Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:07, 5 March 2015

Manual of Style

This 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 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. 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:MOS

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: 7 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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: 7 days

Template:MOS/R

For a list of suggested abbreviations for referring to style guides, see this page.

Spurious argument in "US and U.S."

The US and U.S. (WP:NOTUSA) section says:

Do not use U.S.A. or USA, except in a quotation or as part of a proper name (Team USA), because these abbreviations are also used for United States Army and other names.

The guideline may or may not be appropriate (it may be that those who formulated it were expressing an opinion, rather than reflecting real-world usage), but the reason given above is spurious and wrong. USA is very widely used orally and in writing (also U.S.A.) to mean the country, without ambiguity. There may be rare cases where use is truly ambiguous, but nobody thinks, for example, that crowds at sporting events are chanting to support the US military. So the guideline should be reconsidered; it may be maintained if there are non-spurious reasons to do so. The bare possibility of ambiguity is not good reason. There are innumerable examples; UK (U.K.; .uk in URLs) is used without ambiguity for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with only very rare problems with the Ukraine and the University of Kansas.

I'm not at this moment arguing that the anti-USA guideline should be dropped, but it should be properly supported if maintained. Pol098 (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I've never heard "USA" used for the army. Looking at USA (disambiguation), the other "USA"s are mostly pretty minor -- Uniform Securities Act, United Space Alliance, and what have you. The main exception being the defunct entity Union of South Africa (which I've never seen or heard of referred to as "USA", but maybe this was common in South Africa and elsewhere). There's no question that "USA" is clearly and obviously the United States of America, absent a declaration or context to the contrary in the text. (And after all, "US" could be the University of Salzburg or whatever.)

There might (or might not) be other good reasons to prescribe only "US" and not "USA" for referring to America, though. For one thing, it might not be a good thing to have both "US" and "USA" scattered throughout the Misplaced Pages and meaning the same thing. If it that's accepted, maybe "US" is more common or obvious or correct (I don't know). My inclination would be to remove it and let editors use what they want, but if it stays, the "because" clause should be eliminated, changed to something like "because its better to use one abbreviation for the United States of America and that's the one we've chosen" or changed to "because US is more common, obvious, or correct" (but only if that's true). Herostratus (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where you were stationed, but the use of USA for United States Army is ubiquitous. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

To me it seems that in most cases United States should be used over US anyway. In what cases would US or USA be preferable over that? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Foo is a town in the U.S. state of West Virtuckistan." --NE2 13:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal opinion doesn't really count here, we need to see what is actually used, and objective reasons which are not spurious. My impression is that I hear "US" and "USA" more than "United States", more than "United States of America". I'm not sure how they compare in writing from memory, but I see the abbreviated terms a great deal. Even the US Government site is headed "U.S. Government Services and Information". A Google search finds "usa" (I think Google considers "usa" and "u.s.a." to be identical) more than "united states". To the question In what cases would US or USA be preferable over ?: in one case it helps in WP disambiguation pages to keep the descriptions sometimes used short.

And a preoccupation of mine (I don't know if others will agree) is to keep text as short as possible so long as it's not ambiguous; readers just gain a few milliseconds, and maybe a tiny bit less brain processing, for every "UK" instead of "United Kingdom". It's the same as pointing out that the fact that in this point in time it is indubitably preferable to strive for brevity and conciseness, of no small assistance in saving time, instead of "keep it short", which probably saves at least a full second and a few flops. Pol098 (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

As an American lawyer, I have a somewhat different perspective regarding this issue. The American standard reference for legal citations is The Bluebook, which uses the full phrase "United States" in reference to the country or government of the country, but requires "U.S." whenever it is used as an adjectival phrase, as in "U.S. Army," "U.S. government," or "U.S. Supreme Court." This appears to be either a formal or informal standard adopted by a number of American media organizations, and seems to be the majority practice among American style guides. Furthermore, I also note that "U.S." (with periods) is preferred over "US" (without periods) in American English, with exceptions for certain organizations that incorporate "US" or "USA" into their official names or short-form names without periods. Of course, the result is otherwise in British and Commonwealth English. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

1: about the logic: nobody has defended potential confusion between Army and America as a reason to avoid USA, so I'll remove the Army from the guideline; obviously if others think it belongs, reinstate it.

2: about abbreviation vs full: Dirtlawyer1 puts the official United States viewpoint. Misplaced Pages should reflect common usage, in the United States and elsewhere; this arguably differs from the United States' official stand. Even in the United States in an official context, the official form is not always used, as the United States government Web site I cited shows. This point should perhaps be discussed and decided, but I don't think I have anything further to say. Pol098 (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Pol098, I think perhaps you read my comment too quickly: nowhere do I cite an "official" government guideline regarding this issue. My point is that American common usage, supported by most American style guides, including that of the American legal profession, is to write "United States" in full when it is being used as a noun, and "U.S." when used as an adjective, in formal writing. Rarely are either "United States of America" or "USA" used, usually in the limited circumstances described by others in this discussion. And to reinforce my second point regarding abbreviations, in American English the common practice is to abbreviate "U.S." with periods, not without periods, although there are specific exceptions for specific organizations (e.g., USAF), as others have also noted. I hope that makes my points crystal clear. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

NE2 But we never write "Foo is a town in the U.S. state of West Virtuckistan.". We consistently write something like "Foo is a town in West Virtuckistan", or "in West Virtuckistan, United States". Nor do we write US Supreme Court. In almost all cases it is obvious from the context which supreme court we mean. In the rare cases it isn't clear, using "the Supreme Court of the United States" is better than "the US Supreme court". I still am yet to see a single counterexample, which leads me to think, even if a counter example does exist, it's so rare it probably doesn't need a MOS entry. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

WTF? Seattle, Detroit, Portland, Oregon, Atlanta (no periods)... --NE2 04:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC) (NE2, I just edited the Atlanta article to conform "U.S. state of Georgia" to standard American usage of "U.S." with periods. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC))

Why would we ever use "USA" when "US" is available? To my ears, that would be like referring to the "UKGB" rather than the "UK". bd2412 T 14:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, bear in mind that America isn't the only country that's a United States. To my ears, "US" sounds sloppy when used as a noun. And the difference with the last would be that UKGB is never used (and if it was it would actually have to be UKGBNI), whereas USA is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The USAF and USMC are obviously common abbreviations for their respective branches and USN is a very uncommon abbreviation for US Navy, but I have never, in my entire time in the United States Army or afterwards, ever seen United States Army abbreviated as USA. I agree that it should be removed, because that's not something that is used as an abbreviation for the United States Army, especially not commonly enough that it should be an example in the MoS. - Aoidh (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

USN isn't uncommon at all! USA is certainly used for the United States Army, but I would agree it's not common and not likely to be confused with the country when used in context. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue at all I'm just genuinely curious, do you have any source that abbreviate the Army in that way? - Aoidh (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

