about hyphen/endash distinctions to start with. Sadly, it's never going to fly because too many people on these pages think it's "unprofessional" while others seem to quite like these endless navel-gazing disputes about how to apply the rules in each case. N-HH talk/edits 12:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't asking why the time is spent here, I was asking about overall time spent on this issue. I guess N-HH answered the question, editors think it is unprofessional to have the "wrong" dash but it does not look like it really makes any difference, people just love to argue. 69.255.176.248 (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The wrong dash? You mean an em not an en dash? Tony (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
this is all really lame and of concern only to grammar nazis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you could try to make useful comments instead of ranting about "grammar nazis". --JorisvS (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

If I might try to continue the more substantial discussion at the bottom of the thread where we can find it, can anyone do a better job than I did at explaining the apparent contradiction (and in the process, perhaps explaining what an "attributive compound" is)? W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, is it even clear what the problem is? Is it that simply all compounds that are used attributively (whether or not implied) dashes and those are used substantively hyphenated. Or is it whether or not the entity is seen as one whole, no longer considered named after two distinct entities? --JorisvS (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
It's the latter surely. All the examples listed are names of things and proper nouns, whether it's McGraw-Hill or Hale–Bopp. The problem is that there is no obvious logic to that distinction, or at least no obvious logic than can be applied consistently. N-HH talk/edits 17:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The difficulty with the latter is that that rule is pretty subjective, but that need not be a problem for the MoS. It could be worded as "A hyphen is used in proper names when the entity is seen as one whole and is no longer considered named after two distinct entities.". --JorisvS (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, Wilkes-Barre is presumably considered to be named after two distinct entities, by those who know it is so named, just as Hale–Bopp is considered to be named after two distinct entities, by those who know it is so named. (People who don't know might think anything.) And they are both seen as one whole. So why does one have a dash and the other a hyphen? W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Nobody got any ideas? Maybe I was right the first time, and we decided to use the dash in Hale–Bopp just because it is a shortening of Comet Hale–Bopp, in which Hale–Bopp is an attributive compound? W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, it is clear that it is not yet clear what the rule we are supposed to be clarify is exactly. --JorisvS (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
So should we not assume that the text is intended to say what it appears to be saying - that such compounds take a dash if they're "attributive"? Thus the clarification would involve merely defining "attributive", doing it in such a way that the definition includes cases like Hale–Bopp even when the word Comet gets omitted. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we're in danger of drawing a false distinction in terms of meta-language here. Hale-Bopp and McGraw-Hill are both proper names of things – of a comet and a publishing house respectively. In so far as they qualify those latter terms, they are also attributive and adjectival phrases. The fundamental issue, whatever language we use to describe it, seems to be that where the two names have in some mysterious way become one, we would use a hyphen. Until then, we use an endash. It might help if one of the people who regularly stick up for making a rule out of such distinctions – a minority practice among publishers as a whole, especially non-book publishers – and have helped foist it on Misplaced Pages, explained how, exactly, they think the distinction works and how the MOS might best be worded for clarity and to avoid confusion and apparent contradiction. N-HH talk/edits 10:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
It does seem that McGraw-Hill is a poor example, partly because its name has now changed, and partly because it always seems to have been attributive in virtually the same way that Hale–Bopp is. Perhaps we should just follow the conventions used in the relevant literature in cases like this. (The official company name, the official comet name as listed by astronomical bodies, etc.) W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

So why don't we make this easy? Every dash used on Misplaced Pages looks like this, -. It is easy because you just have to type it on the keyboard and most readers (the people we are creating this for) probably could care less what it looks like. Problem solved. 69.255.176.248 (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Or not solved, because many people are used to using and seeing real dashes in certain situations and will try to insert them. There isn't really a problem anyway, because in the rules are clear for the great majority of cases and correspond to what most experienced writers will be used to. The ambiguity we're talking about here affects only a very limited set of cases. W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought a hyphen and an en-dash were the same thing, and an em-dash was something slightly wider which some people insist on in some circumstances I can never remember, and which doesn't have a key for it. If "normal English punctuation" requires us to distinguish identical characters, and use special keys absent from English-language keyboards, with certain rules half the English-speaking world never knows about, then "normal English punctuation" isn't part of normal English. Ananiujitha (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

If you have a keyboard that looks something like this, there are only two keys that will directly give a hyphen, and none that will give a dash. The two that produce a hyphen are (i) in the main keyboard, immediately to the right of the digit 0; (ii) in the numeric keypad on the right, directly above the +. These give the same character, which strictly speaking is called hyphen-minus since it has a dual role. In Wikitext, the hyphen-minus and en dash are the same width as each other, with the em dash being slightly longer; but when displayed on a finished page, the hyphen-minus is about half the width of the en dash – which is itself half the width of the em dash — you can enter both of these characters into Wikitext using a variety of techniques. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I think you'll find the hyphen-minus (-) is different from an en dash (–), the latter being longer than the former. They do perform different tasks. They were indistinguishable on typewriters with fixed-width characters and, sadly, computer keyboard makers failed to differentiate them when other fonts came along and the world got lazy. Microsoft Word automatically converts hyphens to endashes when surrounded by a space on both sides, but most other applications don't, so the subtlety has become lost to many. A hyphen, however, is never a correct substitute for an em dash (—), which basically denotes a parenthetical remark—like this one—where they are paired in the same way as parentheses. It can also be used for a parenthetical remark at the end of sentence without another em dash before the full stop—like this. Luckily, both of these dashes are readily available using the Wiki markup links below the edit box. —sroc 💬 00:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
It is sad that there is this problem with typing endashes, but it is not relevant for the issue at hand: The rule that describes the few cases when a hyphen should be used instead of an endash. --JorisvS (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

So to come back the question of why it's Hale–Bopp with a dash and Wilkes-Barre with a hyphen, does anyone have any better suggestions than the one currently implied: that in the first case the compound is "attributive" (the qualified noun "comet" being understood), while in the second it isn't? And if not, does anyone object to this being clarified with the addition of an explanation of what is meant by "attributive"? W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Are any external style guides saying that, or are you inferring it from the examples to hand? If the former, could you give us some links? Then I'd say go for it. If the latter, I'd say it's original research, and from an anecdotal sample. And while I'm here, what is the rationale for removing the McGraw-Hill example from the guideline while this discussion is still in progress? The edit summary says "see talk", but I'm missing the explanation, and it may be important, since you've pointed out that it's attributive, which would mean that it's a counter-example to this theory, hence important. --Stfg (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm inferring it from what's written in the guideline, which is supposedly based on a consensus that Misplaced Pages editors reached. "Attributive" seems to be the key word, and I'm inferring what is meant by "attributive" based on the examples given and my knowledge of what attributive actually means. I can't come up with any logical explanation for McGraw-Hill within the framework given, so I'm assuming it was an error, and since the present name of the company has no hyphen or dash, according to its article, the example seems to have lost its purpose in any case (but please restore it if you think it will help our deliberations). W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

"Attributive" is something of a red herring; it's incidental to the intended distinction. Using hyphens or en-dashes in the problematic cases being discussed here has to do with the "binding strength" of the two symbols: hyphens bind more tightly than en-dashes. Thus in Lennard-Jones potential the hyphen is intended to show that this is named after a single person called "Lennard-Jones". In Comet Hale–Bopp the en-dash is intended to show that it is named after two people called "Hale" and "Bopp". "Lennard" and "Jones" are bound more tightly than "Hale" and "Bopp". This makes excellent sense, until you consider more evidence and more cases. Thus:

  • The distinction for comets is irrelevant, because the naming authority only uses one element of a hyphenated name. Thus if Lennard-Jones and Hale had jointly discovered a comet, the name would not be Lennard-Jones–Hale (1st = hyphen, 2nd = en-dash) but Lennard–Hale. So by using an en-dash in Misplaced Pages, we are making a distinction which isn't needed.
  • Cities can acquire double-barrelled names in several ways. They can be named after two people or two cities can merge. We want the first case to bind the names more tightly than the second case, so a city named after two people uses a hyphen (hence Wilkes-Barre) but a union of two cities uses an en-dash (hence Minneapolis–Saint Paul). However, this leads to an inconsistency between cities named after two people, which use a hyphen, and theorems, laws, comets, etc. named after two people, which use an en-dash.
  • What is being attempted is to use hyphen and en-dash to mark in text tightness-of-binding distinctions that can be made in symbolic contexts by parentheses. However, any number of levels can be marked by nested parentheses, but only two by hyphen and en-dash. Since hyphenated proper names can arise by more than two joining processes as shown above (one person with a double-barrelled name, two people, two cities) it's never going to work without some inconsistencies.

Personally, I don't think it's worth making the hyphen/en-dash distinction in proper names of this kind; it just causes too much hassle. However, if we do make the distinction, there are bound to be anomalies. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you say "We want the first case to bind the names more tightly than the second case, so a city named after two people uses a hyphen (hence Wilkes-Barre)"? Shouldn't it be Wilkes–Barre, for the same reasons as Hale–Bopp and Minneapolis–Saint Paul, namely, the combination of the names of separate entities? I think the hyphen/dash distinction is too subtle for anyone to make any assumptions whether Wilkes-Barre or Wilkes–Barre is one town named after two people or a merger between two towns, without context or clarification, when it could easily be put down to a typo or some editor misunderstanding the distinction. —sroc 💬 22:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I would have thought Wilkes-Barre (hyphenated) was an individual’s surname, as in Double-barrelled name, rather than a thing’s name. —173.199.215.5 (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
So does anyone have any idea how to sort out this mess (with minimal change to the substantial consequences of the guidance, I suppose)? W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd say leave well enough alone, unless you find a grammar guide that does a good job of it. Wilkes-Barre is a city, not much like Minneapolis–St. Paul, which is two cities. The distinction between Wilkes-Barre and Hale–Bopp is more subtle, but editors mostly know it when they see it, and there's not usually much disagreement that the former is more strongly bound into a single city name and the latter is the names of co-equal discoverers of the comet. Many sources use en dash in Hale–Bopp; none do for Wilkes-Barre, as far as I know. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that the current wording is unclear (see the link at the beginning of this post), no matter the rules, and so has to be changed. However, for it to be changed, we must be clear on what the rule is. --JorisvS (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's another example to consider: The Hindi-Urdu language (hyphen, a single language, sometimes called Hindi, sometimes Urdu) vs the Hindi–Urdu controversy (dash, dispute between Hindi and Urdu).

McGraw-Hill is an oddity, but I think is universally hyphenated. It's an idiosyncratic exception that's being treated as a double-barreled name; there's no real reason for it, AFAICT. Guinea-Bissau is irrelevant: That's not a union of Guinea and Bissau, but rather the Guinea of Bissau vs. Guinea-Conakry.

But the constant attacks and attempts to dumb down Misplaced Pages so it contains nothing an editor doesn't already know is a distraction from actually trying to clarify such issues. If we can't discuss this rationally, I think we should probably just remove the counter-example and leave McGraw-Hill as an eccentric exception, with a link to this discussion rather than to the MOS. — kwami (talk) 07:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

And what about Wilkes-Barre? Would you put that in the same "eccentric" category, or do you think its exclusion from the dash rule is connected with the fact that the compound is not "attributive"? W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Can we find a solution? Is the use of a hyphen instead of an endash:
a) a few oddities
b) because it is not in an attributive phrase attributive (whether implied or not)
c) because these are more strongly bound together (and if so, how to decide which should be used)?
d) or because they are seen as single entities no longer named after which they were originally named?
Or a maybe a combination of these? In any case, the current wording is unclear, as has been experienced here, and therefore must be changed. This can only be done, however, if we know how to change it. --JorisvS (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems that most people here think "attributive" is in fact irrelevant. So how about we delete that word, and simply say afterwards that if some term (such as Wilkes-Barre) is invariably written with a hyphen rather than a dash in sources, then we do so also? The other examples like Guinea-Bissau probably don't even belong in that section, as Kwami pointed out. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
But then, when is it enough? Is one example of a dash already sufficient for us to dash the term? --JorisvS (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
So, should we just delete the paragraph and just say that there are a few casewise-determined cases where a hyphen is used where one would expect an endash? --JorisvS (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking, what about an endash is used to indicate a symmetrical relationship, and a hyphen to indicate the unity of the two? This would explain Hindi–Urdu controversy vs. Hindi-Urdu. It would also explain Wilkes-Barre (1 city) vs. Minneapolis–St. Paul (2 cities). It would also explain names such as Lennard-Jones. --JorisvS (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
No one disagrees or knows a counterexample? This MOS line style still needs to be clarified, so I'll do that if no one voices any disagreement. The latter explanation seems to be the best one we've been able to find, I think. --JorisvS (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you have a mandate to make changes. Could you print here the current and your proposed new texts first, for our consideration? Tony (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure. This is what I'm proposing:
An en dash is not used for a hyphenated personal name.
  • Lennard-Jones potential with a hyphen: named after John Lennard-Jones
An en dash is used for the names of two or more people in an attributive compound.
  • the Seifert–van Kampen theorem;   the Seeliger–Donker-Voet scheme;   the Alpher–Bethe–Gamow theory
  • Comet Hale–Bopp or just Hale–Bopp (discovered by Hale and Bopp)
A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities.
  • Guinea-Bissau; Bissau is the capital, and this distinguishes the country from neighboring Guinea
  • Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, a union of two cities
  • John Lennard-Jones, an individual named after two families
An en dash is used to indicate a symmetrical relationship, but a hyphen is used to indicate a unity.
  • Hindi–Urdu controversy (a dispute between Hindi and Urdu) vs. Hindi-Urdu (an alternative name for the Hindustani language)
  • Minneapolis–St. Paul (2 cities) vs. Wilkes-Barre (1 city named after Wilkes and Barre)
  • John Lennard-Jones, an individual named after two families
The en dash in all of the compounds above is unspaced.
Does anyone have suggestions or remarks? --JorisvS (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

At first look there's a comforting conceptual simplicity in what you propose: "An en dash is used to indicate a symmetrical relationship, but a hyphen is used to indicate a unity." But thinking it through, symmetry is not essential; separateness in the entities is what counts more. Consider:

  • US–Australia cultural and linguistic exports.
  • A Hanoi–Da Nang train journey.
  • Our China–Siberia border crossing.

