Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:26, 22 February 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.

Band articles

I've noticed that with band articles there is usually a "Band members" level-two heading. Immediately following is a "Current members" heading and then a "Former members" and occasionally a "Touring members" heading. Finally, there is "Timeline" heading. I have been modifying those to remove the duplicate term, "members", and per the MoS and since the sections are always short have been simply making those bold, but that goes against the MoS (false heading) but supports it by removing short headings. Some editors have been restoring the headings, particularly the timeline heading, so some direction would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It really depends on the specific article... if it is a small band, with little turnover in band members, then I would agree that it does not really make sense to separate out the sub-classes under the level three headers ("Current Members", "Former Members", "Touring Members" etc.)... the information can be presented in one single paragraph under the level two header. If it is a lager band, or one with high turnover, then it makes sense to separate the various sub-classes under their own level three sub-headers. Ultimately it comes down to consensus. If others feel strongly enough about the existing format to revert your changes, accept that consensus and move on. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Check my edit history, but Heart in Hand (band) and Demon Hunter are two recent ones, but there are many others. Four or five current members. Most have only a handful of former members. Some have touring members.

Is the removal of "members" correct?

None are prose. They're all bullets.

How do you handle the short sections without apply headings.

Some editors argue that it's a nice feature to be able to click right to the specific section using the ToC, but since the sections are short, there's really very little reason for specific short headings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering the removal of "members", it is in line with "headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer" from MOS:HEADING. However, in my opinion, sometimes it can be clearer to include "members" in the mock heading. For example, when there are 4 subsections (such as "current", "current touring", "former" and "former touring"), it might get confusing for some readers to follow that all these refer to members, especially when "musicians" is preferred in some cases (e.g. "touring musicians" or "session musicians").--MASHAUNIX 16:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"Final lineup" is also sometimes used in this section. It makes more sense to have "former members" next to that than it does to just have "former" there.--MASHAUNIX 16:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Well from what I have seen, some featured articles use no level 3 headings in the section, others use it for the timeline and others use it for all subsections. Maybe we should attempt to standardise this. In my opinion, the "current members" etc. sections should have mock headings, because there are often many of them (current, current touring, former, former session etc.), but the timeline should have a level 3 heading, because it is an important part of the article; I myself often want to get to it by clicking on it in the TOC, and I don't see any disadvantages of having a heading for it (except maybe in larger articles with a lot of sections, but it probably still wouldn't be a problem) if we abort the other ones. Walter Görlitz has been arguing that using mock headings for everything is in accordance with MOS:HEADING when editing, but I don't think there are any guidelines at all related to this issue right now.--MASHAUNIX 15:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Another thing is that a timeline, though it may be small on display, is massive in the editing window. It can be very useful to be able to edit only the timeline, by clicking on edit next to its subheading, rather than having to have the text above it in the window as well.--MASHAUNIX 22:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I will play devil's advocate and ask: Why do we need to standardize this. What's wrong with different articles being set up differently. And if there is a need for standardization, at what point does it become over-standardization? Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, we probably don't. What I don't like is Walter Görlitz going around deleting the timeline headings in articles and claiming that this action is based in a guideline, when it clearly isn't.--MASHAUNIX 18:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, what I don't like is editors adding this useless crap to articles without any clear MoS or guideline. I never claimed it was a guideline but a Mos. Second, it's my interpretation of the MoS. Third, you had every opportunity to seek clarification here (or a half dozen other places) and elected to edit war rather than discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

True, sorry if I made it sound like I don't respect you work here, which is not true. From my point of view, you were changing aspects of articles that had been established for some time. What I hope to achieve here is some agreement about the timeline heading so that this may be resolved. Do you still stand behind your interpretation of the MOS that you mentioned?--MASHAUNIX 09:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The reason why we don't give MOS guidance on this is that it isn't something we can (or should) give consistent "rules" on... Every article is unique on this issue. The answer to whether to split the information up under level 3 or 4 headers (or not) will be different from one article to the next. It is really a matter of editorial preference and consensus at the article level. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In this case there aren't many differences between articles though. All "band members" sections are pretty much the same, in respect to size etc. If we agree that the timeline should or shouldn't have a level 3 heading in one article based on an argument, we can apply the same consensus to any other article.--MASHAUNIX 15:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We can and should give MoS guidance. We have MoS guidelines that state that we should not have short sections or long articles and then give rules of thumb for both. It's clear that listing four (or even eight) current members is a short section. I just had an editor indicate that it becomes an accessibility issue if it's missing, which is BS. A blind person can find the band members using the members heading. We have a guideline for indicating when commas should be used in infoboxes and when plainlists or flatlists should be used (three or more items). While that is not universally followed, it is present. We can and should state that in band member sections on band articles sub-headings should not be added when the list constitutes fewer than ten members. We can also decide if the wording should be "lineup", "members" or "band members". We can decide if the sub-sections should repeat "members" or not. We can also decide if timelines required their own heading. I'm not opposed to stating that timeline headings should or should not, but we should have consensus not case-by-case decisions. If it's a way to highlight the existing of a timeline, that's fine too. What we can't do is decide based on one article when there is no consistency across GA articles as was stated above.