To me, it's a question of tone. I associate "US" with the usage of serious publications, "USA" with patriotic country music, the chants of sports fans, and a certain alleged newspaper. By the way, this is no general knock on country music, which I actually enjoy, and I can occasionally even listen to the patriotic subgenre though it's not my favorite. But there are different standards for an encyclopedia. I do agree that the "ambiguity" argument is not a good one. --Trovatore (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Trovatore: While I can find the occasional references to "the U.S.A." used as a noun, I cannot think of a single instance where "U.S.A" is commonly used as an adjective -- the latter just sounds remarkably awkward to my American ear. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There's an earlier discussion with some background at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 146#USA. Trovatore's comments hit the nail right on the head for me (except for enjoying country music).  SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Support removal of "because ... names" but not the rule itself. We have style guides and other sources showing that "U.S." is preferred to "U.S.A." in general-audience publications, so the rule itself is good to stay. Any discussion of the history etc. of the phrase should be moved to the article space where it can be sourced. One thing, though, Pol098, the MoS should follow reliable sources on correct English, not common usage. We want Misplaced Pages to look correct and professional wherever possible. A great deal of common usage is common mistakes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Quote marks

Quite apart from quoting text or identifying speech, quote marks (single or double) have a variety of other uses or functions. As I read the MOS, there is a preference for double quotes for identifying speech or quotes of text. The context pretty much ignores other uses of quote marks. It is also silent on what I understand to be conventions that use single quotes for uses other than quoting text or identifying speech. I would pose a question of the validity of this convention and a clarification of the MOS's intent. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

What specific uses do you find missing and need addressing by the MOS? --Jayron32 01:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

See Usage. Essentially, the six examples of usage other than quotations and speech. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Some of them are already covered in other guidelines... for example the use of quotes for irony (scare quotes) is covered at WP:SCAREQUOTES (a section of WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch)... and the use of quotes to indicate a nickname is covered at WP:NICKNAME (a section of WP:Naming conventions (people)). Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

These sections are silent on the pertinent elements of the of the question. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Um... in that case, could you expand on what you think are the "pertinent elements" of your question? Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• There are uses of quote marks for other than identifying speech or quoting text.
• The MOS 'prefers' the use of double quotes for speech or quoting text?
• The MOS is silent on its preference for other uses?
• There is a convention for using single quotes for the 'other uses'?

I seek to clarify these matters. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me ask this again, what other uses is the MOS silent on, that you would like it to speak to? --Jayron32 00:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

OK.. on the third question (preference for other uses) the reason the MOS is silent may be that other policies say we should avoid those other uses in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand that this (WP:SCAREQUOTES) might apply to one of the remaining six uses, which warns against such use directly but not where this is being reported or attributed to another. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of an official statement, you should generally use normal rules of punctuation in English. Currently, double quotation marks are normal for most quotations; however, when a quotation itself contains quotation marks, the internal ones are normally rendered as single quotation marks, to make it easier to distinguish reported speech being quoted by someone else. This convention is similar to the alternation of parentheses and (square) brackets. When one parenthesis occurs within another, it's typically enclosed by brackets instead of parentheses (also called round brackets). If the use of internal punctuation makes the passage even more confusing, omit it and follow the passage with "(internal quotation marks omitted)," or "(internal parentheses omitted)," or "(internal punctuation omitted)," or whatever seems clearest.

These are not hard and fast rules of English punctuation. In fact English rarely has "rules" that must be obeyed and never have exceptions. Single quotation marks are often used to enclose individual words, letters, or numbers, when being spoken of as such, rather than being quoted. But these conventions are widely accepted throughout the English-speaking world; and while there are a few regular variations (such as whether to place non-quoted punctuation inside or outside quotation marks) of locality or time (such as placing a space between quotation marks and enclosed text), varying from one or another of the widely-used practices tends to draw unwanted attention to the punctuation itself and away from the text.

For instance, from a technical standpoint Lewis Carroll's double apostrophes for words like sha'n't or wo'n't make perfect sense. But they didn't catch on, and today they merely arrest the reader's attention in a way that Carroll never intended. It's not wrong to use them, but you wouldn't use them unless you wanted the reader to be looking at the punctuation and not the words. And of course no English teacher or editor would encourage them, partly because they're so obscure that most people don't know about them, and partly because drawing attention to your punctuation distracts from what you're writing and is nearly always undesirable.

Misplaced Pages's own guidelines state that its conventions of grammar aren't strict rules that must be adhered to in every case. If there's a good reason to vary from normal practice, go ahead. The MoS already endorses the use of national variants, such as British or American usage. If an article makes extensive use of older literature containing quaint spellings and punctuation, consistency may argue in favour of using them throughout instead of varying between older and modern usage—as long as the older usage is still clear and understandable to modern readers. I prefer editors to use coöperation or co-operation to something that sounds like the construction of chicken coops, and I believe that naïveté is the preferred form even amongst editors who normally eschew diaeresis. But when you're punctuating something, ask yourself whether the form you want to use will pass unnoticed, or become an unwanted (and repetitive) distraction for the reader. I think that'd probably be the best guideline for us all to use. P Aculeius (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@P Aculeius By this "Single quotation marks are often used to enclose individual words, letters, or numbers, when being spoken of as such, rather than being quoted. But these conventions are widely accepted throughout the English-speaking world;" I take, at least in part, that you concur with my observation regarding other uses, though some here would have double quotes used for the purpose you describe. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: You may have missed WP:MOS#Double or single: “There are some conventional codified exceptions, such as single quotation marks for plant cultivars (Malus domestica 'Golden Delicious'); see WP:FLORA.” If you did see that and still claim the MOS is silent on other uses, you’re probably going to have to describe the specific uses you have in mind before getting an answer that will be useful to you. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@174.141.182.82, As preciously stated, "The context pretty much ignores other uses of quote marks." The section, WP:MOS#Double or single states:

Enclose quotations with double quotation marks (Bob said, "Jim ate the apple."). Enclose quotations inside quotations with single quotation marks (Bob said, "Did Jim say 'I ate the apple' after he left?"). This is by far the dominant convention in current practice; see other reasons, below.

As you note, it then states: “There are some conventional codified exceptions, such as single quotation marks for plant cultivars (Malus domestica 'Golden Delicious'); see WP:FLORA.” Despite your myopic, smug and uncivil response, the question remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 23 February 2015‎

I really don’t think those insults are warranted (particularly while violating WP:KETTLE). Your question remains vague; despite reading your posts here, I still don’t know which uses of quotation marks you feel are lacking guidance in the MOS (and other editors have also asked you for details). Without knowing the specific problem, it’s difficult to know how to answer. Is there an example you could point to in an article, or in a proposed addition to an article? Or is this just a general concern that a failure to address every scenario may cause potential disagreements among editors? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@174.141.182.82, the article Quotation marks in English lists seven uses of quote marks of which Quotation marks in English#Quotations and speech and Quotation marks in English#Titles of artistic works are dealt with by the MOS. I originally misspoke in saying the MOS was silent on six of these, having inadvertently omitted the latter of these two. There then remains five uses of quote marks for which it appears that the MOS is silent about and for which I believe there are conventions that indicate the use of single quotes are appropriate. I believed that the reference to Quotation marks in English#Usage was sufficiently clear. If it is not, I am at something of a loss as to how to make this clearer (and that is not intended as an insult).