No symmetry, but separate entities invoked. Reversibility is one "test", but it's not always the case. Ontological separateness is what really counts.

We all want a guideline that is optimal for editors to understand. May I ask for a short statement as to what is unsatisfactory or difficult about the current text? That would help us to know where it stands. Tony (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so we say "An en dash is used to indicate separateness of the names, but a hyphen is used to indicate unity." instead. The current text, as explained above, is unclear and appears to directly contradict itself. First it says "An en dash is used for the names of two or more people in an attributive compound.", with Comet Hale–Bopp as an example, but then it says "A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities.", even though the name of a single entity was dashed just before. --JorisvS (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Any other critical notes? --JorisvS (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Exactly what is wrong with the current text? Tony (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
What did I say just above? That. --JorisvS (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed – exactly as was pointed out at the start of the thread all those weeks and bytes ago. It's amazing how long it can take for some things to sink in. As I recall saying at some point, it would be useful if one of those who initially insisted that WP apply this minority-practice distinction at all and/or any of those who then contributed to the drafting of the current detailed section, could actually weigh in and help out. Those people would include your interlocutor here, among others. N-HH talk/edits 15:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a problem: it says "by default", which indicates that there are exceptions. If it would be clearer, perhaps add "However,"? "However, a hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities." Tony (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
But how is "Comet Hale-Bopp" not a "compounded proper name" of single entity? Fine, there are exceptions to any rule, but how is anyone meant to work out what they are, how frequent they are or how the distinction is drawn? N-HH talk/edits 12:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there still anything wrong with my suggestion above?
An en dash is not used for a hyphenated personal name.
  • Lennard-Jones potential with a hyphen: named after John Lennard-Jones
An en dash is used for the names of two or more people in an attributive compound.
  • the Seifert–van Kampen theorem;   the Seeliger–Donker-Voet scheme;   the Alpher–Bethe–Gamow theory
  • Comet Hale–Bopp or just Hale–Bopp (discovered by Hale and Bopp)
A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities.
  • Guinea-Bissau; Bissau is the capital, and this distinguishes the country from neighboring Guinea
  • Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, a union of two cities
  • John Lennard-Jones, an individual named after two families
An en dash is used to indicate separateness of the names, but a hyphen is used to indicate unity.
  • Hindi–Urdu controversy (a dispute between Hindi and Urdu) vs. Hindi-Urdu (an alternative name for the Hindustani language)
  • Minneapolis–St. Paul (2 cities) vs. Wilkes-Barre (1 city named after Wilkes and Barre)
  • John Lennard-Jones, an individual named after two families
The en dash in all of the compounds above is unspaced.
--JorisvS (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Does the silence mean that it is correct this way? --JorisvS (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
No. Tony (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Then tell what's wrong! Let's correct it and build something better! --JorisvS (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Definite improvement. Unless there's s.t. specifically wrong, I say we go for it. — kwami (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks good to me, too. Removing the "single entity", which is too broad and ambiguous to be useful, is probably a good step. Tony, tell us what you're thinking. Dicklyon (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change

Per the above discussion, I suggest changing:

A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities.

  • Guinea-Bissau; Bissau is the capital, and this distinguishes the country from neighboring Guinea
  • Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, a union of two cities
  • John Lennard-Jones, an individual named after two families

to:

An en dash is used to indicate separateness of the names, but a hyphen is used to indicate unity.

  • Hindi–Urdu controversy (a dispute between Hindi and Urdu) vs. Hindi-Urdu (an alternative name for the Hindustani language)
  • Minneapolis–St. Paul (two cities) vs. Wilkes-Barre (one city named after Wilkes and Barre)
  • John Lennard-Jones, an individual named after two families

--JorisvS (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of consistent formatting, may I suggest:
An en dash is used to indicate a conjunction of separate entities or concepts; a hyphen is used to indicate unity of a single entity or concept formed by combining multiple names.
  • Hindi–Urdu controversy (a dispute between Hindi and Urdu); but Hindi-Urdu (an alternative name for the Hindustani language)
  • Minneapolis–St. Paul (a union of two cities); but Wilkes-Barre (one city named after Wilkes and Barre)
  • John Lennard-Jones (an individual named after two families)
I'm not sure the words "separateness" and "unity" made the distinction clear, so I've suggested alternate wording for the introductory line, too. —sroc 💬 14:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think that looks better. Thank you. --JorisvS (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The way I was taught the typographic use of a en dash, is that it's showing some sort of relationship between two things. Hence "Human–Computer Interaction" and use in page ranges. That makes sense to me as an explanation of the above examples as well. Well, except Minneapolis–St. Paul, that's an odd one. Arguably that the combination of the two cities represents their close relationship. SamBC(talk) 19:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree in principle with the distinction between separation (Hindi–Urdu controversy, Hindi and Urdu are separate literary registers and/or languages) and unity (John Lennard-Jones is one individual), but I see problems with the examples:
  1. Minneapolis–St. Paul is not "a union of two cities" - it is "the most populous urban area ... composed of 182 cities and townships ... its two largest cities, Minneapolis, ... and Saint Paul". Ie it is a single urban area that includes the two named cities and 180 others cities/towns. Perhaps Minneapolis–St. Paul is a good example (named after two separate cities), but it is poor and misleading description.
  2. Not shown in the proposed change, but immediately above in MOS:ENDASH is "En dash is used ... Comet Hale–Bopp ...(discovered by Hale and Bopp)." Yes the comet was named after two people, but generally Hale-Bopp is the common name of a single comet. Why does a single comet have an en dash when a single city (Wilkes-Barre), also named after two people, have a hyphen? Do you intend to delete/replace the existing sentence and examples "An en dash is used for the names of two or more people in an attributive compound..."? The "proposed change" didn't say so.
Mitch Ames (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a good catch, just corrected the proposal above according to your suggestions regarding Minneapolis–St. Paul. Regarding the Hale–Bopp comet and comparison with Wilkes-Barre, well, that's probably because the comet has C/1995 O1 as it's official name, making Hale–Bopp just an alias. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
An en dash is used to indicate a conjunction of separate entities or concepts; a hyphen is used to indicate unity of a single entity or concept formed by combining multiple names.
  • Hindi–Urdu controversy (a dispute between Hindi and Urdu); but Hindi-Urdu (an alternative name for the Hindustani language)
  • Minneapolis–St. Paul (a union of two cities an urban area named by its two largest cities); but Wilkes-Barre (one city named after Wilkes and Barre)
  • John Lennard-Jones (an individual named after two families)
Corrected according to Mitch Ames's suggestions, so "Minneapolis–St. Paul" is described as "an urban area named by its two largest cities". — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
"Regarding the Hale–Bopp comet and comparison with Wilkes-Barre ..."
Yes C/1995 O1 is its official name, but its common name and the title of the article is Comet Hale–Bopp. When we talk about Comet Hale–Bopp are we referring to the comet or the discoverers? If we have examples of:
  • en dash, Hale–Bopp, one comet discovered by Hale and Bopp
  • hyphen, Wilkes-Barre, one city named after Wilkes and Barre
I suggest that we need to clearly and unambiguously explain, in the description of the policy, what the distinguishing criteria is, because it is not obvious from the examples. Why is Hale–Bopp "the names of two or more people in an attributive compound" but Wilkes-Barre not? A rule of "named after discoverers, use en dash, else hyphen" or "if the term is a common name for which there is a different formal designation, use en dash, else hyphen" does not sound like a good clear rule to me. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
These are good points. I can't quite wrap my head around "Wilkes-Barre". Maybe "Hale–Bopp" is dashed because it is short for "Comet Hale–Bopp" and "Wilkes-Barre" is no such shortening? I'm not really sure, but I can't think of any other good reason. --JorisvS (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The International Astronomical Union says that all comet names are spelled with a hyphen. But some editors think they can spell better than the naming authority for all celestial bodies, and they insisted on dashing Hale-Bopp..... --Enric Naval (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
They IAU, however, does not distinguish between endashes and hyphens, so that's unfortunately useless. --JorisvS (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Please cite a source for this statement. Even non-reliable sources will do. Any source. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding "Hale–Bopp" vs. "Wilkes-Barre", it's probably something like this:
  • Comet Hale–Bopp "was discovered independently on July 23, 1995 by two observers, Alan Hale and Thomas Bopp, both in the United States." That means they haven't made it a joint venture, and instead worked without knowing each other, so the title gets an en dash.
  • Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania "was named Wilkes-Barre after John Wilkes and Isaac Barré, two British members of Parliament who supported colonial America." That means they were pushing into the same direction, "modifying" each other all the time etc. So, it gets a hyphen.
How about that? I know it's pushing it quite far, but to me that's the only another reasonable explanation. Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
But comets carry a dash regardless of whether the people worked together to discover it or did so independently. This to indicate that it has been named after multiple people, and not one person carrying a double name (like Lennard-Jones). --JorisvS (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
If a discoverer has a hyphenated surname, the hyphen is replaced with a space (i.e. 105P/Singer Brewster named after Singer-Brewster) or part of the name is removed. This is to prevent confusion with the hyphens for multiple discoverers. This is sourced from reliable sources in the Singer Brewster article. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't aware of that, sorry. Thanks for the explanations, will remember for the future. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm rather fond of en dashes but this discussion is troubling, and I can only think of a question to illustrate the difficulty: "Are there any Minneapolis–St. Paul bus routes in the Minneapolis-St. Paul transit system?" Modal Jig (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Why would the second one be with a hyphen? --JorisvS (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually I found the answer to my question (what's the difference between Hale–Bopp and Wilkes-Barre) in MOS already - I just wasn't paying attention. It says (above the Hale–Bopp example) that an en dash is used "for the names of two or more people in an attributive compound" (my emphasis). "Hale–Bopp" is attributive (adjective qualifying a noun) in that it describes/qualifies "Comet". Ie the name is Comet Hale–Bopp, not just Hale–Bopp. In the case of Wilkes-Barre, that hyphenated term is the complete name, it is not a qualifier for another noun.
I'm not sure I like the answer, but it is there. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The full comet name is "C/1995 O1 (Hale-Bopp)", not "Comet Hale-Bopp". --Enric Naval (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
@Mitch Ames: That makes sense, thanks, but then what about Wilkes-Barre Township, for example? Hm, shouldn't "Wilkes-Barre" have an en dash when used that way? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I would interpret the MOS guidelines as indicating that Wilkes-Barre Township should be an en dash instead of a hyphen. That could mean my interpretation is wrong, or that the guideline should be changed, or that it is a sufficiently rare example that we can ignore the guideline without worrying about changing it. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Totally agreed. Any comments from other editors, please? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm totally confused as well. Either we don't understand something and/or something is wrong. Well, something is certainly wrong with the MOS, that's why this whole big thread started in the first place, but there are apparently still things we need to find out before we can properly rewrite it. Any suggestions on how to figure this out? --JorisvS (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • From the IAU's own site, official naming principles: "It frequently happens that a comet is found by (a) discoverer(s) --- whether a single individual, two individuals working together, or a team --- who cannot detect cometary activity with the equipment that he/she/they possess. Such an object may therefore be assumed to be a minor planet and so designated when two or more nights' worth of observations are available to the Minor Planet Center (or posted, for example -- prior to being designated -- on the MPC's NEO Confirmation webpage, if unusual motion is detected)."

    So -- and --- are their best notion a sentence-level dash, it seems. On that page the word dash doesn't appear; nor is there an en dash or an em dash character. But we do find their infamously stupid principle for use of hyphens close by. Tony (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Sooo, the IAU does know what a dash is and how to use it in a sentence..... But you don't like how they represent it? If you are using a typewriter, you don't know what a dash is because you can't type it? If you are limiting yourself to ASCII characters for some reason, you don't know what a dash is? Even if you are clearly using a dash, and using it correctly? I don't get your argument......

RFC: Month abbreviations

  1. Shall month abbreviations be limited to the first three characters of the month, or may a fourth character be used?
  2. May a month abbreviation be followed by a full stop when it is not at the end of a sentence?
  3. Shall WP:Manual of Style#Months and seasons and WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Acceptable date formats be required to agree on this point?