Perhaps the music project is the correct location to seek consensus and not the MoS. The problem with taking it there is that it will be certain to require RSes and other requirements while discussing it here simply requires discussing whether headings should be present or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

We can even say when a timeline is and isn't appropriate. For instance, a timeline is not needed when there are four members and only one former member. Again, it may not always be followed, but we have a manual of style so Misplaced Pages looks the same across articles, not as a hammer to make editors comply with rules. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A comment left on my talk page brings some light on the situation. H:DL, which focuses on accessibility, says "Do not use a semicolon (;) simply to bold a line without defining a value using a colon (:)." With that in mind I would suggest that the MoS should state

For listing band membership list the type of members starting with a semicolon (;) and list each member of that class below prefaced by a colon (:).

Current official members

Mick Jagger – lead and backing vocals, harmonica, guitar (1962–present)

Keith Richards – guitar, backing and lead vocals, bass guitar (1962–present)

Charlie Watts – drums, percussion (1963–present)

Ronnie Wood – guitar, lap steel guitar, pedal steel guitar, slide guitar, backing vocals, bass guitar (1975–present)

Former official members

Brian Jones – guitar, harmonica, miscellaneous instruments, backing vocals (1962–1969; died 1969)

Ian Stewart – piano, percussion (1962–1963; died 1985)

Mick Taylor – guitar, backing vocals, bass guitar (1969–1974)

Bill Wyman – bass guitar, backing vocals (1962–1993)

Then we still have to address whether a timeline should have a heading. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with using bullets instead of colons? Right now they are used in virtually every article, so it would take forever to change them to colons, and I don't see the improvement.--MASHAUNIX 11:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using bullets... nor is there anything wrong with using colons. Either is OK. As are a number of other format styles. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Read the accessibility MoS. If you're using semicolons, then you should follow-up with colons rather than bullets as that creates the correct HTML for screen readers.

It wouldn't take forever as we could commission a bot to do the work. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the bullets. They make the section easier to read and have always been used, with no one complaining. We shouldn't have to change what isn't a problem just because of a guideline. I think we should focus on the actual issue, which are the headings for the different subsections.--MASHAUNIX 15:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Your preference is noted, but if we use the semicolons, we should switch to colons for the sake of blind users of Misplaced Pages.

The issue is that small sections is wrong.

From MOS:HEADINGS

"Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings"

In other words "band members" would imply that "members" in subsequent entries such as "current members" and "former members" is redundant.

From WP:BODY

"Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose."

So four short entries in a "current members" section in the article looks cluttered, although there are no prose to inhibit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the subsection titles shouldn't repeat "members" (unless this makes them easier to understand, for example when there are 2 subsections, "final lineup" and "former member", which is the case in some articles). And I think what that part of WP:BODY has in mind are very short sections of prose; I don't think small subsections are a problem in this case, even if they do look cluttered. Also, I still think the timeline should have a level 3 heading when there is one, so that one can get to it from TOC and so that it can be edited separately.--MASHAUNIX 16:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you think that timeline should have a heading, but you have not really indicated why other than you like to link directly to that section from the ToC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I also mentioned that it's good to be able to edit the timeline separately. These things make a difference especially when there are a lot of band members listed in the section above. My main argument, however, would probably be that there is no downside to having a level 3 timeline heading. I'd like to hear why you don't like it and what others think about this.--MASHAUNIX 11:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is it good to be able to edit it separately? If you're editing the membership, it appears first and the coding of the timeline shouldn't distract you. The brevity of the members section won't be in the way of the timeline. The reason that there are sections are first for organization, second is for navigation and on the wiki the third is to avoid conflicts when editing the article, not necessarily for organization. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's handy to be edit it separately for the same reason that this is useful for any section. It's easier to edit something when it's the only thing you have in the window. Whatever is above it doesn't "get in the way" (that wouldn't ever be the case, even when editing a different kind of section), but it can distract you. Editing the section separately also creates an automatic edit summary, so that other users can see you've only edited the timeline. And again, what's the downside of having this heading? It doesn't have any negative effect on organization or navigation, but in some cases it can have a positive effect, or at least that's how it appears to me.--MASHAUNIX 17:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Why use "acts" instead of "bands" or "singers"?

In pages like Britney Spears or Backstreet Boys I oftentimes see the final entry on the infobox labeled as "Related ACTS" rather than "Related BANDS" or "Related SINGERS", why use the word "act" for a band or singer when they clearly aren't actors? Its use may mislead readers in believing they're looking at an ACTOR's biography. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Calling a band or singer an "act" is not uncommon in show biz... but if you don't like it, feel free to edit the articles in question. If someone objects, and reverts your edit, simply go to the article talk page and discuss the pros and cons ... and reach a local consensus. MOS does not dictate which specific words to use in situations like this. It's called Instruction Creep. Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

As a category, "acts" includes bands and solo performers, whether they be singers or solo instrumentalists. As such, the wider category allows us from needlessly subcategorizing; one can say that both Art Garfunkel and Ladysmith Black Mambazo are related acts to Paul Simon. (Also, this would not be a matter for discussion at the individual act's page so much as at the infobox template, as that usage arises from a standard template field.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles about groups of performers can be categorized in Category:Articles about multiple people.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The entertainment industry is infamous for using English incorrectly. (See also WP:SSF.) Calling a performer or a group of performers "an act" is like referring to a missing aircraft by a flight number. (See Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 April 20#MH370 (flight).)