Single quotes in one or more of these other uses have been edited to double quotes with some vague notion that the MOS directs this. So:

• Is the MOS silent on its preference for other uses?
• Is there a convention for using single quotes for the 'other uses'?

Depending on the responses, and the apparent perceptions of some as to the scope and meaning of the MOS, is there a need to make explicit the intention of the MOS wrt these 'other uses' or to define the MOS on these? I had not posed the last of these since I wished to gauge the response to the former before suggesting the latter.

I am quite happy to operate within the 'rules' (note how I have used single quotes a number of times) of the MOS, but I get a little peeved when others make changes claiming support of the MOS when such changes are not mandated, are construed by a loose association or are matters on which the MOS is actually silent - particularly when usage is supported by conventions of English (which may or may not be widely held). I would note that the MOS tends to assume much about the 'universality' of conventions or ignores variations of convention and this can be a source of angst.

I appologise if you have perceived my former brevity for terseness or that listing my perceptions were construed as an insult or otherwise considered to be uncivil. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not my intention to take sides in a debate. I don't even see anything being debated. It seems to me that you're asking for some kind of definitive scheme of right and wrong for the use of single and double quotation marks in every possible situation and circumstance. But there isn't one, and there doesn't need to be one. There's a general, widespread convention or two in English, which may not cover every possible use or preclude any alternative usage. My advice is simply to follow normal English usage unless you have some particular reason for varying from it in a particular instance. When a specific convention, such as botanical usage, seems relevant, follow that. If two or more conventions seem equally applicable, take your pick based on what makes the most sense for the article, but try to be consistent throughout each article. Common sense is the best guide to these matters! P Aculeius (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@P Aculeius, My perception is that there is nothing definitive, which is fine, until others try to assert that there is. I will try to phrase my questions another way still.

• Is the MOS in any way definitive in which quote marks are used in 'other uses' (ie other than quotes, speech or titles)
• Is it reasonable to use single quote marks for these other uses?

Myself, I would leave double quotes alone in these other uses when I come across them, even though it might be against the convention 'as I have been taught' since I acknowledge that this is not necessarily universal and there is no specific guidance (that I see) on this matter in the MOS. I believe this is the standard that should be applied. Others construe the MOS to say otherwise. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

And as I've been saying all along, if the Manual of Style doesn't give clear guidance and you can't see a specific convention being followed in all similar articles, then use common sense. That will usually mean whatever is the most usual and least likely to draw attention. If usage varies between two or more forms, take your pick. If a specific convention applies and you don't know about it, other editors will inform you. If you disagree with their application in a particular instance, discuss it on the article's talk page, or if it's an instance of a policy that should or should not be applied across an entire project, then discuss it on that project's talk page. But if the Manual of Style doesn't address it, and you don't have a specific issue you want it to address, then this isn't the right place for this discussion. As others have pointed out, the Manual of Style does not provide answers for every possible situation. Unless editors know exactly what you want to do or don't want to do, it's impossible to provide guidance for you! P Aculeius (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@P Aculeius, I deduce from your response that the MOS is silent on whether to use double or single for other uses of quote marks (ie other than quotes, speech or titles). From your earlier comments, I understand that you would agree that there are conventions that prefer the use of single quotes for at least some of these other uses. It is unfortunate that some editors would construe the MOS to have a greater scope than what it actually addresses. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see anybody telling you that the Manual of Style tells you to do something you don't want to do. I haven't gone over the current conventions in the MoS with respect to all mentioned uses of quotation marks. All I've done is ask you to use common sense when it doesn't tell you what to do in a given situation. There's no need to drag me back into this conversation over and over when I haven't told you whether to use single or double quotation marks in any particular instance that you've mentioned (and you still haven't mentioned any). If you don't have a particular example to discuss or an argument with what the MoS actually says, instead of what it doesn't say, then I can't be of any further help! P Aculeius (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Can you show us an article demonstrating such a use of quote marks? Or an edit of the sort you mentioned earlier, of single to double or vice versa “per MOS”? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I thought it a relatively simple question to ask: "Is the MOS in any way definitive in which quote marks are used in 'other uses' (ie other than quotes, speech or titles)", having referred to these other uses as indicated in Quotation marks in English#Usage. I cannot, it appears, get an answer (or opinion) as to whether the MOS (MOS:QUOTEMARKS particularly) does or does not address these other uses. From this, the only 'common sense' conclusion is that the MOS does not address these uses. It causes me to question whether the MOS fulfills its goal, "to make using Misplaced Pages easier and more intuitive by promoting clarity and cohesion while helping editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting." I do note that @P Aculeius stated: "Single quotation marks are often used to enclose individual words, letters, or numbers, when being spoken of as such, rather than being quoted" - one of these other uses, but this is not from the MOS. As for specific instances, I would refer to , where 'free dropped' (a special terminology and signaling unusual usage) was changed to double quotes and similar edits have been made in other revisions for similar uses of single quotes. My question was to determine if this was a case where this statement from the MOS was applicable: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." The 'vagueness' of responses herein suggests a need to clarify the scope of the MOS on this particular issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely give up. You don't want to listen to what anybody says. You only seem to be interested in challenging the Manual of Style for no particular reason. You haven't given even one example of something you disagree with or a particular circumstance for which you need guidance. I tried to help you. Again. And again. I was as clear as I could be given your totally abstract and unspecified question. Please stop wasting people's time on non-existent problems, and stop tagging me when I've told you repeatedly that I have nothing else to add. I am not lending support to a pointless crusade for a reason you're utterly incapable of articulating. P Aculeius (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not challenging the MOS at all. I am asking for clarification on a matter where the MOS appears to be unclear - actually, I do not believe that the MOS addresses the matters. That is ok but I am not certain if this is the case. Is it? I thought such a simple question might get a simple and direct answer. I have already provided a very specific example - , where 'free dropped' (a special terminology and signaling unusual usage) was changed to double quotes and similar edits have been made in other revisions for similar uses of single quotes. A clear answer might be, "no it doesn't cover these other cases" or "yes it does" or "it does cover these other cases (see ...) but not these ...". I am listening but all I can hear is that nobody has an answer. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That particular edit does not reference the MOS, but I think it would have been better to italicize the term alongside a brief explanation of it (or if no definition is deemed necessary, I’d say no italics/quotes are either). If the MOS (or any other project page) covers the use of italics or quotation marks to introduce new terminology, I can’t find it. Anyway, the MOS does say, with rationale, that double quotation marks are preferred over single. So we could default to that when in doubt. But in cases where we don’t give guidance either way, then either way should be acceptable as long as it’s consistent throughout the article, similar to WP:ENGVAR. And we do have project pages discouraging editors from going around and changing whole articles from one style to another, so if anyone’s made a habit of doing that, it might be best to point that out. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

174.141.182.82, Thank you! An answer I can understand. That is not intended as facetiousness but genuine gratitude. Do you see any specific guidance for other uses such as: Irony, Use–mention distinction, Nicknames and false titles or Nonstandard usage? I think not either? No, the editor in question did not specifically reference the MOS in this instance but has suggested so previously (on another issue). Yes, this editor is in the habit of making such changes - even after pointing out that the MOS might specifically acknowledge a particular style (another issue). And yes, they did continue to do so even after it had been pointed out. I did note the rationale for preferring double quote marks over single, particularly: "Most browsers distinguish single and double quotation marks. (Searches for "must see" attractions may fail to find 'must see' attractions.)" It is not so much whether this statement is accurate (as written) but the relevance or significance of this eludes me. I perceive it like an unreferenced statement that begs explanation or context. How (or where) is this relevant? My observation, for what it is worth. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

On irony: MOS:QUOTEMARKS (but note that the guidance elsewhere discourages the use of irony). On words as words: WP:MOS#Words as words (italics, not quotes). I believe we conventionally use double quotes for nicknames, such as William "Bill" Clinton, where quotes are called for, but prefer to avoid them if possible. And I honestly don’t think nonstandard usage would be acceptable, so there’s no need for guidance. Finally, regardless of the reason for use, nested quotation marks follow MOS:QUOTEMARKS: single within double.