General discussion

As the originator of this discussion, I don't much care which abbreviations are allowed, but I am not pleased that the "Manual of Style" and the "Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" contradict each other, nor am I pleased that User:BattyBot is automatically changing abbreviations such as "Sept." to "Sep" within Citation Style 1 templates before this contradiction has been resolved. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Likewise. I point out that this discussion could be subdivided on several points.
  1. Presumably, in special cases "where conciseness is required" (e.g., tables) exceptions are allowed for use of abbreviated (with a period) or "short month names" (without a period).
  2. For the rest: should abbreviated month names (including a period) be: a) allowed, b) disallowed, or c) no position?
  3. If abbreviated month names are allowed, may they use four characters (e.g.: "Sept.")?
  4. Outside of special cases, should should three-character short month names (like abbreviations, but lacking a period) be: a) allowed, b) disallowed, or c) no position?
~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Question: Can you specify exactly which sections of ] and WP:DATES are in conflict for the purposes of this RFC? As many readers as there are, it is possible that there will be as many different interpretations of just which sections your mean. Is it possible to focus the purpose of this RFC more carefully so that perhaps a more definitive result may be determined? Perhaps either of these things:
  1. consolidate the grouped questions into a single statement / question
  2. break up the grouped questions into multiple non-overlapping statements / questions
Of the several RFCs I've watched, we editors seem to wander a bit a way from the intent of the question. I wonder if by carefully crafting the question a better result might be obtained.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


I'm not sure it's helpful to break up the questions; to much structure might be incompatible with the direction the discussion ends up taking.
As for the point of contradiction, WP:Manual of Style#Months and seasons specifically endorses the abbreviation "Feb.", with the full stop. WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Acceptable date formats takes great care to spell out acceptable formats character by character, and the example Sep 8, 2001 does not contain a full stop. A discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 143#Month abbreviations with four letters rejected my attempt to bring the two guidelines into agreement. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I have boldly reformatted the original questions to try to cut down on the amount of wandering. I have also placed three separate discussion sections below. Please revert this edit if my changes do not meet the original intent. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to Sroc for alerting me to this conversation, and thanks to Jc3s5h for starting it here. (It seems that typing User:BattyBot didn't send me an email, even though I have the notifications set to do just that, so I've added web notifications for the bot account.) The goal of BattyBot 25's edits were to remove articles from Category:CS1 errors: dates, and changing abbreviations such as "Sept." to "Sep" did exactly that. While this RFC is open, I will not run that bot task. Upon completion of this RFC, I will see how Trappist the monk adjusts which citations get included in the error category, and adjust the bot accordingly. GoingBatty (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I have also invited the three editors who posted at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Abbreviated months in citations but have not yet posted here to join the discussion. GoingBatty (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of 1. Three-letter abbreviations only

  • Three-letter and four-letter month formats I have seen in actual use: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun/June, Jul/July, Aug, Sep/Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec. It seems to me that an allowable list would either be three-letter abbreviations only, or this list. Are we talking about more than this? I'm fine with being wrong; post a modification of this list for discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the list above should be the way to go; in other words, June, July and Sept variants should be allowed in addition to three-letter abbreviations. Actually, it's just that Sept should be also allowed as an abbreviation, as June and July are full names. — Dsimic (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC) After spending some more time thinking about this, I'm changing my comment to allowing only three-letter abbreviations, and only where horizontal space is really tight. The only reason for having those abbreviations should be lack of horizontal space, and in that case space should be preserved as much as possible. — Dsimic (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If we are to use abbreviated months at all, which I do not support except for very tight spaces, I fail to see any advantage in keeping "Sept" or "Sept." as an abbreviation. "Sept" is clearly the odd man out and is not comparable to "June" or "July" – would look messy and inconsistent to have three and four-lettered month abbreviations in the same table or infobox. And if space is really tight, it would be an advantage to shorten "June" and "July" to "Jun" and "Jul" respectively, and also lose the full stop. That would also make it more consistent as the "May" in "31 May 2013" ought never to have a full stop under any circumstance. -- Ohc  02:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree it's best to allow three-letter month abbreviations only. Allowing four-letter months only allows Sept as an abbreviation and the full months June and July; and would promote inconsistency with May which is always only three letters, and all the other months which do not have acceptable four-letter variants. —sroc 💬 03:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I see no problem with a fourth letter for Sept, which is widely used by people. Insisting on the number 3 would be instruction creep and counterproductive, since people will use Sept anyway and should have the right to do so. June and July are allowed in any case as the full names, and there is no such thing as allowing only the abbreviations and not the full name. I don't think the extra letter should be a problem. Even with a period, which I am in favor to allow, as below. Debresser (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    • You can't have a period after May., June. or July., if that's what you're implying, as they are not abbreviations. (Incidentally, this is another reason to avoid the period, as it leads to inconsistency when using these full month names alongside three- or four-letter abbreviations. —sroc 💬 11:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You all seem to be ignoring the two drastically different contexts: 1) where space is tight and "conciseness is required" (such as tables), and 2) elsewhere, which is largely article text, but can include notes and references. The validity of arguments for or against abbreviations are generally context specific. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Pretty neutral. While I can see the argument for consistency in minimizing space, the four letter version "Sept" is so widely used that it's going to be hard to keep out, what with being the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Indeed, that's kind of why I lead to this being instruction creep. I wouldn't revert if anyone were to make an edit going for the consistent use of three-letter abbreviations, but I don't know if we need to mandate it. oknazevad (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — For simplicity, consistency, conciseness & æsthetics, as I've mentioned below, I'd say allowing only three-letter-no-dot abbreviations of months is the way to go. Jimp 10:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Pure instruction creep. The difference between Sep. and Sept. is negligible. Both are acceptable and standard. There is no reason to favor one over the other (unless it is an ENGVAR issue?). I would favor consistency within an article... but see no reason to mandate consistency across the entire project when it comes to month abbreviations. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of 2. Full stop after month abbreviation

  • There's no point in allowing periods after month names abbreviations, if the primary intention for allowing them is to save some horizontal space. — Dsimic (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Abbreviations are routinely follow by stops in most languages, including English. Not allowing for this would therefore not be logical and cause problems because many editors will add them anyways. I think another period doesn't take up too much space. In short, I think a period can and should be allowed. Debresser (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Like many publications, Misplaced Pages has its own style guide and we can choose what formats are permitted. That's why we have MOS:BADDATEFORMAT; otherwise there would be anarchy in allowing any format that anyone uses. We try to limit the number of date formats we use and promote consistency in the few that we allow. Just because some editors may use a style that is disallowed by MOS is not a "problem" that means we need to change MOS; just fix the errors to conform with MOS. No problem. —sroc 💬 11:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If (where) abbreviations are allowed, then as abbreviations they should have the full-stop. But there is a special case: three letters, all capitals (e.g.: "JAN"). This is standard in some places (e.g., communications, esp. military) where economy is desired and the full-stop seems excessive. While I would not want to see that as a generally acceptable "style", I think we should allow it for tables (only). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's measure how much width this full-stop is using:
    • Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan
    • Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. 6 full-stops seem to take the width of 3 letters, so each period is about half a character. Decide for your selves how important half a character is to a table (most tables are likely to have only one, maybe two date columns).  Stepho  talk  23:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
That means "Jan." is about 17% longer than "Jan", reducing the shortening of "January" to 50% instead of 43%. Meh. :) — Dsimic (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Allow a period. In general, abbreviations usually have a period after them unless they are part of an acronym (and are optional as part of an initialism). I generally disfavor making rules of style mandatory ("Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style (MoS) is a guideline, or a set of 'best practices' supported by consensus. The MoS is not a collection of hard rules"); otherwise I might even want to require the use of a period after abbreviations. If there is no legal compliance issue then I strongly favor allowing the dot. But if legal compliance requires us to save space, that is more important than following the rules of standard English. Bwrs (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Disallow the dot in favour of consistency. If we could settle on one style of abbreviations for month names, I reckon the gain in consistency would be worth the trouble. If we are going for one style, the three-letter-no-dot style would be preferable; it's consistent in terms of length (which is nice especially for tables), it's simple and it's what the {{#time}} parser function gives us (so we're sort-of stuck with it anyway). If we do allow the dot, though, we should at least recommend consistency within an article, i.e. give editors a choice between two specific styles: three-letter-no-dot or three-or-four-letter-dot-or-no-dot (i.e. Jan., Feb., Mar., Apr., May, June, July, Aug., Sept., Oct., Nov. & Dec.). Jimp 09:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of 3. Agreement between WP:MOS and WP:MOSNUM

  • It is my impression that WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers (MOSNUM) is intended to provide additional details so the length of this guideline may be kept reasonably short; since this guideline has a larger audience, I don't believe statements in this guideline should be contradicted by statements in subsidiary guidelines. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that one or other of the guidelines (or both) should be amended to remove the (perceived) inconsistency. My preference would be to edit:
  • Agree that the two manuals should be consistent, also as per sroc above that we should explicitly disallow 4 character date abbreviations and remove the use of a full stop after the abbreviated name. Keith D (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • There must be consistency. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It's only be a disservice to newer editors not to have consistency, so naturally the guidelines should match. Not that every detail need be in the main MoS, but what is covered here should give the same advice as is in the specific guideline. Indeed, I'd say that goes without saying. oknazevad (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • They should definitely not require different or contradictory things. But as for one guideline being permissive and the other being mandatory, that may simply reflect a lack of consensus. Once a consensus is formed, they should say the same thing. Bwrs (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no question that the MOS an all its subpages should be consistent. As stated above, it's obvious. Jimp 09:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

En dashes rather than hyphens for both prefixed and suffixed adjective phrases. (2)

In reference to this edit:

Previous discussions:

Can people say if they agree with this or not, and close it one way or other? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is the same as documented in the above-linked edit message and Talk discussion. User:DocWatson42, this topic may still interest you. Thank you, Enric, for gathering those links. startswithj (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
It does, but at this time I have nothing new to add, other than my continuing support for the proposed change for the reasons I have previously stated.—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm supporting en dashes instead of hyphens in both cases, what means while applying prefixes or suffixes to compounds including a space.
To me, "credit card-sized" is quite bad, when compared to "credit card–sized". I've read all of the linked threads (and even more threads linked further from there), and something like "New York-style" makes sense as it's clear that "New" and "York" are modified together; on the other hand, "credit card-sized" sounds more like a "card-sized" credit, so "credit card–sized" would be really a much better form – in the same way as it fits well within "ex–prime minister Thatcher". Or should we write it as "credit-card-sized" instead? Sorry-but-that-would-be-quite-awkward. :)
@Tony1: it's back to you – let's discuss, please. :) — Dsimic (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The en dash in these circumstances is mainly a US phenomenon, first seen I believe in the 1930s. Most Americans don't use it, even though Chicago Manual of Style recommends it. I quite like it once I got used to it, although I was put off when I first saw it. I'd be happy with optional use, but both credit-card-sized, credit card-sized, and credit card sized seem unsatisfactory to me. Tony (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Totally agreed that some time is required for getting used to it, but it's quite neat and makes things more clear once you're accustomed to it. Also, if we already have MOS specifying en dashes for such prefixes, having hyphens specified for suffixes makes little sense – if you agree. — Dsimic (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
But we need to go back to the decisive RFC on dashes in 2011, which made only prefixes optional as a compromise. I'll be back later. Tony (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hm, these dashes seem to be quite a trouble... However, in that case adding suffixes into the optional use guideline seems to be the way to go. Please let me know where is that 2011 RFC, so I can grasp all of the details from that previous discussion. — Dsimic (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
More or less at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting#In compounds whose elements themselves contain hyphens or spaces. But 5b talks about the prefix case and the suffix case has already been left behind at that point, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I would like to see a list of example applications of the current guideline versus the proposed alternatives before making an opinion based only on pure logic. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Current versus proposed: "Academy Award-winning" versus "Academy Award–winning"; "World War II-era" versus "World War II–era".—DocWatson42 (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Another example (somewhat common on Misplaced Pages) is "Linux kernel-based" (current) versus "Linux kernel–based" (proposed). — Dsimic (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Why would credit-card-sized be unsatisfactory? What is its disadvantage? --JorisvS (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hyphenating all words is not applicable in all cases, such as the ones I just posted above ("Academy-Award-winning": just—no), whereas the proposed change would (I believe) cover all cases.—DocWatson42 (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but what about cases where it is, like credit-card-sized? --JorisvS (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I would probably write it as a triple-monster, but I try to avoid where rewording is possible. Tony (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's have a look at the above mentioned "Linux kernel–based" example; I'm always trying to write that as "based on (the) Linux kernel", but that isn't always possible because sometimes it makes sentences overcomplicated etc., while "Linux kernel-based" sounds more like "Linux" being "kernel-based" (especially for readers unfamiliar with the whole "Linux vs. Linux kernel vs. GNU/Linux" debate). On the other hand, it simply can't be written as "Linux-kernel-based".
Regarding cases where it's actually possible to use double-hyphen monsters, :) those could be some kind of exceptions to the proposed guideline change. Well, there are always some exceptions and there's nothing wrong with them, but some kind of unifying should be applied – especially as we already have a MOS guideline specifying en dashes for such prefixes to compounds including a space. Not having that for such suffixes, too, is pretty much a guideline inconsistency. — Dsimic (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This is an odd inconsistency in the MOS. It's intentional, though: Some people insisted on making suffixes an exception because they "look bad" when dashed. But recently I've noticed that The Week reliably uses en dashes in such situations. The Week is targeted to a broad audience, much as WP is, is designed to be as accessible as possible, and publishes in both the US and UK. (I've seen the US edition.) I haven't been collecting examples, though. — kwami (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Skimming the latest I have, no. 13:650 (2013-12-31), for all en dashes: Tea Party–related (p 4), 1.8 million–year-old skull (p 9), post–Hurricane Katrina nightmare (p 11), the city's first New England–style seafood shack (p 13), the "Paul Simon–esque" Afro rhythms (p 14), $85 billion–a-month bond-buying program (p 22), the Fort Worth–based airline (p 23), Nobel Prize–winning Irish poet, Nobel Prize–winning author, & Tony Award–winning stage and film actress (p 24), the National Geographic–supported expedition (p 31).

I see two patterns here: Proper names, which do not take hyphens, and compounded digit-word numbers, which I myself would probably just double hyphenate. Clearly The Week would dash "Academy Award–winning" and "World War II–era". I don't know about "Linux kernel–based", though. This is equivalent to credit card–sized, which came from a style manual, and of The Week examples, closest to $85 billion–a-month: X-Y Z becomes X–Y Z when X is more than one word, like "credit card" or "$85 billion", which would mean that the capitalization of "Academy Award–winning" is a cue but not the reason for the dash. — kwami (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing such good examples! Such suffixes might "look bad" when dashed, but hyphenating them takes away a good chunk of clarity. To me, everything points into a need for rectifying this MOS inconsistency. — Dsimic (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
IMO they don't look bad at all: They make the text easier to parse, and therefore more enjoyable to read. I think "looks bad" is just a way of saying they're not accustomed to it. — kwami (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Totally agreed. It takes some time for becoming accustomed to en dashes in such language forms, but they provide multiple benefits later. — Dsimic (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dec 27 issue: to then–presidential candidate John Kerry (p 6), (but ex-medical student, p 11), the San Francisco–based singer and songwriter (p 27), a Cordon Blue–caliber cook (p 34), the New York City–based retailer (p 35), a credit card–size device (p 36).