If this editor ignores requests to stop needlessly converting whole articles from one style to another, it may be necessary to post to WP:AN/I.

On the browser limitation: Press ctrl-F (or command-F on Mac) and type in 'Most browsers with a single quote. Your search should fail to find your own quotation. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is only a consequence of using {{'}} and not of a typed 'single' quote mark and then only if the single quote is included in the search. It sounds like a story to scare small children? But thank you nonetheless. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you’re confused. I was talking about searching the rendered page, not the wikitext, and {{'}} renders as a simple apostrophe/single quote. If you search a page for a single quote along with some text, the search will fail to find any instances of a double quote with the same text, and vice versa. Searches for ' do not match ", and searches for " do not match '. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Was searching the rendered page and the search worked fine for all the single quotes on the page. I found all the other examples of 'most except for the 'Most browsers example. That too worked after changing {{'}} for a typed 'single' quote mark. To be clear, I typed in 'most (including the single quote mark) as the search argument. Pretty certain I'm not confused at all. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You’re being unclear. Are you saying that searching with a double quote also returns uses of a single quote? This does not happen at least in my browser, and I’m not aware of it being common behavior. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am saying that if your search string has single quotes, it will return instances with single quotes and if your search string contains double quotes, it will return instances of double quote - all just as you would expect. However, a search string with single quotes may not find the occurrence if the single quote results from {{'}}. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with most of what P.A. and Anon174 say: Where the MoS is silent, follow general English rules for the variety of English in which the article is written. The style guides listed as sources on the MoS page itself would be a good place to look for them, but Purdue Owl Online is also very handy and reliable for U.S. English. However—and these two things have been the subject of frequent contention here—English does have rules, lots of them. Some of these rules have changed over time, but the MoS's target audience is Wikieditors who exist right now. Right now, it is wrong to use Lewis Carrol's double apostrophes. As for whether or not the MoS is a set of rules or just a guideline, that's also contested. I'm saying this not because I think we need to hash it all out again but to establish for any newcomers that, "English doesn't really have rules" and "The MoS is just a guideline; it doesn't tell people do to things they don't want to do" are not universally held to be true either on Misplaced Pages or in general.

Cinderella seems to be talking about a non-hypothetical problem that actually happened. @Cinderella157:, when you say someone reverted your changes claiming MoS support, exactly what was the text involved? Exactly what did this person claim? Did this happen more than once or in more than one way? Was it more than one person? If this is a widespread problem, then putting the MoS's position where it's easier to see might be warranted. However, if someone is switching between two correct options on a whim, then that person should be directed to the line in the introduction: "Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable." That might be a good last option before filing an AN/I against this person. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Battle of Buna–Gona is a major rewrite about to go into the main-space. I am the first major contributor. The specific matter of edits from single to double quotes was addressed to this other editor at Draft talk:Battle of Buna–Gona#Single quote marks. Rather than reverting the edits in question, I believe that the editor continued to make changes. I may have misspoken if I said the editor claimed MOS support for these particular edits but has made claims in other respects in a way that implied MOS support. This has been in respect to the use of abbreviations which I used IAW the MOS. They have since acknowledge (perhaps) that my writing was consistent with the MOS but continued (I believe) to edit them out (if they had not already all been edited out). Abbreviations were edited despite representations before and during the revisions made by this editor. The conversion template has been applied where previously, manual conversions had been made. The template has been applied in a way that implies an unreasonable degree of accuracy (significant figures) and contrary to the MOS in this respect. Many changes have been made on whole of document edits and will be difficult to disentangle from 'genuine' edits. So yes, I am peeved. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest taking a look at WP:Dispute resolution before taking any further action. At the very least, make sure that User:Anotherclown is aware of this discussion. If further action is intended, it would be best to have a number of specific diffs you could point to rather than vague suspicions. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

First I heard about this conversation was now - although fairly pointless participating at this point. I really can't see how me copy-editing a draft has resulted in this but anyhow. No requirement for dispute resolution - I'm not remotely interested in discussing anything at any rate. Will simply steer clear of anything with User:Cinderella157's finger prints on it as that seems to be what they want. There are more important things in life than attempting to help someone that doesn't want it. Anotherclown (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Comma before Jr. and Sr. in biographies

At the less-travelled subpage talkpage, Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies, the decision has been made to move Jr. and Sr. names so that no comma remains. Due to the large number of articles impacted and the small number of discussants, I am wondering if this was a proper consensus. I noticed this with Philg88's move of Donald Trump Jr. and Tim Hardaway Jr., which are pages I created and continue to watch. Is there a way to reopen this up for broader discussion at a more widely-viewed venue?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't wade into the technical question of whether an adequate consensus was reached, but I will say that a comma seems appropriate to separate the name from the suffix, which (in theory) is not really part of a person's name, but appended as a distinction in apposition to the name. Until the 20th century it seems to have been generally accepted that "junior" and "senior" were not names, but labels that could be used or discarded at the discretion of the speaker. While in recent decades they've been treated as names for some purposes (with an ambiguous status as neither personal names nor surnames), their basic purpose is unchanged; and so in formal writing I think they should retain their adjectival features. As appositional suffixes, they really need to be set off by commas both before and after. Clearly punctuation is not trendy right now; I understand that many people would rather do without it. But even if the Manual of Style were to deem it acceptable to omit commas in this instance, it shouldn't mandate doing so. P Aculeius (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no dog in this hunt, I just move the articles when requested. However, Dicklyon and Colonies Chris may wish to comment.  Philg88  06:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the MOS does not "mandate" changes. But it encourages and allows them, when they improve the encyclopedia. If you read the discussion referenced, you may note that most wikipedia pages with "Jr." in them violate almost all guides by having commas before, but not after, the suffix. Modern guides make it clear that if commas are used they should match, but that omitting commas is cleaner. WP editors have agreed. I have no objection if you want to reopen that discussion, here with a wider audience. But if you do, please at least pick an example where sources agree with your preference (if you can find one). Also note that the only change in the recent consensus was to eliminate the bit about maybe going with the subject's own preference; since such preferences are hard to know, and since the example Sammy Davis, Jr. was not supportable, it seemed silly. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, to be clear, the decision was never made to move pages. That's just something I've been doing to bring pages more into line with guidelines. I've moved and edited a few hundred articles, with no pushback so far (but a few queries about why). Dicklyon (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Tony, I see you used matching commas. Unfortunately, many editors don't get that. See this diff on Trump Jr. But there were already several instances of missing commas after, and several more of no commas before, in the article at that time. Don't you think it will be easier, nicer, more maintainable, and more modern looking to just go without offsetting the Jr.? Dicklyon (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

My practice has been to go with however the name is formatted in the article title, which mostly means using the preceding comma. However, it's clear that standard practice among editors is to omit the comma, and that feels better to me - it accords with the modern tendency to reduce punctuation usage, and the whole comma-both-before-and-after approach seems finicky and unenforceable because it's out of tune with actual practice. Also, omitting the comma fits better with the normal spoken pronunciation, which treats the suffix as part of the name, not as a tacked-on qualifier. I would support a project to remove the comma from article titles wholesale. The current situation - recommending one way whilst actually doing something different - is highly unsatisfactory. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Dicklyon. Arguing with people about why they really need to include the commas after parenthetical phrases like years, states, and here personal suffixes, especially on wikipedia is an unholy combination of aggravating, tedious, and futile. In this particular instance it is widely deemed acceptable by style guides to omit the commas, so I think we should encourage doing so wholeheartedly in the interest of avoiding aggravation, tedium, and futility. AgnosticAphid talk 18:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I raised a tangentially related question here , but that page doesn't seem too active and I would be interested to hear people's thoughts. AgnosticAphid talk 18:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• I found it at "John D. Rockefeller, Jr." to John D. Rockefeller Jr. The majority of the incoming links are to ", Jr." as are the ancillary articles such as John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library. See John D. Rockefeller, Jr. at the Encyclopedia Britannica and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. at the Rockefeller family archive for his canonical biography by his archive It appears that at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Comma after "Jr.", "Sr.", etc.? seven people !voted on a major style change with a 5 to 2 split. 3 people decided this outcome. Now the comma is being removed en masse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If your only argument is that we should include the comma because a majority of sources use commas, I don't think that's a reason to keep the commas for all of the reasons explained in the earlier discussion ("the subject's style (or sources' styles) should not determine Misplaced Pages's style; besides which sources' styles are only reflecting their own style books, which who cares"). Nor is the fact that existing articles use commas a reason to keep them (just because they already exist doesn't mean there's a consensus for their inclusion or that they're stylistically appropriate). And you haven't attempted to refute any of the practical concerns about keeping the commas including but not limited to whether a comma should always be used after the "jr", what to do about people who disagree on that last question, and also why it is a good use of everyone's time to constantly verify that the comma use of sources lines up with our comma use for each individual article subject. AgnosticAphid talk 21:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • My argument is to have more than 7 people, in a 5 to 2 split, decide on a style issue before massive changes are made. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, it's WP:NOTAVOTE and nobody can seem to come up with a compelling argument in favor of the use of commas, so I don't see what difference the number of participants makes, especially since there are many people participating here who didn't there. AgnosticAphid talk 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• What were the compelling reasons for no-comma? I don't see any at Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Child_named_for_parent_or_predecessor, no rationale is given, no footnotes. We are arguing over aesthetics and style, I am not sure what arguments you can make. Misplaced Pages has its own style set by consensus. WP:NOTAVOTE has always been an Wikioxymoron. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think if you read the discussion above, the comment I just made, and the discussion whose result you dismissed as illegitimate you will find many compelling reasons to omit the comma. Your comment suggests you might not have noticed those. AgnosticAphid talk 21:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I too am not fond of mass change like this, the reasons given are sound. Technically, when one uses a comma in this manner, one is required to use a following comma. That is to say, one would write "Richard Arthur Norton, Jr., appears to have been born in 1958". This is quite clunky, just as it is clunky to write "An agreement was made at Zagreb, Croatia, on January 25, 2015". When it is possible, it is wise to avoid having these kinds of commas, as they break-up the text for no good reason. Dropping the comma altogether eliminates the following comma, eliminating the problem of the broken-up text. RGloucester — ☎ 21:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

What on Earth does a second comma that to do with titles of articles? And who says we must add the second comma, Misplaced Pages has its own style guide, all we have to do is write what we want in the style guide. The comma guide also conflicts with the rule that we use the most common name of the person. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a matter of presentation (style), not of naming. Adding or removing the comma does not change the meaning, and hence has nothing to do with common naming. The name remains the same, regardless of whether there is a comma or not. The second comma is required by all style guides when using the "junior" with a comma, even those that recommend no commas at all. It is basic English usage, which is not something we can overwrite. RGloucester — ☎ 23:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• This is much more than just a simple "style" issue. It involves how we present the names of actual people, and that means anything we choose can become very personal... we need to be sensitive to the fact that some people want a comma in their name, and others don't. It is one of those emotional issues that can make people very upset if we get it "wrong". I know my father would have insisted that his name be presented as Blueboar, Sr. ... ie with a comma. (Actually, in real life he was a "Jr."... but you get my point). He cared very strongly about the fact that his name should be presented with a comma. I am sure that there are people on the other side, who insist that their names don't have a comma before the Jr. or Sr.

In other words, this isn't something we should make any rule about... because no matter which style we choose, it will get personal... we are going to upset a lot of editors (Many of whom either do, or do not, use a comma in their real life names). Blueboar (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It is too bad if a person is upset over whether one puts a comma in his name. Sadly, if other style guides are making this determination, there is no reason that we cannot do so. In the event that such an "exception" was restored, however, the following comma must be explicitly mandated. RGloucester — ☎ 00:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Do I have the argument correct: The article titles were changed from "John Foo, Jr." to "John Foo Jr." because there is a style rule that if we use one comma we HAVE to use a second one, such as "John Foo, Jr.," IN THE TITLE of articles? Where does this rule come from? I don't see it in Encyclopedia Britannica in any article. Or do you mean it should be used in the lede such "John Foo, Jr., (1800-1900)" which IS in Encyclopedia Britannica: "John D. Rockefeller, Jr., in full John Davison Rockefeller, Jr. (born January 29, 1874, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.—died May 11, 1960, Tucson, Arizona)" and Every Jr. search here at EB. This rule concerns the lede and has nothing to do with the article title. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The argument primarily concerns the style of the prose, but the prose and article title must remain consistent. Including the comma in the title necessitates inclusion in the prose, therefore causing the choppy prose problem. RGloucester — ☎ 00:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The second comma concern is mostly about prose (although I can imagine descriptive titles that would need the second comma), but the prose has to match the article and editors don't often agree with the need for a second comma in prose regardless of what grammarians say. That makes WP look unprofessional and dumb. But there are other reasons to omit the comma that I already explained and you ignored, like for instance you say we should use the comma for your articles because of the use of a comma in sources, but it is very tedious and time consuming to determine comma use in reliable sources for each different article subject. And we typically strive for consistency with our styling and don't defer to the wishes of individual article subjects. The argument that we use the "wrong" name if we omit the comma or that we should defer to biographic experts is the same unpersuasive reasoning trotted out about other stylistic things plainly covered by the MOS regardless of the subject's wishes like capitalization and dash use.AgnosticAphid talk 01:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): If a comma precedes Jr. or Sr. then one must also follow if the sentence continues. This wouldn't be necessary at the end of an article title (e.g., John D. Rockefeller, Jr.) but would be needed in prose (John D. Rockefeller, Jr., was an American financer and philanthropist) and in titles that do not end with the name (e.g., John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway). Style guides consistency say that the following comma is required if there is one before, although the trend is to omit the commas altogether in this case.