Can't believe I actually found the "credit card" example! It also seems that dashed suffixes are more common than dashed prefixes. As for ex-medical student, I'm guessing it could be an oversight or, like the phrase high school student so commonly seen without a hyphen, judged to be so obvious that no dab was needed.

I want to do a comparison of the UK and Aus editions, but it might take me a while to find some. — kwami (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe "ex-medical student" (with a hyphen) actually isn't a mistake; could it mean that he/she is still a student, but no longer a medical student? Just thinking aloud about a potential edge case. — Dsimic (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not that. The context is a Christmas truce on the front lines in WWII, and the clause is, one German, an ex-medical student, examined the wounded American. Perhaps you only think to use a dash when there's a problem with parsing, and this causes no problem. — kwami (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Now it's clear, thanks for providing some context. — Dsimic (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have found oversights. One below.

Dec 20 issue: The New York City–based Satanic Temple (p 5) (but: natural-gas-based fertilizers, p 9), ex–NSA contractor Edward Snowden (p 18), a Bronx, N.Y.–born con man (p 22), this Zach Galifianakis–produced series (p 24), pro–Volcker Rule (p 34).

But $85 billion-per-month bond-buying program (p 34), presumably an oversight, given that the exact phrase was repeated with a dash in the end-of-the-year wrap-up above. There's also the expected pork-and-dashi-based broth (p 25): no spaced words, so no dash.

Hyphen examples: "the cheaper-silicone implants" means industrial-grade rather than medical-grade silicone, as opposed to silicone implants being cheaper than other fillers. "The then-20-year-old actor" – sometimes there are questions about hyphenating ages. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nov 29: The Tea Party–backed congressman (p 6), Clinton-era, Wall Street–friendly centrism (p 14), New York City–based firm / FlyKly bikes (2 ex, p 18). — kwami (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

{{collapse top|1=(apparent joke)}}

No, sorry, not a joke, but a careful analysis of 2-word, versus 3-word, prefix phrases in adjectives, with examples to show use of multiple hyphens to denote 3-word format. -Wikid77 13:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Denote 3-word adjectives by colon versus middot or hyphens: Rather than overuse the same en dash character, just assign the middot, non-spaced ("·") to connect 2-word prefix adjectives, but a colon connection for 3-word adjectives. Compare:
  • "Academy Award·winning" – for 2-word prefix
  • "Golden Globe Award:winning" – for 3-word prefix "Golden Globe Award"
  • "1984 Academy Award:winning" – as the 1984 version, 3 words
  • "900 Academy Award·winning" – as 900 people who are Academy Award winners
  • "Police Academy Award:winning" – 3 words for a Police Academy Award
However, the colon/middot seems too confusing, so I think just use the normal extra hyphens as with:
  • "The group included 900 Academy Award-winning actors" versus:
  • "The group included a 1984-Academy-Award-winning actor"
  • "A police Academy-Award-winning film could be a Police-Academy-Award-winning choice".
Well, that certainly settles the matter. The use of multiple hyphens is much more precise, so just extend the extra hyphens into all words, as people typically do when a whole phrase acts as the adjective. There's no need for colon/middots or en dash separators, just use the hyphens as in normal text. However, perhaps the middot could be used for 3-word possessive form: "Police Academy Award·s" to show it is owned by the Police Academy Award (3 words); but wait, in a case like that, just use a compound-noun form: "the Police-Academy-Award's ceremony is next month". Fine, all problems solved by just using hyphens. Excellent. Thanks to everyone for clarifying how all these issues can be solved by just using extra hyphens. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}   –See "collapse top". -Wikid77 13:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Example of 4-part prefix phrase: Using the typical hyphenated form for adjective phrases, then a 4-part prefix would appear as: "The pre-Academy-Award-ceremony photos included red-carpet arrivals". When an adjective phrase includes multiple terms then simply join all words with hyphens in a logical manner, but also recommend to avoid using long phrases as adjectives. -Wikid77 13:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, and-we-could-also-include-hyphens-everywhere, as they're-so-ubiquitous. No, wait, middots·are·saving·space. :) — Dsimic (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I usually try to get around triple and quadruple compounds by rewording. The photos of the pre-Academy-Award ceremony, or the photos of the pre–Academy Award ceremony. Tony (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
        • My vote goes to "photos of the pre–Academy Award ceremony". It's as clear as it can be. — Dsimic (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, that phrase is even more-misleading, as the concept is not a "pre–Academy Award ceremony" but rather a pre–Academy-Award-ceremony timeframe, when guests arrived at the red carpet. The use of multiple hyphens can easily separate the almost 1,000, or "995 Academy-Award-winning people" from those few who were 1995-Academy-Award-winning actors (actors who won in 1995, among the 995 people). It might take a little while to get used to the multiple hyphens, but it is easy to see why they have been used for decades to clearly denote the exact meaning. -Wikid77 19:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
            • Hm, but isn't "Academy Award", as an actual name, supposed not to be hyphenated at all? I agree that using multiple hyphens brings certain advantages, allowing much more condensed expressions, but quite frankly I'd say that such constructions would be actually confusing a broader Misplaced Pages audience. It would be much better to avoid multiple dashes by rewording that wherever possible. For example, I do agree that "pre-Academy-Award-ceremony" (as happening before the "pre–Academy Award ceremony") goes one step further into past than "pre–Academy Award ceremony" (which happens before the "Academy Awards")—but quite frankly again, that's confusing. Writing that as "during time before the pre–Academy Award ceremony", or "while guests were arriving at the red carpet", for example, would (or should?) be understandable to everyone. — Dsimic (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Either way, we don't hyphenate proper names, so anything with "Academy-Award" in it is not an option. — kwami (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
With that in mind, it would be the best to collapse the (now unfolded) joke above. — Dsimic (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It might seem funny to explore alternate punctuation styles, but it is not a joke. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm more than open for (radically) new things, but can we expect to see such changes going into written English just because we're discussing them here? :) As another alternative notation, we could have additional colons designating how far an en dash goes into spaced compounds, for example "pre–::Academy Award ceremony", or "pre–:Academy Award ceremony". Multiple middots alone would be another option, so for example "pre··Academy Award ceremony", or "pre·Academy Award ceremony" etc.
But then again, aren't we going a bit too far away? :) — Dsimic (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

In many of these cases it's better to reword. But not always, and if we're forced to reword just to avoid a formatting argument, then the prose suffers. There are cases where neither a hyphen nor the lack of a hyphen is appropriate, and rewording is not a good solution, and we should have some idea how to address them. — kwami (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; for the beginning, we should try to see what to do with en dashes and suffixes to compounds using spaces, while removing one MOS inconsistency at the same time. — Dsimic (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Quickly reading the above comments, it seems to me that we have no clear consensus on why a discrepancy between prefixes and suffixes should exist, as well as moderate consensus that en dashes for compounded compound modifiers would be technically preferable to hyphens. Would others agree? startswithj (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right that there's no clear consensus, although there are no strong opponents either. Having that in mind, I'd say going WP:BOLD and changing MOS so en dashes are also suggested for suffixed adjective phrases, would be the way to go. Agreed? — Dsimic (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that if you see a consensus you should write it up as a proposed MOS wording change and take a quick survey to see if it is widely supported. I'm OK with some of the proposed examples like "Academy Award-winning" versus "Academy Award–winning"; "World War II-era" versus "World War II–era", "Linux kernel-based" (current) versus "Linux kernel–based"; but not credit card–sized because credit-card-sized is more clear and common for such cases. It is not OK to put hyphens into proper names, which is mainly why the others need the en dash (I'm not sure if saying Linux-kernel-based would be allowed or disallowed; I'm open to either way on that one). Dicklyon (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Totally agreed, will write a new wording proposal and put it up for voting. Regarding "Linux kernel–based", it simply sounds (and looks) wrong to write it as "Linux-kernel-based". — Dsimic (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Will that new proposal appear here or somewhere else? Thank you, startswithj (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd say that this section (with the proposal in its separate subsection) would be a good place. I'll try to write it in the next hour or so... @Startswithj: Would you prefer to write the proposal yourself, based on your edit which (re)started the whole thing? — Dsimic (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change (1)

Split off from the section above, for improved readability.

Isn't it simply a proposal to change (within Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style#En_dashes:_other_uses) this:

Instead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix (but not a suffix) to a compound that includes a space
ex–prime minister Thatcher; pre–World War II aircraft; but not credit card–sized

To this:

Instead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix or a suffix to a compound that includes a space
ex–prime minister Thatcher; pre–World War II aircraft; credit card–sized; Pulitzer Prize–winning

startswithj (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support: That's correct, though some editors prefer "credit-card-sized" instead of "credit card–sized", what I actually intended to have covered within the proposal; let's leave that to proposal comments from these editors, if you agree. Also, I've moved these two posts into a subsection, for improved readability. — Dsimic (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose if the proposal includes "credit card–sized". Dicklyon (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as worded (though I am not wholly opposed to hyphenation).—DocWatson42 (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – after reading Tony's exposition, and reviewing my own copy of CMOS, I think I agree that there are few or no situations where this is going to matter, unless it's written so broady that it gets applied to "credit card–size", which would be a mistake. I think the current compromise, which at least has a few years of CMOS aligned with it if nothing else, is a good place to leave it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change (2)

Split off from the section above, for improved readability.

Are we all Ok to have this in the end?

Instead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix or a suffix to a compound that includes a space
ex–prime minister Thatcher;   pre–World War II aircraft;   Pulitzer Prize–winning;   New York City–based

Please vote. — Dsimic (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

In highly contrived cases or, rarely, in natural occurrences, confusions will arise from any punctuation rule (involving commas, parentheses, and even full stops). It should not be the basis for a completely new use of a punctuation mark. The en dash has enough well-founded uses on Misplaced Pages already. The WPian context is not the same as the CMOS context; and CMOS decisions about en dashes are sometimes not well-argued and consistent: please see my post below. Tony (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
C'mon, how can this be "a completely new use of a punctuation mark"? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed; "completely new" is hyperbolic. And when does a punctuation mark have "enough" uses? startswithj (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Agreed that this style (dash > en dash > attributive compounds, open compound cases) is not at all new (in the context of "under the sun"). I suspect Tony meant (?) that it would be new in the context of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (that is, that WP:MOS had never specifically called for it before). In American editing, this style is generally followed (and internalized as "correct"); one can get thrown off of projects for failing to follow it (either the project style guide will specify it or it will cascade from rules such as "CMOS style unless otherwise specified" or "AMA style unless otherwise specified"). I did not even realize that (apparently) it is a meme more popular in American English than in Commonwealth English until I read the discussion on this page. But I would not agree that it then follows that WP:ENGVAR's principle of "however the page got established, it can stay that way" applies to this instance, because this is not a "normal" AmE/BrE difference—it is more specifically a copyedited-vs-not-copyedited difference. Even in AmE, 99% of people will not follow this style when they write something; but if that something is edited, then the editing is expected to apply this style to it. Thus, most Americans who developed content in a WP article would not use this style, but another American can "rightfully" come along behind that and apply this style (because the idea of "however the page got established, it can stay that way" does not apply to the copyedited-vs-not-copyedited difference). Nonetheless, if this style is "American-leaning", then WP:MOS should respect those users of English around the globe who don't want to use it (even though I think they ought to anyway, because it is preferable just on the merit of its logic, even ignoring geographic origins; as another example, I prefer logical punctuation order (that is, British style) to traditional American punctuation order in my own writing, although I must enforce the latter when on the clock). Thus I think my current judgment is that WP:MOS should not require this style (dash > en dash > attributive compounds, open compound cases) but also should not treat it as a mere WP:ENGVAR thing, either. It should say that this style is encouraged. Quercus solaris (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Hm, sorry but this isn't new to the MOS, as it already states that en dashes should be used between prefixes and open compounds; the whole thing is about suggesting that for suffixes as well. Am I missing something? By the way, isn't it absurd that the MOS and Dash article are saying different things about "Pulitzer Prize–winning novel", for example? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The "completely new use" that we speak of is the CMOS one, which has only cautious acceptance in CMOS16 and cautious partial acceptance in WP:MOS. It is completely new in recent decades, and an invention of CMOS that they only much later discovered the consequences of ("Chuck Berry–style lyrics") and are at a loss to analyse rationally. There is no reason for our MOS to adopt the problems that CMOS has brought upon itself. Tony (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I really don't get it why would that be such a trouble, and why should WP:MOS be strictly bound to what's available in CMOS? Ok, CMOS sounds to be hedged and inconclusive regarding such suffixes, but can't we think outside the box in some areas? If some people weren't thinking in different ways, there would be no Misplaced Pages at all, or at least not in its current shape and size. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course Misplaced Pages shouldn't be bound to CMOS (the source of this novel practice with the en dash). But you want us to go further than CMOS, and wholeheartedly endorse what even they are embarrassed by? Tony (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
CMOS is embarrassed by that? Why should they be? Also, why then The Week uses such punctuation, according to numerous examples provided earlier by Kwamikagami? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment – Treat prefixes and suffixes the same. But I oppose requiring an endash instead of a hyphen, generally. Instead, make a requirement that usage within an individual article be consistent. Bwrs (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for my oppose (proposed change 2)

The change runs against what was ironed out as a coherent suite of uses for the en dash, with wide and extensive community consultation in 2011. Since I don't have previous editions of CMOS at hand (nor by online subscription), I asked Noetica to look them up in relation to this proposal. I found the history interesting: Using an en dash with exactly the same meaning as a hyphen, but in special contexts, is almost exclusively a US invention – and a recent one at that. It first turned up as an option in CMOS12 (1969), where the examples (at 5.91) are all with prefixes ("post–Civil War period") or have two more or less equal elements combined ("New York–London flight"). There's no mention of suffixes, or examples of such a use, though prefixes are specifically mentioned in Table 6.1, with examples there and at 5.91.