As I have set out previously:

—sroc 💬 06:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel the need to reply to this example, suggesting that, "An agreement was made at Zagreb, Croatia, on January 25, 2015," is too clunky with commas, and should be amended to, "An agreement was made at Zagreb Croatia on January 25 2015" which I strongly feel would need to be amended by adding punctuation in at least some of the appropriate locations which would in my opinion necessitate putting them in all of the aforesaid locations simply because cutting the amount of punctuation in half fails to make the offending clause more readable or more understandable but instead draws the readers attention to the punctuation lack thereof or need for as the case may be which is far more clunky than simply using appropriate punctuation in the first place would have been or in the alternative perhaps rephrasing the text in order to avoid too many awkward pauses although I am willing to consider an exception with respect to the comma following Croatia which does not seem to be a particularly important pause in this sentence where we would naturally have paused following Zagreb and January 25 at least if we use proper and predictable punctuation we dont risk confusing the reader or drawing unwanted attention to the punctuation itself which I fear we do if we begin arbitrarily omitting it in places where most properly trained English writers and I daresay the majority of readers expect although I can see no objection whatever if a clause is simply reworded in order to make it less awkward than one in which the writer has picked and chosen which commas and other punctuation marks to include and which to omit with no particular guide except his or her own sensibility as much as we rely upon it in writing that judgment is no substitute for regular and predictable rules and some sort of specific policy would seem to be required if we begin axing punctuation in particular instances and not in others P Aculeius (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You misinterpreted me. I never said we should write "Zagreb Croatia" anywhere, which is not something that anyone accepts, merely that avoidable commas should be avoided if possible. As an example, I would tend to write: "An agreement was made at Zagreb on 25 January 2015". DMY dates allow us to scotch one comma, and omitting "Croatia" is acceptable if a wikilink is provided, scotching another. Likewise, in the case of the "junior/senior" business, omitting the comma is considered acceptable, and even recommended by many style guides. If we can solve the choppy prose problem, there is no reason not to. RGloucester — ☎ 14:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Article titles is not something if the remit the MOS but comes under WP:AT and disambiguation. Using a comma makes it easier to disambiguate the page, because of the same trick as using round brackets and the pipe symbol. The same thing applies to "the younger" and in English public schools "minor". In principle I agree with Blueboar this is just more instruction creep. As to "the 'junior' with a comma" who but an American would use "junior" and so care about it? -- PBS (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My sources say that American men with a "junior" or a numeral after their name make up about 3% of the population. This has been static for a long time. But they seem to be a greater proportion of some biographies. For example, four of the Mercury Seven astronauts were "Junior" Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

PBS, you are wrong. "The guidance contained elsewhere in the MoS, particularly § Punctuation (below) applies to all parts of an article, including the title." Let's not rehash old debates that have already been settled. AgnosticAphid talk 21:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

AgnosticAphid, that is a unilateral comment in the MOS. There have been several debates on the AT talk page about this there is no consensus over the issue. -- PBS (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• The National Park Service manages the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, and they use the comma before Jr. in their literature as shown here. That article has been moved to no comma to comply with MOS, but again, they are the overseers and managers and they use a comma. Would we also change our articles about books such as this one to have no comma to comply with MOS or keep the title of our article in such a case as the book is titled?--MONGO 06:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed a bit odd that the NPS uses the mismatched comma style that all English grammar guides say is wrong, but that almost all other sources choose between the no-comma and two-comma versions. Actually, some of those with the two commas are also NPS docs. But if the guide books written for the public can go with no-comma style, I think WP can, too. Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Something to consider, whether we go with "include a comma" or "don't include a comma"... I think we will need a living persons exception clause to deal with situations when the subject himself either does or does not use a comma. Are we really going to tell a living person that he is styling his own name incorrectly? Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Are we going to write to people individually to tell them they have their name wrong? No. Do we have the right to decide whether or not to include commas as a matter of style, as do other reputable style guides? Of course we do. No exception is needed for living people and it is entirely unnecessary to consult each subject's preferences for the reasons already discussed. —sroc 💬 15:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Both comma and comma-less constructions are acceptable, both among style guides and in the real world of published sources. There's no reason we need to proscribe this one. As long as we're consistent within an article, we shouldn't be forced to choose one or the other. Dohn joe (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Distinction between acceptable and unacceptable forks

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Misplaced Pages talk:Content forking#Distinction between acceptable and unacceptable forks. A WP:Permalink for that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk)

Discussion regarding the WP:Overlinking guideline

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Lowercase acronyms / uppercase initialisms

As a Britton, this is my standard usage, and I like it. It makes sense to have acronyms written as lowercase, and initialisms as uppercase. It grants more information to the reader, and looks better typographically. As an example, one uses Isil, Isis, Ukip, Nato, but UN, NSA, USSR, &c. I would propose that this common and standard usage should not be proscribed. In fact, I'd recommend that it be recommended, but I know that won't gain consensus. Is there any reason why we should not be able to write "Isis" or "Syriza", rather than "ISIS" or "SYRIZA"? See the style manual of The Guardian. RGloucester — ☎ 22:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this exclusively a British convention? I am not aware of this being adopted elsewhere. I would advise against it because readers in the rest of the world would not expect this convention to be used and thus may not recognise such terms as being acronyms. It would also create unnecessary complications for piping links to Isis vs Isis, for example. —sroc 💬 00:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't know what SYRIZA was, but I would have assumed Syriza was a typo. —sroc 💬 00:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Syriza is an acronym. For some unknown reason, however, even American sources that usually capitalise acronyms do not usually capitalise Syriza. I know that this scheme is also used in Ireland. I don't know what goes on in the Commonwealth, but I'm fairly certain that they maintain universal capitalisation for acronyms. Users in the rest of the world don't expect lorries or treacle either, but we're still allowed to use them in line with ENGVAR. Likewise with DMY dates, and other various conventions. In cases where no such disambiguation problem exists, however, I'd ask that we should be allowed to write Nato or Isil, just as most British sources do. This is standard practice in a significant English-speaking country. It should not be proscribed, anymore than we should proscribe the short form of the title mister sans full stop. RGloucester — ☎ 01:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a question. What about AARP? They changed their name from an initialism to an acronym a few years ago, but I've never ever ever seen the name written "Aarp." In fact, my iPad thinks I spelled it wrong. It would be so strange to recommend that the name be written that way, and I would imagine there are similar acronyms that readers would not expect to encounter uncapitalized. Maybe it would make more sense to allow but not recommend this practice? AgnosticAphid talk 17:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That's all I was asking. I was not asking for it to be recommended, merely for it to be allowed per WP:ENGVAR. As far as AARP is concerned, that would never be written Aaarp in British usage, as it is always pronounced "A. A.R.P.", never as "aarp", which is essentially unpronounceable. The determination is based on pronunciation. If one pronounces the individual letters, i.e. "U. S. A.", then one writes it in capital letters (USA). If one pronounces it as if it were a word, i.e. "Isis", then one users lowercase. RGloucester — ☎ 17:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

actually, it is pronounced as a word now, they run commercials all the time ("if you think being old is about being lame and boring, then you don't know AARP!"), it's just always spelled with capital letters and your proposal said you wanted to recommended that using lowercase was recommended. I do share sroc's concern about people not recognizing that it's an abbreviation, as well. AgnosticAphid talk 18:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC) I misunderstood your proposal, I'm sorry. But it's true that if we always use capital letters people will always know it's an abbreviation. AgnosticAphid talk 18:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a source video or something where "AARP" is pronounced as "aarp". I've never heard of something so absurd. It is read as "A A R P". It is not read "aarp". This is confirmed by Wiktionary. RGloucester — ☎ 18:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Your tone leaves something to be desired and you could easily look into this yourself. You also never addressed the substance of the concerns raised. But here's an op-Ed from the wapo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17170-2003Sep2.html AgnosticAphid talk 19:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not a good source, and is contested by not just Wiktionary, but also the Oxford Dictionary and the MacMillan Dictionary. Please provide a source where "AARP" is pronounced as "aarp" by an actual person. RS state it is pronounced "A A R P". What "substance"? As I said above, people may not recognise lories, treacle, electric torches, carriages, or wagons, but we're still allowed to use them in line with WP:ENGVAR. RGloucester — ☎ 20:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Aside: AARP's very recent TV ad pronounces it both ways. Personally, I feel this is new for them, but I can't prove it. Jeh (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say this is a bit tiresome. Exactly what is so bad about about the Washington Post? And besides, there are tons of examples of other acronyms in that article that are always capitalized. It would be unprofessional or sloppy to allow editors to write articles about Flpma and Ferc and I don't think it's advisable to base our style on pronunciation as this debate about AARP illustrates. AgnosticAphid talk 21:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Er, it is an op-ed, and apparently some kind of satire. What it says is directly contradicted by reputable dictionaries. In American usage, acronyms are always capitalised. I'm not talking about American usage. I'm talking about British usage, whereby we don't usually capitalise acronyms. It is neither unprofessional nor sloppy. It is the standard style of the BBC, The Guardian, the Financial Times, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 21:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a worldwide encyclopedia, so if we allow people to write acronyms in lowercase then we will end up with articles about non-british things like Flpma and Ferc that are just not ordinarily encountered uncapitalized. If we are going to read an ENGVAR rule into your proposal, so that non-british things always have to be capitalized but british things are optionally lowercase if they're acronyms and not initialisms, then we have to fight about whether or not Nato is encompassed within the rule or not and if so why. Besides which, arguing on Misplaced Pages is frustrating for everyone, and with the current rule we don't have to have conflicts about whose reliable sources outweigh whose about pronunciation and we also don't have to constantly reevaluate capitalization depending on how reliable sources pronounce things. AgnosticAphid talk 21:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I would make the following observations. Acronyms, as opposed to initialisms may be capitalised in varying ways, either all capitals, initial capitals and in some cases, when the word has passed into common usage, no capitals (eg scuba). There is no hard and fast rule, certainly not globally. The convention cited by RGloucester , while it is a recognised convention, I would be surprised if it was followed with sufficient consistency to be considered a 'national' variation. There is also no clear distinction between acronyms and initialisms since some unlikely initialisms become acronymised. I would suggest the following guidance. If there exists an article about the acronym (ie NATO), then ideally, referring to NATO should use the same style that has been used within the main article. If no article exists for the subject acronym, then capitalisation should be resolved by considering constant consistent usage in source material (unfortunately, this may well become a matter of contention). There is no issue with the use of initial capitals only as a style, since the acronym or initialism should be made explicit at first usage and this style is acknowledged by Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Acronyms.

Incidentally, The MOS, at Periods (full stops) and spaces does not distinguish an initialism from an acronym but refers to both as acronyms - perhaps a matter deserving attention or perhaps not.

Too much is said to be implied of the MOS when the MOS is actually silent on a subject. Too much is asserted or assumed about the universality of English conventions when conventions might vary regionally, nationally or even, within a nation. I see that too much contention exists because of perceptions (and misperceptions) as they relate to varying conventions of usage. Different 'parties' will argue that the MOS carries more or less weight on a particular subject than it actually does. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms identifies that there are varying forms of capitalisation for acronyms but gives no advice on determining correct capitalisation. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Miscellanea lists some acronyms and this may be taken as a statement of style for these. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Acronyms states: "Many acronyms are written in all capitals, such as NATO, BBC, JPEG. However, some acronyms have gained common usage as ordinary, lowercase words; for example, we write scuba and laser." It ignores the case of acronyms with initial capitals and may be misconstrued as a statement of style. This inconsistency should be remedied.

I see some value in providing some guidance on how to capitalise acronyms mainly because the subject is left hanging and a matter of conjecture. Perhaps such guidance might be something similar to the observations I have made. I would suggest it be added at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms. Such guidance need not clutter the main text. Such advice or clarification may well best be added as an annotation. Would this be instructional creep? I think not. If anything, it more clearly defines the scope of the MOS on this matter and thereby limits 'creep'. I think such disambiguating statements are potentially of great value, since they clarify perceptions and misperceptions about the universallity or otherwise of conventions of English. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I support your drive for clarity. I specifically take issue with the statement "Many acronyms are written in all capitals, such as NATO, BBC..." This is very problematic. "BBC" is not an acronym, but an initialism. "NATO" is usually written "Nato" in British usage. I do not think that the present text intends to be a statement of style, but as it stands, it is both incorrect and misleading. We must remedy this. At the very least, the distinction between initialisms and acronyms should be made clear, regardless of whether we prescribe a certain style. RGloucester — ☎ 23:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I also support the drive for clarity. Note, however, that the distinction between acronym and initialism is not so clear—see Acronym § Nomenclature:

Although the word acronym is widely used to refer to any abbreviation formed from initial letters, in contradistinction to an initialism (or alphabetism)—a word or abbreviation formed from a string of initials—whereas some others include additional senses equating acronym with initialism. The distinction, when made, hinges on whether the abbreviation is pronounced as a word or as a string of individual letters. Examples in reference works that make the distinction include NATO /ˈneɪtoʊ/, scuba /ˈskuːbə/, and radar /ˈreɪdɑːr/ for acronyms, and FBI /ˌɛfˌbiːˈaɪ/, CRT /ˌˈsiːˌɑːrˌtiː/, and HTML /ˌeɪtʃˌtiːˌɛmˈɛl/ for initialisms.