CMOS13 (1982) reproduces the advice (at 5.94), and makes specific mention of prefixes (but not of suffixes, and no examples for them) at its Table 6.1. Same in CMOS14 (1993) where 5.117 gives virtually the same advice, with nothing on suffixes; and in Table 6.1: "When a prefix is added to an open compound, the hyphen becomes an en dash" (p. 230). Even CMOS15 (2003) sticks to that line (see 6.85, with no suffixes). It dispenses with the table, replacing it with section 7.90 where the ruling is still focused on prefixes: "pre–Vietnam War (before an open compound, an en dash is used; see 7.83)" (p. 307).

Only with CMOS16 (2010, current edition) do we get two suffix examples (at 6.80). The first three examples in that section: "the post–World War II years" "Chuck Berry–style lyrics" and "country music–influenced". Introducing these ("it should be used sparingly, and only when a more elegant solution is unavailable"), CMOS makes an extraordinary claim: "As the first two examples illustrate, the distinction is most helpful with proper compounds, whose limits are established within the larger context by capitalization." But this is nonsensical. If the capitals already mark "World War II" and "Chuck Berry" as recognised units—that is, we must never put a hyphen in them—why is an en dash called for when these units enter into compounds? Because of its capitals, hyphenated "Chuck Berry-style lyrics" is instantly understood—without resort to this Chicago novelty that some US writers embrace as an 11th commandment (and the rest of the world gets by brilliantly without, and does not understand).

CMOS16 continues: "The relationship in the third example, though clear enough, depends to some small extent on an en dash that many readers will perceive as a hyphen connecting music and influenced." Um ... so why bother to use that en dash? And what's unacceptable about "country-music-influenced" anyway? Why is "country music" not hyphenatable? It isn't what CMOS16 delights in calling a "proper compound"; so a two-hyphen solution is fine, one presumes ...

In sum, this use of an en dash is accepted on WP as a concession to US regionalism, just as it's hedged and mixed up in CMOS16. Chicago's weird decision for this use of the en dash fits with its avoidance of other uses that are common in the rest of the anglophone world (such as "US–Canada relations": CMOS wants "US-Canada relations" though it wants "United States–Canada relations", which all starts to get messy compared with our simpler guideline). To transplant that decision into Wikipedian style, where the background decisions are not CMOS-bound, would be inappropriate for our worldwide readership.

Tony (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This whole thing turns out to be so exhausting, and what really sucks is that probably only 0.5% of people actually cares about it. However, thank you for such a detailed explanation; to me, CMOS sounds to be hedged and inconclusive whether en dashes are or aren't to be used with such suffixes. On the other hand, having Misplaced Pages guidelines specifying en dashes for prefixes only looks to me more like a compromise made for the sake of convenience, rather than like something making true sense. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Yup... most of us don't worry about whether you are supposed to use a hyphen, an en dash, an em dash, or what ever. Just pick which ever one you like... it does not matter which, because sooner or later someone will come along and "correct" you (no matter which one you picked). Then, someone else will come along and "correct" that... followed by yet another 3 month debate about which is "correct" here on the MOS talk page. Watching the 5% who really care about dashes and hyphens argue incessantly about them is one of the great spectator sports in Misplaced Pages. It has provided the 95% who don't really care with years of amusement and laughter. Come to think of it... that's true for most of the MOS. Blueboar (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, and "screw all variants of dashes and use hyphens everywhere" has crossed my mind many times. Though, doing that would be contrary to the whole concept of human evolution, which (I guess?) supposes constant additions to the human knowledge. That simplification would be similar to what "Web 2.0" ("Web 3.0", or whatever) is doing – in the end, Web pages are going to have only one big blue "Do!" button, stretched all over 4096×2304 screens of course. Wouldn't that be plain stupid? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this is just a Usonianism, then that's a good reason for opposing it. Probably 90% of cases are capitalized anyway, and that's enough of a cue that the two words form a unit that an en dash isn't necessary. So it's only actually disambiguating w things like country music–influenced or credit card–sized. So how do British style guides handle things like that? Do they just hyphenate all the way through, country-music-influenced and credit-card-sized? That looks terrible to me, but maybe just because I'm more used to Usonian than to British media. — kwami (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: 1) We don't hyphenate more than two words in a row in English, I suspect, because it looks contrived—as if the writer is trying to convey an emotional-or-cultural-reference-sort-of-meaning-kind-of-effect. 2) I wouldn't argue that in most cases meaning can't be discerned if an en dash rather than a hyphen used in compound adjectival phrases, but I would argue that meaning can't be discerned faster for more readers (even if only a split second faster). 3) It appears the Chicago Manual added further detail on a rule that was missing; they didn't change a rule. startswithj (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, regarding "(1) We don't hyphenate more than two words in a row in English": that can be qualified as "we seldom hyphenate more than two words in a row in English". The string-of-hyphens style is established in a few permanent compounds, whose hyphens stand in both attributive and predicative position, such as fill-in-the-blank format or the test format was fill-in-the-blank, and, as AMA styles them (8.3.1 in the 10th ed), up-to-date vaccinations and the vaccinations were up-to-date; or state-of-the-art equipment and equipment that was state-of-the-art. There's also an attributive-position-only class, such as 'very low-birth-weight children but children of very low birth weight and low-molecular-weight heparin but heparin of low molecular weight. Occasionally, temporary compounds such as private-sector-dependent funding arise, too, which can take hyphens in attributive position, but googling the internet corpus shows that people often don't bother with hyphenating them. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wanted hyphens

User:Dicklyon brought up an AWB bug, where page 2-4 (meaning chapter 2, page 4) is replaced by pages 2–4 (meaning pages 2 through 4). A possible fixe is to manually prevent this by replacing the "-" with "{{hyphen}}". It's probably worth noting this somewhere, but I don't know of a good place to put it. — kwami (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you'd normally use a different punctuation, e.g., 2:4, 2/4, or even "chapter 2, page 4" if you were trying to provide that information yourself. But a lot of technical documents use the hyphenated page numbering system that you describe. There actually is a "page 2-4", which you'll find in between "page 2-3" and "page 2-5". In that case, the correct page number probably is "2-4". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
If it is deemed to be important enough to be mentioned in the main page of the Manual of Style, then I suggest that it be mentioned in the sub-section Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Hyphens, between "Non-breaking" and "Soft hyphens". Alternatively, if the HTML code ‑ is as effective as "{{hyphen}}", then a brief comment about usage can be added to the guideline "Non-breaking".
—Wavelength (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
If this is in a citation like {{cite journal}}, the best thing to do is to put this page number in |at=, like this: "|at=p. 2-4". Maybe even add a comment to the effect that "this is a single page numbered '2-4', not pages 2–4" so that human editors won't change it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The trouble is that the editors adding the citations are not going to be aware of such hacks. So editors running semi-automatic tools over such things need to exercise some care, and try to decide whether it's a page or a page range, and fix it appropriately. What has happened in many case (or a few that I've noticed at least) is that the tools (or their users) are too automatic, and they assume it's a page range and thereby change a correct reference to a wrong reference. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking specifically of manual corrections of bots. Reverting won't do any good, as it will just get 'corrected' by the next bot, so we need s.t. the bots won't recognize. — kwami (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't really fit here. What about at MOS:TEXT? — kwami (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
It would seem to me that for clarity we should try to avoid indicating "chapter 2, page 4" by "2-4", no matter what a lot of technical documents do, because it is too easily misread. --JorisvS (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course I agree with JorisvS that ambiguities should generally be avoided. But this issue arises in part from the unstated requirement that a reference to a page number must use precisely the same numbering scheme and typographic format as used by the referred page numbers. The solutions suggested above use various mechanisms to 'hide' the hyphen. As noted, these are only useful to editors who are already aware of this automatic 'correction' issue with Ch-Pg numbering. It should be apparent that a more generally applicable solution would require that tools such as automatic input parsing and zealous-page-range-bots be stopped from making this false correction. Such efforts will be either impractical or incomplete, due to the potentially unending set of alternative tools and new hyphen-bots. However, I suggest that a few of the primary auto-culprits, such as {{cite book}} be addressed and "corrected".
I am proposing to modify {{cite book}}, which is probably the primary offender of unnoticed invalid corrections.
Documentation for {{cite book}} states that a hyphen is only auto-corrected to an en dash within |pages=. They are not replaced within the |page= or |at= parameters. It even mentions this problem, giving 3-1—3-15 as a valid page range of this type, and states that the |at= parameter must be used in this case. This is an unfortunate (and unnecessary) requirement, because an important piece of information is lost when using the |at= parameter (whether the parameter represents one page or several pages). For example, we can easily determine the editor's intended meaning of 3-15 thus: As a singular page |page=3-15 must be in Ch-Pg format. But in the plural, |pages=3-15 must be a range of normal page numbers.
The Ch-Pg numbering scheme is not mixed with normal page numbers within the same book (more accurately, the two numbering schemes are not mixed within the main body of text, such as all the chapters - the front matter may use lower case roman numerals). This observation leads to a considerably improved algorithm for parsing {{cite book}} |pages=. Here are some examples. The last example shows its limitation.
User Input Parsed or Corrected Comment
|pages=3-15 → |pages=3—15 A range of 13 pages
|pages=3-1-3-15 → |pages=3-1—3-15 The first 15 pages of chapter 3
|pages=3-15, 17-12 → |pages=3-15, 17-12 Just two pages: 17-12 cannot be a range, so the book and all its pages must use the Ch-Pg numbering scheme
|pages=3-15, 17-19 → AMBIGUOUS This could be either (a) just two pages (like the previous example), or (b) a range of 13 pages plus a range of 3 more pages
Note: I used em dashes rather than en dashes to emphasize that they're not hyphens.
With thanks, from ChrisJBenson (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It may be useful to remember at this point that the goal of citations is to help a reader locate the original source material. If a reader sees an ambiguous set of page numbers like "3-5, 17-19" and locates the original source book or journal, that reader will see that "pages three through five and pages seventeen through nineteen" do not exist and the ambiguity will be resolved; the reader will see that the pages are numbered 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, etc. and locate page 3-5 with little trouble. Even if the hyphens are changed to en dashes by a bot, the reader will still be able to find these ambiguous page numbers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how that's useful. Are you saying that it's OK for automated editing to insert errors, because readers with access to the referenced source will be able to determine that they are errors, and easily correct for them? Seems like a poor direction to want to go. Dicklyon (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
See Template:Not a typo, which I discovered within the past few days.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Template:Not a typo can be mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Miscellaneous.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit reversions over "seasons"

There have been several edits recently at WP:MOS over whether seasons in the northern and southern hemispheres are "opposite" or just "different". FWIW, I'd say they're "reversed". - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Reversed is just fine, Dank. Opposite is fine too. Different is unnecessarily vague, don't people think? Tony (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I don't see any good reason to object to the original wording, "opposite", which is used in the article Season. I suggest to restore that word. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... why are we limiting this to northern and southern hemispheres. What about parts of the world where "winter, spring, summer, fall" have no real meaning... where the "seasons" actually are completely different (Dry season, Monsoon season, etc.).
I would suggest rewriting it as: Avoid ambiguous references to seasons (seasons are different in different parts of the world).
That said... I'm not sure why the MOS has to mention this at all. Another option is to simply cut the entire bullet point. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
MOS mentions this because editors do tend to occasionally refer to the seasons to indicate when something happened or will happen. ("The new movie is scheduled for release in spring 2014.") This can be ambiguous, or at least confusing, because "spring" happens at a different time of year in different parts of the world. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I certainly don't think they're "reversed", which to me would mean they progress in the order winter, fall, summer, spring. Unfortunately "opposite" could also mean that (reversed order), though that probably wouldn't have occurred to me if "reversed" hadn't been mentioned. --Trovatore (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
"Opposite" is more an adjective. "Reversed" is a more a verb. Two things concurrently across from another are opposite, one thing which has changed its position or orientation to the other side of an axis has reversed. More appropriate for pole shifts than hemispheres. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:52, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
According to Tamil calendar#Seasons (version of 14:37, 31 January 2014), "he Tamil year, in keeping with the old Indic calendar, is divided into six seasons, each of which lasts two months": spring, summer, monsoon, autumn, winter, and prevernal.
According to Bengali calendar#Seasons (version of 15:54, 2 February 2014), "he Bengali calendar consists of 6 seasons, with each season comprising two months": summer, monsoon season, autumn, dry season, winter, and spring.
See also "Ritu (Indian season)" and Australian Aboriginal astronomy#Astronomical calendars (version of 20:51, 11 January 2014).
The guideline can say:
  • Avoid ambiguous references to seasons (generally, seasons are opposite in the southern and northern hemispheres; some cultures have six seasons instead of four).
—Wavelength (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be more all-encompassing to just say, "some cultures have different numbers of seasons" or something like that? AgnosticAphid talk 05:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The main thing is that it should be clear about what it's advising, and then explaining why it should be avoided. What about something more like:

Picture caption at Elevator - discussion needs more input.

An edit war has broken out at Elevator (an article written in American English) over whether the lead image, which depicts two of these devices in London that are clearly labelled "lifts" (the British English term for an elevator) should be captioned "lifts" or "elevators". I have semi-protected the article, but the discussion needs more input. Please comment at Talk:Elevator#semi-protection. Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That is one solution... the other is to swap in images of "elevators" (labeled as such) from the US. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this use of categories normal?

Is it normal/accepted to do this? Or is there a better approach? Splash - tk 00:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me, because (1) the article itself is about a system of categories, and (2) each of the linked articles is about a sub-category within that system. Bwrs (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the approach ... but I would avoid the word "Categories" in a level 2 section header (it causes confusion with WP:Categorization). I would suggest that a better word to use in the section-header would be "Classifications" ... that word would better tie the section header to the article title. Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a bit of a problem - the article is about a specific system, so:
  1. The reader might reasonably assume that the list of classifications in Standard Occupational Classification System#Classifications is taken from SOC. A quick check of suggests that it is, but (if it is) it would probably be useful to include a line of text (with a ref) at the top of Standard Occupational Classification System#Classifications, saying so explicitly.
  2. The SOC document does not appear to define enumerable "classifications", but rather a hierarchical structure. Standard Occupational Classification System#Classifications would more accurately named as "SOC major groups" - because that appears to be what they are.
  3. Given items 1, 2 above, the reader might reasonably expect that clicking one of the listed links named for a specific SOC major group would lead to a list of occupations or SOC minor groups that matched SOC. However that is unlikely to be the case, because Misplaced Pages's categories are not required to follow SOC. I suggest that it would be better to list the major groups (in an appropriately named section, with an intro sentence, per 2 above), but not make them links to categories. (Links to articles would be OK, eg the existing Legal occupations, and change the link from "Computer and mathematical occupation" to Computer professional instead of Category:Computer occupations.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with Mitch. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Gender Identity - proposal on names used

Based on a discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Biographies_of_transgender_people_having_excessive_mentions_of_former_names_and_links_to_sex_assignment_articles

My personal take on that specific issue is that the former name is worth mentioning if the person was notable while living and working under that name. If the person was not notable before transition, then the old name essentially refers to a non-notable person and as such WP:Notable applies.

Note that, as mentioned in Misplaced Pages:Gender_identity, excessive use of former names constitutes a form of personal attack, as teh former name is "weaponised" against them. As such, current MOS rules would imply a preference for this clarification.

As such, I would suggest the following policy for transgender individuals:

  • Where the person was not notable before transition, then there is no justification for giving the former name at all, as that names refers to a non-notable time. It is enough to mention the gender identity issue, but not the former name.
  • Where the person was not notable before transition, but has made a point of publicising their former name after transition, then a single mention of the former name in the lede is appropriate.
  • Where the person was notable before transition, a single mention of the former name in the lede is appropriate. All events after transition should refer to the new name. Events prior to transition should be, where possible, worded to avoid repeating the former name.

Rhialto (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Not meaning to create confusion by top-posting, this came after a lot of the below posts chronologically, but it sums a lot of them up. From what everyone else has said, I think a reasonable compromise is to allow exactly one mention of someone's birth name in the lede in your first bullet, in a similar manner to other articles where someone's name has been changed. It is encyclopaedic, and maybe this isn't the most formal of reasons, but as a trans person myself finding out some of my role models transitioned has been a hugely positive experience for me. Otherwise I personally agree with everything you have. I think more conversation is probably needed in order to give us a good tool that furthers academics which can't easily be abused, but I think especially with more trans stories in the news as of late, some sort of easy tool which can prevent edit wars over things such as a celebrity's birth name being used to invalidate instead of inform, is necessary. Things like birth names, references to surgeries on genetalia, and the like, are all controversial, and controversy always leads to independent interpretation and gets in the way of delivering actual knowledge. In light of that fact, I don't think setting up rules for dealing with transgender people is silly at all. Misplaced Pages needs a nice, thick, bold, easy to understand line, and I believe the suggestions you have made give us that. The only other point that folks have addressed, that I would like to see your thoughts on because your solutions have thus far been excellent, is that there are going to be incidents where someone's sex affirmation surgeries, themselves, are international news. An example would be a healthcare debate. So if you have any ideas as far as policies that could give us those bold lines I mentioned in that situation that would be both fair and in Misplaced Pages's best interest, I would like to see those as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iheartdaikaiju (talk • contribs) 21:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
That would go against the defacto WP standard; we mention the birth name along with the birthdate in the opening sentence of bios. Ringo Starr was not famous as Richard Starkey, nor was Michelle Robinson famous before she Became Mrs. Obama (there we imply the birth name in the lede by including the full name with maiden name intact, But have the specified birth name later on.) Birth name is an encyclopedic piece of information. -Nat Gertler (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I would agree that birth name is an encyclopedic piece of information. We shouldn't ban pieces of information. I don't agree that the old name essentially refers to a non-notable person: it's the same person. Jimp 08:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see how providing the name a person was given at birth (in addition to their biological gender) is a personal attack or how it is weaponized, any more that it is to mention the race of a person or cultural ties. Should we hide that information as well because some people are racist or judgmental? - Floydian  ¢ 09:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Weaponizing a trans* person's birth name or implying their gender is anything but what they say it is, is an almost daily occurrence for many trans people, especially trans women, which suggests homophobia is a core motivation. With the trans* people I'm aware, the use of such tactics is the first and sometimes only warning sign that that you are considered less of a human being worthy of equal respect. The people who face the most violence regarding hate crimes are LGBT people, and within those populations trans women especially are subject to the worst of it. Every year hundreds of trans women are attacked and even murdered. Weaponizing their former identities against them is a part of that. Misplaced Pages should absolutely minimize the potential damage in any way that makes sense. We don't include every piece of someone's life in a biography and often their birth name is trivial at best. There should be compelling reason to include it, beyond the obvious that someone transitioned gender. We should be minimizing harm. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not our place to fix the problems of society, or to protect people from bigotry. It's our place to provide facts that are. I'm sorry, but transgendered people are no different in the fact that at birth, they are given a name and determined to be a certain biological gender. They are fully in their rights to change that (generally at 18, though socially at any age one can adopt a new name), but that doesn't erase the past Soviet-Russia style. (and see, even there, we don't hide the soviet history of Russia, even though I'm sure it makes a lot of modern clear-thinking Russians upset) - Floydian  ¢ 16:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
We're supposed to present facts in a Neutral pov, not just present facts. If all our Olympics articles only mentioned Russia as "Russia, formerly the Soviet Union" in every mention, there would be a problem with NPOV even though a fact was being stated each time. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Well yes, but mentioning a birth name in the lede, infobox, and body is standard practise, neutral and not undue weight. - Floydian  ¢ 20:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
On the Manning talk page, there is a request being considered with undue seriousness to have it twice in the first few words of the lead (to account for the fact that a middle name can be abbreviated and maybe that would flummox readers) and it's used twice in the infobox (the birth name is added just in case the reader forgot from the caption text one line above). I'm not against a mention if it's a part of a truly NPOV biography (when it's in sources and not when WP:NPF or WP:BLP1E indicates not to), but it's clear that it can be sometimes rationalized by occasional editors beyond its due weight. I don't think there'd be a problem if people respected due weight and existing policies more often in these cases.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
How about we avoid deliberately and wilfully propagating the problems of society? How neutral is it to go on doing a shitty thing just because biased sources do so? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Nat, I don't regard either Ringo Starr or Mrs. Obama as valid counter-examples for this policy proposal, as neither of them are, to my knowledge transgender individuals. The MOS already includes a specific note about pronouns for transfolk; I want that note to be expanded to cover good practice on the names of transfolk. Rhialto (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Nat, Jimp and Floydian. Birth name is a basic piece of biographical data and should be mentioned in the lede as with anyone else. One mention of a former name is not "excessive use". No special attention needs to be drawn to the name change, but we do not banish the factual data either: Misplaced Pages is not censored. Inclusion of the birth name may, in fact, help people to find relevant information about the person which could help to improve the article. —sroc 💬 12:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It is standard practice to include people's previous names even if they were only used prior to the person becoming notable. Carving out an exception to make trans people different is silly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem at all with *one* mention of the previous name where the previous name is something that someone could reasonably expect to be searching for the person on, as people do need to be sure they have the right person. However, I highlighted this issue because in some articles, the former name was actually mentioned more times in the article than the person's current name, which seems at odds with common decency as well as NPOV. Used excessively, the old name does indeed constitute a personal attack against the person. Rhialto (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
your proposal says otherwise "Where the person was not notable before transition, then there is no justification for giving the former name at all". your caveat above is meaningless. Without a reliably published source for the alternate name(s), we would not be able to include previous names at all under any circumstance; however, once we have a reliably published source(s) then there is obviously the "reasonable expectation" that someone would search for that name. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but using someone's name is not a personal attack on them unless that name was deliberately designed to be an insult. Any suggestion it is such an attack is ludicrous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
If Ringo or Mrs. Obama were transgendered, they would fit into what you are seeking to change rather than reflecting how that would be in conflict with normal treatment of birthnames. We considered birth name an appropriate piece of encyclopedic information even for those who have reasons for discomfort with their prior name (such as those who consider it a slave name, or those who wish to distance themselves from problematic parentage). I suspect you would gain more traction toward your goals if you were to present it as a more general case of what we do with someone who changes their name, regardless of reason, and moved away from the zero-mentions-of-birth-name stance. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Just to point out, this seems to stem mostly from a discussion at Jennell Jaquays, which features her birth name of Paul in the infobox, in the Personal life section, and in the lede sentence as "(born Paul Jaquays, )". Some users insist that adding it to the lede in contentious and so it bust be removed. My understanding of contentious is not "it is controversial because someone doesn't like it", but rather of "it's false and/or misleading". - Floydian  ¢ 16:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • My view is that the current MOS is wrong, and that, having mentioned the current name in the lead section, we should when discussing a given stage of a person's career use the name by which that person was known at that time, or perhaps use a combined form such as "Jones (then known as Smith)". It may be that some use a past name as an attack by failing to recognize the person's self-identified gender and identity. But it is also a fact that a given person was know by various names at various times. As long as we show respect by making the current name and gender identity clear in the lead, i don;'t think it can be meaningfully be called an 'attack' to use the appropriate (i.e then-current) name in describing the various events in a person's life, while always making it clear what the current name and identity is. DES 17:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
    I therefore strongly oppose this current proposal. DES 17:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The name a person is born with is a fact. Simple. We record facts. Simple. The naming preference of the individual is completely and utterly irrelevant to the information an encyclopaedia records. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because something is a fact does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, or for redundant mentions. If people mentioned the name of a subject's elementary school in every paragraph, it would be clear that something wasn't neutral, properly weighted, or appropriately encyclopedic.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, but infobox, lede, and body are three points where basic facts about a person should be provided. - Floydian  ¢ 20:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Participants in this discussion should be aware of this ArbCom case Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#The_BLP_policy_and_individuals.27_names which is on a very similar dispute. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The Manning case is actually quite the opposite, but does make the same point. Manning became world famous under her birth name, then came out as transgender. What should happen, in gender identity cases, where their birth name is not notable is that we should minimize that aspect as to cause them the least real world harm. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Can you clarify " What this is to effect is a change in that people who are not notable under their former names..." The grammar is not very clear to me. ( read it 4 times and still don't understand) I changed your ; to a : I hope you don't mind.CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, reworded. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, it seems by the notability logic alone Chelsea Manning should really be at Bradly Manning so the notability logic seems to have a flaw. (I do not want to restart the Chealsea-Bradly debate I am simply using it as an example to point out faulty logic) CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The logic is not faulty, Chelsea is an exceptional case where her gender identity change was international news, and the subject of international meia coverage including how media outlets were handling the case. The case here is not helpful to the discussion. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Can see a theoretical case where, IF AND ONLY IF a person is not "out" as transgendered, publication of the birth name could be regarded as contrary to WP:BLP, but that is a matter of Privacy, not sensibility or political correctness. If an individual self-identifies or is widely identified AS Transgendered, they are also by implication self-identified as having, if you will, been trans-named.Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally agree (mostly) with you, but it appears that for even for those who are primarily notable AS transgendered, this is a big PC issue. The PC line at this point is that the transgendered were never the "other" sex, and all of that history is Retconned out of existence and mentioning it in any way is a personal attack. (See the recent Piers Morgan controversy : ) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand and agree with your point that transgender involves a constant gender identity, and is a very good and conclusive point regarding using he/she as a pronoun - I agree that he/she should not be used, as it implies not two identities, but confusion of gender. Proper names, though, are indicative of NAME, of which there ARE two identities. Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Piers Morgan's interview with Janet Mock is really representative of anyone except "news entertainment" shows. There are in fact a lot of trans people that take the position you are, respectfully, sneering at. There are also a lot that would say that they used to be their birth sex and are now their destination sex. I'll let them speak to their own experiences and reasons. But in short, there is no "party line" among transsexuals as you are suggesting, and Janet Mock's twitter account is not a credible place to get information. And because I believe in responding to clever cheekiness in kind, one wit to another, I would also advise you to avoid treating YouTube comments as gospel as well.Iheartdaikaiju (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Concur with Floydian, Jimp, and RPoD. Mentioning a person's pre-transition name in the lede is perfectly reasonable so long as we adhere to the MOS in respecting the subject's current name. It's especially desirable to clearly mention the pre-transition name if the subject was well known under their pre-transition name. If you can find some evidence that someone's edit attempts are designed to harass a person, that I would take issue with that. But I do not believe that use of such tactics elsewhere are sufficient reason to engage in the masking of facts here. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
That is disingenuous, no one is suggesting masking of facts, just not repeating it again and again when the bare minimum is all that is needed. As the issue causes del world harm there is no reason for trans* people we can't look to minimizing the damage done in Misplaced Pages's name. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
So what is the bare minimum? Our standard practise is to include the birth name and/or maiden name alongside the date of birth in the lede sentence. {{Infobox person}} similarly has a parameter for this. Per WP:LEDE and WP:LAYOUT, the lede summarizes the content of the body of the article. This is the bare minimum and yet still is being claimed as a personal attack or running afoul of BLP. It's almost a form of white guilt. - Floydian  ¢ 20:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • (Response to sportfan): Disingenuous? I assure you I am being perfectly sincere. I propose you take a step back and consider how I see what you are proposing. You are proposing for this specific case, we depart from existing editorial policy to make articles less clear and downplay relevant facts, under the notion that somehow we are causing harm. As I recommended elsewhere, though it's not WP policy, I submit to you the litmus test under WP:HARM applies here. If the information is already known, relevant, and given due weight, it is fair for inclusion in an article. I don't think this deserves a special case. - Sangrolu (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I was bristling at the idea that we were trying the mask the information when the only effort has been to make it as minimal as possible. No one has even suggested it doesn't belong in the article, just that it is minimally used. This is a common problem for trans* people. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There is indeed a request here to totally mask the information in some articles. "Where the person was not notable before transition, then there is no justification for giving the former name at all, as that names refers to a non-notable time. It is enough to mention the gender identity issue, but not the former name." _Nat Gertler (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It wasn't being made in the case that started the discussion, is what I meant. I agree that in some cases there is no need to report anything at all. We already have articles on trans women that make no reference to their former names or transitions. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There isn't, for the record, a hard and fast rule that we should always mention a transgender person's former name, but there isn't a hard and fast rule that we can never give it, either — rather, each individual case has to be evaluated on its own based on the specific circumstances in play. Generally, transgender people fall into one of three classes when it comes to this issue:

  1. they were already notable under their old name before coming out as transgender (obvious e.g. Chelsea Manning);
  2. they became notable only under their post-transition name, but reliable sources can be found which have published their former name anyway (e.g. Jenna Talackova);
  3. they became notable only under their post-transition name, but reliable sources do not exist for their former name, and the name could thus be added only on the basis of a (usually anonymous) Misplaced Pages contributor's unverifiable claims of personal knowledge such as "I went to high school with this person" (e.g. Laverne Cox).