I omitted the footnotes here, but they provide telling reading in the article. —sroc 💬 04:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The distinction is held to in reputable sources, such as The Guardian style guide above, and is near universal in British usage. It is very clear. Here is the Columbia Journalism Review. Interestingly, this shines a bit of light on our AARP problem. It says that AARP is a hybrid, as the organisation "sometimes calls itself “aay-aay-are-pee,” and it sometimes calls itself "arp". Either way, the errors in the MoS must be corrected. RGloucester — ☎ 05:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

it's not really an "error" if the acronyms article specifically chose to use "acronym" to refer to both initialisms and acronyms because dictionaries and style guides disagree about whether there's a distinction to be made. AgnosticAphid talk 06:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite so. To quote from the footnotes:

• Merriam-Webster, Inc. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, 1994. ISBN 0-87779-132-5. pp. 21–22:

  acronyms  A number of commentators (as Copperud 1970, Janis 1984, Howard 1984) believe that acronyms can be differentiated from other abbreviations in being pronounceable as words. Dictionaries, however, do not make this distinction because writers in general do not

• The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (1991), Oxford University Press. p. 12:

  acronym: a word, usu pronounced as such, formed from the initial letters of other words (e.g. Ernie, laser, Nato)

• "Cambridge Dictionary of American English":

  acronym: a word created from the first letters of each word in a series of words.

• Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

  acronym: a word (as NATO, radar, or laser) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term; also: an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters: see initialism

• Crystal, David (1995). "Abbreviation". The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-55985-5. p. 120: Under the heading "Types of Abbreviation", this article separately lists initialisms and acronyms, describing the latter as "Initialisms pronounced as single words", but adds,

  However, some linguists do not recognize a sharp distinction between acronyms and initialisms, but use the former term for both.

• Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (2003), Barnes & Noble. ISBN 0-7607-4975-2:

  acronym. 1. a word created from the first letter or letters of each word in a series of words or a phrase. 2. a set of initials representing a name, organization, or the like, with each letter pronounced separately, as FBI for Federal Bureau of Investigation.

• American Heritage Dictionary (2014), 5th edition:

  Usage Note: ... Acronyms are often distinguished from initialisms like FBI and NIH, whose individual letters are pronounced as separate syllables. While observing this distinction has some virtue in precision, it may be lost on many people, for whom the term acronym refers to both kinds of abbreviations.

The distinction between acronym and initialism, if there is one, is so subtle that it must be made explicitly clear in MOS if they are to be treated differently. —sroc 💬 06:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No one disagrees that the distinction exists. The distinction does exist, merely that it is sometimes ignored in common usage. There are multiple errors. First of all, American usage is taken as the be-all-end-all, i.e. "Many acronyms are written in all capitals, such as NATO". This is not correct. NATO is often not written in all capitals, as is standard in British usage. BBC is not considered an acronym. Note that the British dictionaries provided by Sroc all note the distinction, as in the Concise Oxford. Regardless, I would suggest the following: first of all, we need to have one place for our acronyms guidance. As it stands, it is scattered across three different guides, making it very hard to follow the guidance provided. It should all be centralised in the abbreviations page. Secondly, we need to at least acknowledge the standard British usage in the MoS. RGloucester — ☎ 06:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The Macquarie Dictionary (1st ed) list 'acronym' as being only the pronounced definition (ie is exclusive of initialisms). As the word is not universally understood and can have varying meanings, I would suggest that it should be defined in the text as including initialisms, if that is what is intended. The definition should also acknowledge the more general meaning, so as not to falsely imply that 'acronym' universally includes initialisms. I note the the lead of MOS:Caps was edited to replace "acronyms and initialisms" with just "acronyms"? It is frequently a false premise to assume universality in a global context. I don't think that it should necessarily be acknowledged as specifically British, but certainly, it should be acknowledged and guidance given in determining the appropriate style. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It isn't exclusively British, that's just the context I come from. I know it is also the standard Irish usage. As I said above, I'm not familiar with Commonwealth usage, though if Macquarie says what it says, I imagine Australian English holds to the distinction as well. RGloucester — ☎ 06:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I can tell you, from an Australian context, acronyms are universally in all caps (e.g., always "NATO", never "Nato"). Guardian Australia has adopted the British convention (e.g., "Nato"), but as a native Australian English speaker, it is quite jarring to read and adjust to. —sroc 💬 13:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I will qualify that by saying that Anzac and Anzac Day are sometimes accepted with only an initial capital. —sroc 💬 13:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

An ngram shows that uses of "NATO" far outweigh "Nato" (by a ratio of 71:1 in 2008), even when restricted to British English (55:1). —sroc 💬 14:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ngrams is limited to 2008 (ages ago, in style terms), and simply isn't an appropriate way to judge this matter, as it looks only at books and not at common usage in general. The fact remains that this usage is common. I have no need to show you a list of all the sources that follow the convention, as a quick Google search will reveal it. It is followed by the BBC, The Guardian, the Financial Times, The Independent...&c. These are high-quality sources, are they not? Once again, one must make clear that we write Nato and Isis. RGloucester — ☎ 14:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see any benefit whatsoever in suggesting that it might be appropriate for editors to use lowercase for acronyms but not initialisms. We will have to explain what the difference is when that's not really necessary and not widely understood, I don't see how it would be anything other than trying to determine our capitalization by reference to pronunciation (both because pronunciation changes and also because people disagree about pronunciation), and if we have to make up an additional rule that says "go ahead and use lowercase if it's an acronym about something frequently discussed in the UK but please don't do that for American acronyms because people will think it's awfully strange!" then it seems especially unwieldy and argument-prone. I think these points have been made repeatedly but you never really responded to them. AgnosticAphid talk 17:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, I'm not suggesting that we should endorse lowercase acronyms. What I am suggesting is that the present guide reads from an American perspective, and feels both confusing and incorrect from the perspective of a Briton. The division between initialism and acronym is widely understood in Britain, where it is standard, as are lowercase acronyms. You are seeming to say that this style of usage will be confusing for Americans. The present version is confusing for Britons. This must be remedied. The distinctions must be made clear, even if we mandate capitalised acronyms. I agree with Cinderella157 below. RGloucester — ☎ 22:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@AgnosticAphid and others. I have not suggested that RGloucester 's proposal be adopted but it has identified a number of inconsistencies. Firstly, it cannot be claimed that 'acronym' is universally understood to include initialisms. This is already confusing and needs to be remedied at the point of use. WP documentation already acknowledges the use of inital capitalisation for acronyms. However, there are inconsistencies which suggest that acronyms are only ever capitalised fully. These should be reconciled. I had also suggested it might be appropriate to provide guidance on how to capitalise an acronym (as per previous suggestion or similar). Cinderella157 (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of reigniting a fire, compare {{R from abbreviation}}, {{R from initialism}}, {{R from acronym}}. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Now that the issue has been adequately demonstrated, how shall we go about resolving it? I'd recommend that we transfer all acronym/initialism-related guidance to one spot, preferably the abbreviations sub-page of the MoS. This will make it clearer, and easier to access and understand. I also recommend that we describe the difference between acronyms and initialisms, even if we do not acknowledge it in terms of capitalisation. RGloucester — ☎ 18:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

2001–02 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

Thoughts on that capitalization? It will be hitting the Main Page soon; see Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/March 20, 2015. - Dank (push to talk) 21:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: The MoS and the generic he

The conversation about the generic he and gender-neutral language that started on this talk page has progressed to two RfCs at the village pump. Further opinions are welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)