In the first case, we have to include some mention of the prior name, because it misrepresents the context of their notability if we don't. We have to acknowledge their former names in these cases, because their former names are directly relevant to their notability. There may be some debate to be had about how much acknowledgement of the former name is necessary, but entirely stripping any acknowledgement of the former name whatsoever from the article is not really an option. And in the third case, the former name has to be removed, because it's not even verifiable in the first place.

So the only real place for debate about whether a transgender person's prior name should be included or excluded from the article is if the person falls into the second situation.

Jennell Jaquays, for the record, falls in the first class; the article was created at Paul Jaquays in 2009 and she didn't come out as transgender until 2011. So there may be room for debate about how much her former name should or shouldn't be featured, but we can't suppress it entirely. That said, from what I can tell nobody was actually trying to do that. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Bearcat, the current version of Jennell's article looked fine to me (or at least, the last version I viewed if it's be edited since. However, at one point, the former name was given far more prominence than the current name in the body of the article. That is the kind of disproportionate emphasis that I want a policy set up to prevent. Rhialto (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
My comment was, for the record, aimed much more at the people who have been responding to you than it was at you; I see a lot of misunderstanding in the discussion of what you were even saying in the first place, such as several people who genuinely seemed to think you were arguing that a transgender person's former name should always be completely obliterated regardless of context. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
As the editor who decided to remove one of three mentions of Jennell Jaquays former name (not all references of her former name) I have an interest in this issue and support the proposed changes in policy.
Here is a link to an article called Transgender study looks at 'exceptionally high' suicide-attempt rate. I quote from the article: "Researchers wrote that being recognized as transgender by other people probably made them a target of more discrimination, putting them at greater risk -- a finding that echoes earlier research." So the comparison with someone like Ringo Starr is a flawed comparison, because it compares a group of people who are widely discriminated against (and who suffer stress from that discrimination) with a pop star that uses a stage name. A pop star with a stage name faces no risk of discrimination or any negative reaction if their real name is used.
MOS:IDENTITY says that we should use the current gender of a transexual person and not make references to a transwoman being a dad or a transman being a mum, but if you actually read the Jennell Jaquays article we are going against the spirit of MOS:IDENTITY and adding in five references to the fact that she is transgender:
1) Lede: "Jennell Jaquays (born Paul Jaquays..."
2) Infobox: "Born Paul Jaquays"
3 and 4) Personal life: "Jaquays was born October 14, 1956 in Michigan, assigned male at birth as Paul..."
5) Personal life: "Jaquays announced in December 2011 that she identifies as a lesbian and trans woman."
This is without counting the twelve citations that include her old name (making a total of seventeen mentions of the fact she is trans). I have been following this article since before it was renamed to match the new name. There was a discussion about Pronouns, which made it clear that some editors were not even aware of the guidelines of MOS:IDENTITY and I think that the addition of Jennell's birth name to three places (instead of one place) was a mistake. I also think that there is no need to say that someone was "assigned male at birth" if the article already says they are a trans woman. That is a duplication and something a reader can discover if they navigate over to the trans woman article. I believe this article should focus on Jennell Jaquays and should have one mention of the name that she is widely known under, specifically because the name "Paul" is a gender-specific word and falls under the spirit of MOS:IDENTITY. I do not accept that we need to have three mentions, because anyone searching for the old name will find the current article and is presented with enough information to know that this is the same person that they knew under the former name.
The statement that a transgender person's birth name is a "fact" is a bit of a strawman argument. A transgender person is a person who comes to a point in their life, when they decide that they want to be known as a gender other than the one that people originally thought they were. They are "fixing" their incorrect gender at that point in time. If they made statements before they went public, they would obviously not have been using their new gender, because they had not transitioned. Using the argument that a person was very public about their old name is very much like blaming them for being a transexual and not having sorted it out before they became notable. The unique thing we have to deal with when we write biographies about transgender people is that it is not their "fault" that they were born into a body that had the wrong gender. And if they transition young or transition old that is going to leave a different footprint of the gender they were assigned at birth. We should not be adding weight to the amount of time a transgender person was identified in the original gender and/or the name that matches that gender. It is an invalid argument. I reject it.
MOS:IDENTITY clearly says we must support the decision of a person who wants to present as any sort of gender and go with their current gender. We may need to have lots of information about their pre-transition name, but including it three times, on top of a redirect and numerous citations seems very much like an attempt to circumvent MOS:IDENTITY.
I support this proposal because, this is not an isolated case and I believe that editors who are insisting on using a transgender person's name at least three times are going against the spirit of MOS:IDENTITY and causing a risk of distress and harm not just to the subjects of the articles, but also to transgender people in general. We already have one complaint that Misplaced Pages editors are being transphobic. We need to fix this policy and tone down the things that hint at the birth gender of transgender people before it escalates into a more serious complaint within the transgender community. Big Mac (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
If a lot of sources use the original name (including, in this case, numerous works by the person under their former name), should it not be mentioned at least in the lede and by extension the body? I don't take issue with the infobox, but this is becoming an argument of semantics. You can change your identity, but that doesn't erase the past. Likewise, we can refer to someone using their current identity and even pronouns, but why does acknowledging the facts of the past cause distress and harm? They publically announced their transitions, therefore a few mentions of their name in a Misplaced Pages article is by far the lesser cause of issues. I also reject the concept outright that those who hold a similar stance to me are "misinformed". No, we have a different opinion, and just because it isn't the same as another's opinion doesn't make our view one of intolerance, one of antagonism, or one of aggression or insult in any way, shape, or form. - Floydian  ¢ 01:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
It is necessary to acknowledge the former name of a person who was already notable under that name prior to their gender transition, nobody's said otherwise — but the point is that it's not necessary to dwell on it any more than is absolutely necessary. One brief mention of the fact that Jennelle was formerly known as Paul is more than sufficient to get the point across that old references which used the name "Paul" are still referring to this same person, but it really is not necessary for our article to keep calling her "Paul" any more than the one time that we absolutely have to. And if a person hasn't established preexisting notability under the birth name prior to their transition, then there's really no reason for us to publish their birth name at all — even if reliable sources can be found for that information, it just violates the person's privacy rights for no compelling reason beyond prurient invasiveness.
As Big Mac quite correctly pointed out, the fact that "I'm going to ignore your identity and keep calling you by your old name and your old gender pronouns anyway" is a tactic frequently used to discriminate against transgender people means that this is not equivalent to a pop star adopting a stage name. Ringo Starr is at no risk of harm if his birth name is known to the public, but a transgender person faces a very real risk of harm if theirs is — so by virtue of the fact that Misplaced Pages has an explicit policy requiring us to minimize harm to our article subjects, we do have a responsibility to balance that in favour of the person's personal privacy rights to every extent that we possibly can. It's not always possible to entirely keep it out of the article at all, because sometimes the person did have established notability under their prior name — but in those situations where it is unavoidable we should rightly keep the use of it to an absolute minimum, and if it is avoidable then we shouldn't use it at all.
And finally, on the question of holding different opinions, it bears pointing out: if you genuinely don't want your opinion to be perceived as "intolerance, antagonism, aggression or insult", then you have to accept that trans people get the exclusive right to define the parameters of what is or isn't "intolerance, antagonism, aggression or insult" in regards to their issues. The rest of us have a responsibility to listen, to consider the matter from their perspective and to adjust our thinking if necessary, but we don't have the right to get defensive about it, and stick our tongues out and say "NUH-UH!", when we're told that we are coming across as intolerant or antagonistic to trans issues. I'm pretty clued up on this stuff, yet even I've made some mistakes sometimes — but when I do, I listen and learn rather than loudly insisting that I know better than an actual transgender person about what is or isn't anti-transgender prejudice. They're the ones who actually have to deal with the issue on a daily basis, so they're the ones who get to define what is or isn't oppressive to them. Bearcat (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
No, sorry, the "exclusive right" stuff is total bullshit. People have the right to do what they want, but not to control how others perceive or talk about it. I have a responsibility to "adjust my thinking" if my thinking is objectively wrong; I don't have a responsibility to adjust it just because someone claims it overlaps his/her claimed intellectual space. --Trovatore (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
You have the right to think whatever you want. You have the right not to care whether you're being intolerant or antagonistic to transgender issues or not. But no, if you're not transgender then you don't get to claim naming rights over the basic definition of whether something is oppressive to transgender people or not. Bearcat (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Nope. The victims of oppression get to decide what they are or aren't allowed to feel oppressed by — the rest of us certainly have the right to decide whether or not we care about not being oppressive to them, but we don't get veto rights over whether or not it is oppressive to them if we aren't in that community ourselves. You have the right to feel however you want about it; what you don't have is the right to dictate to a transgender person how they're allowed to feel about it. Bearcat (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with that last bit — anyone is allowed to feel any way about anything. That doesn't mean that everything they feel automatically constitutes a legitimate complaint. --Trovatore (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
And by that notion every objection to their concern is not necessarily a legitimate objection.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
That is also true. It depends on the merits, and anyone gets to make arguments on the merits, regardless of membership in some real or imagined community. --Trovatore (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
But if trans people generally object to a certain naming style, we can say they generally object to it and act accordingly. For one thing, I know that people generally don't like a lot of common epithets (lazy, stupid) applied to them, even if I don't know if that represents a "community" of people against that name, or if I know some people wouldn't care. People of all sorts, trans or not, generally like being called by the name they say they prefer.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
If it is in fact harmful to report birth names, a completely standard thing for bios of persons who have changed their names when the birth name can be reliably determined and sourced, than that needs to be established, not just asserted. --Trovatore (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
When you're talking about oppression (homophobia, racism, transphobia, etc.), there is no such thing as an illegitimate complaint; even just calling it an illegitimate complaint is a form of "telling them how they're allowed to feel". You don't get to decide whether it is a legitimate complaint or not — you absolutely get to decide how much you care or don't care about helping to address a complaint or not, but the complaint itself is always a legitimate one. Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, everything in this thread refers to the naming conventions of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Biographies which already lists Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines as the main page for naming conventions for this topic here. It already seems like it's pointed to by MOS. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. The legitimacy of the feeling and the legitimacy of the complaint are completely separate issues. --Trovatore (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Except that if the oppressor holds veto power over what is or isn't a legitimate complaint in the first place, then every complaint gets automatically dismissed as "illegitimate". Even "millions of my people have been rounded up and murdered" can be an illegitimate complaint, if the people who are doing the rounding up and murdering are the ones with the power to decide whether it's a legitimate complaint or not. Which means that absolutely nothing changes, and the oppressed remain stuck without any power to ever get their complaints addressed or taken seriously at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
It hasn't been established that there are any "oppressors". But even if there are, who mentioned veto power? All I said was, it has to be argued on the merits, established rather than just asserted. --Trovatore (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
It has very much been established that there are "oppressors". Very nearly right across the board, transgender people with Misplaced Pages articles are subjected to constant editwarring over (a) what name the article is located at in the first place, (b) what name the article uses for them in body text, (c) what gender pronouns the body text uses for them. For just one example, the gender war over Brandon Teena started not long after the article was first created in 2002, and has never ended in the entire 12 years since. Here's an edit summary dated December 31, 2013: The subject of the article was in fact a woman and shall be addressed using the correct pronouns. Being "transgender" does not change your sex in any way, and "sex-change operations" are just mutilations of the genitals. Brandon Teena, just a reminder, died in 1993 — yet twenty-one years later, people are still utterly hellbent on making damn sure we gender him as a woman, as if calling a transman a man were somehow any fricking skin off their noses.
Most of the higher-profile transgender people, in fact, have had to be placed under permanent semi-protection for exactly this reason; some of the less famous ones haven't had to be permanently protected, but still cannot be left unwatched for any great length of time. And it's never just about the person themselves, either; each person always becomes The Mother of All Battles for every single editor who has some weirdly obsessive vested interest in trying to discredit the entire existence of gender identity disorder (as if the question of whether our article was located at "Bradley" or "Chelsea" actually somehow made a fraction as much difference to their lives as it did to Manning's?)
And then if you point to MOS:IDENTITY, some really creative types start editwarring that; people have actually tried arbitrarily rewriting it so that our new "policy" was that a transgender person always and forever remains their birth gender and name. And none of this is unique to Misplaced Pages, either; in society at large, transgender people are constantly subject to the exact same attempts to delegitimize their identities: no, you're still the gender you were born into. No, you're still the name your parents gave you. No, gender identity disorder doesn't really exist; you're just psychotic and should be locked up. No, you're not entitled to your personal safety anymore; if you even just want to use the washroom the onus is suddenly on you to prove that you're not a sex offender. No, you're not entitled to your personal privacy anymore; I demand you personally show me that you've had the surgery. And on and so forth: you have lost the right to identify and name yourself, I get to take over the right to decide who and what you are.
Who are the "oppressors" here? Everybody who thinks their own personal preferences get to override the real day-to-day life of an actual transgender person, that's who.
As for "veto power", whether you used the exact phrase "veto power" to describe it or not, presuming to hold the right to decide what is or isn't a legitimate complaint for a transgender person to even raise in the first place is an act of vetoing. Bearcat (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Bearcat, I think has fairly summed this up and has some sensible ideas for moving forward, to minimize the disruption, and stress, these constant battles, cause. Maybe a suggested guideline adjustment would be along the lines of treating trans* people's articles more judiciously and conservatively when discussing their former names, and gender identities. Find ways to minimize dwelling on their transition. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I might be able to go along with that. Just don't act like everyone's supposed to buy the PC identity-politics bullshit. --Trovatore (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Can you re-phrase that without describing your opponents' views using highly biased and vague terminology like 'PC' and 'identity politics', please? These are purely derogatory terms these days, employed to devalue the views they refer to without reference to their value or content. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The views in question are simply stated as though we're all supposed to just agree with them without question, because the only people who get to comment are the ones holding the victim card. That's bullshit, and has no value to reference. --Trovatore (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
"the only people who get to comment," comments someone commenting. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm criticizing the assertion that I shouldn't comment. In doing so, naturally, I do comment, because the assertion I'm criticizing is bullshit. --Trovatore (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I didn't ask you not to comment. I asked you if you could express your objection without resorting to intemperate and biased language. As you've repeated 'bullshit', I'm guessing that you can't. Your whole objection, in fact, appears to be that you don't like it. Using crude language to describe someone's opinion, while not an ad hominem attack as such, gives us no more useful information with which to evaluate that opinion than if you had made one. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, I'm not trying to be difficult or pissy here. But I gave a whole list of examples of how anti-trans discrimination actually affects the real day-to-day lives of real people. Just for one more, there was a news story today about a trans woman comedian from England who had visa problems on a visit to Canada, and was initially detained in a men's prison. In Canada, a country which has human rights protections for transgender people enshrined in law, this still happened within the last 24 hours (although thankfully they've reversed course and transferred her to a women's facility now.) Again, I'm not trying to be shrill or tendentious or difficult here — but I'm talking about real bread-and-butter issues that actually cause profound harm to real people, and to dismiss them as mere "PC bullshit" really isn't contributing anything helpful or productive to the discussion.
Again, all I'm asking you to do is to put yourself in someone else's shoes for a couple of minutes. All I'm asking you to do is think a little bit about how you would feel if people were claiming the right to call you by the pronouns of the opposite gender, or by a name you were no longer using? I'm not asking you to drop everything you've ever done with your life and become the president of the International Association of Hardcore Transgender Allies — I'm just asking you to spend a little bit of time thinking about how you would feel if all of this personally affected you, that's all. Bearcat (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I would second what Bearcat has said here, and paraphrase what a comment I made on Talk:Jennell Jaquays: We must remember that BLP is as much an ethical policy as it is a legal policy. We have a duty to be conservative about the information in the biographies of living people. This applies strongly to trans people, where the non-consensual usage of their old name can negatively affect them (as often as it's weaponised to further transphobic abuse). I do believe in a notability test that's similar to WP:BLPPRIVACY in a way: is there an overriding encyclopaedic reason that we should use their names? If not, and especially for borderline notable people, try to be conservative with the usage of old names unless the subject has actively disclosed it or was notable whilst using it. As a trans woman, and a long-term editor, I'm somewhat disturbed by the community's treatment of trans people and editors, especially when it goes against most ethical standards published in the last fifteen to twenty years. Sceptre 23:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, I should point out that in several Western jurisdictions, trans people are retroactively given recognition regarding their new name and gender, and gain significant legal protection regarding their old one. For example, when you get a Gender Recognition Certificate in the United Kingdom, your old birth certificate is replaced with a new one and it's illegal to disclose the information on the old one. Sceptre 23:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Calming break

I'm not saying that anyone should stop their discussion about who is allowed to voice opinions or who is being barred from discussion or whatever's going on above this break. I'm merely going to suggest that we keep that discussion above this break, and to move forward, will make several statements that might move us, if not toward a consensus, at least toward narrowing the points of contention (or they may prove points of contention.)

  1. Listing of birthnames in the opening sentence is standard practice on Misplaced Pages, and there is not a general exception for when the subject, for whatever reason, wishes to distance themselves from that name.
  2. While "birthname" is a parameter of Template:Infobox person, that's a template that has 76 parameters; having a parameter in the infobox does not mean that it is necessary or expected to use it even in all cases where we have the info that would match.
  3. That a birthname that identifies someone as trans or a statement that someone is trans is inherently contentious (i.e., something that could reasonably be viewed as damaging if not true), and thus should not be included in a WP:BLP unless reliably sourced
  4. The more we can cast things in terms of general policies rather than as a creation of a special case, the more neutral it will at least seem, and likely the more neutral it will be.
  5. The excessive focus on someone's transition when that is not a key part of their notability can be handled as WP:UNDUE. This is not to say that we should not address it as part of the MOS, but that if we do, we should describe it as guidelines in applying WP:UNDUE in these circumstances, rather than as a separate, special rules for trans people.
  6. There are people for whom their trans status is a significant part of their notability, so that avoiding discussion of it at all would be unencyclopedic.
  7. There are people who are quite public about their trans status and history, so that for them, discussing their trans status is not a violation of privacy.
  8. There may be cases where transition-related surgery is key to a significant portion of notability (I can think of theoretical cases, but cannot quickly point to real world examples), and as such it should not be inherently barred, but again, it is an item that is subject to WP:UNDUE and can be specified as such. (A guideline might be if such material is covered by sources of serious rather than salacious-even-if-reliable nature; NYT versus TMZ, if you will.)
  9. For the many trans folks who keep their last name at transition, conflict over naming can at least be minimized by keeping one's eye on WP:SURNAME; it is our friend in those cases.

As at least one editor above felt comfortable in stating their trans status and thus giving their useful comments some context, I will admit that I am a cis male, white, balding, and in need of a snack. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

As a driveby comment, I note that there are a few comments above about how one mention of the person's former name in the lead is all that is necessary; Misplaced Pages's lead sections are supposed to be broad summaries of the entire article and should not contain information not mentioned elsewhere. Hence you're looking at a minimum of two mentions of the person's former name/identity; once in the lead and once in the body (if it is in fact important enough to be mentioned in the lead.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
While that is the broad goal of the lead, there are other standard (MOS:BOLDSYN, WP:BIRTHNAME) calling for specific identifying information in that opening sentence. WP:LEAD specifically says "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." (emphasis mine). Birthname would appear to be a basic fact, and in some cases it will be trivial. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
As made abundantly clear by these discussions, birth names are not often basic, and certainly aren't "trivial" in the way "George Washington loved his ice cream" would be. It would also to me be strange to give someone's name in the lead and never refer to them by their full name anywhere else. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
And if I might bring a little bit of sanity to this discussion, just regarding harm. This is an example of when we can do serious harm by including a birth name, because the name is extremely difficult to find (although not impossible, if you really want to dig) and she literally can't defend herself in any way. The article which touched this dispute off does not carry that same risk, and the overwhelming majority of articles on transgender people are either the same or somewhere between it and the first example (you'd be hard-pressed to find a situation which really approaches that one). Just to keep things in perspective. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
In applying WP:UNDUE, the way that section is worded, it appears that a person's name is to be considered a matter subject to opinion. That is troubling on a great many levels, especially when the person in question has stated clearly what name they wish to use, even more so if that person has legal documents confirming that name. I would agree that WP:SURNAME represents an excellent way to avoid unnecessary repetition of names that have been disavowed by the subject. Rhialto (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
My apologies there; I invoked the wrong guideline when I used WP:UNDUE. Somewhere out there is a guideline or good essay about balance of the content, some don't-spend-much-more-time-on-the-stuff-not-vital-to-notabilityish thingy which is not coming to my mind at the moment (I am dealing with some temporary pain that is keeping me from being at 100%). It was not my intent to suggest that the name is subject to opinion; if a person has changed their name, they've changed their name. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I went through a few pages to see how they would fare under this proposal.

Calpernia Addams - no former name mentioned. She actively discourages use of the old name, and has made considerable effort to keep it concealed. (She also has a very interesting youtube video which covers why she considers it to be a personal attack to use the old name on her). This is an article where there is no reliable source for her former name, so it should not be mentioned. No changes would be needed.

Chelsea Manning - former name mentioned in lead ("Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, ..."). 5 mentions of Bradley in article body (including two gratuitious mentions); 5 mentions of Chelsea. She was famous before transition, so it is appropriate for the former name to be mentioned. However, it has been given undue prominence in the article.

Aya Kamikawa - no former name mentioned. No reliable sources for former name, although they may exist. No changes would be needed.

Isis King - no former name mentioned. No reliable sources for former name, although they may exist. No changes would be needed.

Andreas Krieger - one mention of former name in lead, no other mentions. He was famous before transition, so it is appropriate for the former name to be mentioned. I would consider this to be a model example of how to handle this name issue. No changes would be needed.

Harisu - Harisu is a stage name, and as such, is the name primarily used in the article. Both new and former names are mentioned in the lead. Former name is mentioned more times in article than new name, which places undue emphasis.

Buck Angel - No other names mentioned, although reliable sources may exist. No changes would be needed.

Rhialto (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

" which places undue emphasis" In your opinion. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Is it not your opinion that it does not? Rhialto (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I havn't looked and don't care to. You have been advocating for a position in this thread and so it should be clear that it is your opinion, as you clearly have a bias. (I am not saying you shouldn't have a bias, just that you, in my opinion, do.) CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Here's a slightly more reasoned answer for everyone else (based on the attitude expressed on your home page on WP, I doubt you'd pay much attention). Harisu has a stage name. She changed her name legally many years ago, and all government documents for her use that name. Online references to her primarily use her stage name, not her former name and not her current name. To therefore give her former name more prominence than her current name when it is not used (or used far less) in her daily life, in her legal life, or in verifiable sources about her, is giving her former name undue attention. Rhialto (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to add the comment that I think this is an excellent summary, although I would personally add some minor clarifications. The point #3 is very important. It is obvious--by this talk page if nothing else--that inclusion of a former name can be contentious. Therefore, it should only be included if reliably sourced. However, because a former name is encyclopedic information, and because it is often critical in doing further research on a person, I would go farther and say our policy should be that the name must be included if a reliable source has been found (regardless of whether the person was notable prior to the name change).

After thinking on this, I would further offer that I think the style guide should be that the former name, when reliably sourced, should generally be mentioned in exactly three places. I cannot really think of reasonable arguments for omitting it from the lede (as per standard practice mentioned in point #1 above) or from a single mention in the personal life/early life section when fleshing out the person's past. It also fits neatly in the infobox. I could possibly be persuaded that it could be omitted from the infobox, although I do feel strongly that we should have a general guideline of either always putting it there or never putting it there for trans people. (Are there specific WP guideline about what belongs in an infobox? If there are, I missed that part.) Taking it on a case-by-case basis is asking for arguments, and doesn't really add any value.

I do think this policy should include the guideline that more than three mentions, except when events are directly related to the prior name, is WP:UNDUE and should not be allowed.

(Note also that I am specifically talking about former names. This should be kept separate from guidelines on mention of gender change or surgery or anything else. My opinions are less strong on those issues.) GrandOpener (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

So, one mention in the lead, one mention in the infobox, and one mention in a section specifically about "early life" (all subject to verifiable sources and general writing guidelines)? Provided that those mentions don't exceed the number of times the current name is mentioned, I can go along with that. Rhialto (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Bill Clinton mentions "William Jefferson Blythe III" but doesn't make a big deal out of it. That's the way to go. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Not relevant. He isn't transgender, unless you know something we don't. Rhialto (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The use in info boxes gets interesting, while they frequently have a field for the "birth name", Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Infoboxes states "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." In these instances, name change and the context thereof probably require more than simple presentation and should not be included in infobox. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I will concur with that (and was pointing toward it with my point 2 above). The infobox is not a baseball card for a fixed set of statistics, but a summary to give immediate context. There are certain things that are inherently of value there (birth/death date, for example, put the individual in historical context), but if we are only otherwise mentioning birth name in the opening sentence and in early life, it probably does not belong in the infobox. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Another thought: if we right up guidelines, we may want to include a notation that the birthname should not be gleaned from birth records or from name change documents, under WP:BLPPRIMARY. This will help prevent us from revealing a birth name that is not already a matter of public knowledge. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Danger of formatting with templates with can change the MOS without discussion

We have an edit war going on at WP:NUM concerning the formatting of a template that's now being used directly in the MOS. This is dangerous: The MOS should be formatted manually. Otherwise changes in a formatting template will change the MOS without any discussion or consensus on the MOS. (The template did not conform to the MOS, though it claimed to; now that it's embedded in the MOS, the MOS conforms to the template, which has things backwards.) Thought I should mention it here for those of you who aren't watching that page. — kwami (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Maybe a link to some discussion please? Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, you probably meant MOS:NUM, not WP:NUM. I still don't understand what's going on there. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Collapsible section headings

any input is welcome at Talk:Qumran#Collapsible_bibliography concerning the collapsible section headings presented here. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

To me, it doesn't look so good, sorry. Standard {{Collapse top}} + {{Collapse bottom}} looks much better if collapsibility is the primary goal, as the collapsible area is clearly marked. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Inside or outside punctuation

I am having trouble understanding what is desired, without any examples of what not to do in red, it is almost as if anything is acceptable. Furthermore, the use of pronouns is not clear. For instance, Biblically speaking, in regards to those who went, is "they" used as a gender neutral substitute for she/he? Or does it signify that other than Martha, more than one person came? - Dirtclustit (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

What this MoS does not want you to do is use American-style punctuation. It requires only British at all times. A more in-depth explanation of how to use British style (also called "logical style") is given in the article quotation mark. If you want a simple rule of thumb, if the period or comma applies to or belongs to the quoted material, the put it inside. If not, put it outside. (Generally, British English does for periods and commas what all forms of English do for question marks.)
The issue of the singular they as an alternative to the cumbersome "he or she" is a matter of repeated debate on Misplaced Pages. To the best of my memory, the MoS doesn't mention the singular they because we couldn't agree on a rule for it. When it comes to the singular they, use your own judgment. So long as every article is internally consistent, it will look neat enough. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)