—Wavelength (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps (but in this case perhaps not: see definition 7 at dictionary.com)... but if so, Misplaced Pages is not the place to correct their usage. In any case, this isn't really the venue to discuss it. WP:MOS should not get down to the level of ruling on which specific words should be used to describe performers. That is more appropriate for an article level (or at most a project level) discussion. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have a suggestion for a different infobox label that would cover both individuals and groups you might want to suggest it on the talk page for Template:Infobox musical artist. Another possibility would adding a parameter so that the label text could be defined in an article via |associated_acts_label= or something similar; many other infoboxes do this for parameters where the default label text if not always appropriate. -- Zyxw (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• It should be noted that the word "act" is used for performers or performances that have nothing to do with "acting" and have for a long time. I don't have access to the full OED (though many here do), but Merriam-Webster (one of the more respectable dictionaries of American English) has definitions that are perfectly consistent with the usage calling a musical performer an "act", and does not indicate such usage is non-standard or marked in any way. Perhaps the OP is mistaken or idiosyncratic in treating the word "act" in such a restrictive manner. --Jayron32 04:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC about small capital letters

There is a Request for Comment about whether certain exceptions should be made to the guidance that all caps, including small caps, should be avoided. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

Why not - in page numbers?

Why are page numbers dashed and not simply -'s? Can anyone offer a reason that isn't based on "that's the way it used to be"? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Because hyphens have one meaning, and en dashes have another. They are two different characters used for various different purposes. See our En dash article . —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Quotation marks messing up search functions--a thing of the past?

This is in response to this change, in which the passage "Misplaced Pages's search facility treats differently styled quotation marks in unintuitive ways; and the suggestions that appear as users insert text ignore straight double quotation marks, but treat other quotation marks as significant. They distinguish straight and curly forms (neither ‘occupy’ protests nor “occupy” protests would find the title "Occupy" protests directly)" was removed.

In previous discussions, the consensus was to retain the rule against formatted quotation marks (and the reasoning behind that rule) because while newer browsers are not subject to this problem, many older browsers, such as those that might be used in poorer countries, still are. However, that was some time ago and things may have changed. Do we have any updates on this? Any other thoughts on whether this passage should go back in or stay gone? My own take is that if this really isn't a problem any more then this specific passage should definitely stay gone and a reassessment of the rule is in order. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the problems (or non-problems) to have an opinion, but would mention a couple of things to be aware of: (1) I don't know if it would cause problems with any Internet search engine, but if so, we shouldn't restrict our thinking to Misplaced Pages search. (2) There is a new Misplaced Pages search, still in beta I think, which has some differences. In particular when the {{sic}} template is used to prevent an apparent misspelling from being found by someone correcting spelling ({{sic|super|cede|hide=y}} displays as supercede), the old search for "supercede" doesn't find this, but the new search does. I don't know if, and how, it would affect quote marks. Pol098 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the consensus would be in favor of consistency even given no technical limitations. I’d love it if WP universally used typographically correct (curly) punctuation, but I sincerely doubt it ever would. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: The change was made to MOS:QUOTEMARKS, subtitled "Reasons to prefer straight quotation marks and apostrophes." Before the change it listed three reasons. Now it lists two. The editor deleted one of the three reasons, saying it was no longer valid. The other two reasons, one of which also concerns browsers, are still listed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I just checked the search feature, and while the example with the curly quotation marks took me to the Occupy movement article, the example with the curly apostrophes did not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI: A search for ’Occupy’ protests (with single right-quotes/apostrophes) brings up the redirect with straight apostrophes, where ‘Occupy’ protests (single left and right) does not; the single left quote is still treated as a distinct character, whether by accident or by design. So it’d match contractions, but not quotes. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to put most of the deleted text back. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a bit construed. Who would go through the work of searching for occupy protest, then wrapping occupy in quotes and then deciding only to use single curly quotes? For all normal cases it works just fine see screenshots:

--DieBuche (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I gave it a shot, DieBuche, and newton‘s parakeet did not take me to the article, though newton’s parakeet did. My guess is that 1) it is the left curly quote mark (‘) that is causing all the trouble and 2) it would be stupid to use a straight mark on the left side of a word but a curly one on the right. (While the curly left quote is unlikely to be used as an apostrophe, it is likely to be used as a quote mark, so the marks would appear in pairs in almost all cases.) As for going to the trouble, I can see readers copypasting article text into the search bar. For example, if we have an article about John Doe, and it has the (non-wikilinked) statement, Mr. Doe's neighbor said, "I thought he was involved in those 'occupy' protests but he wasn't," then the reader might copypaste 'occupy' protests into the search bar.

Why don't you look at the exact text that I reinserted and see if it addresses your concerns? The passage now reads as follows: "Misplaced Pages's search facility treats differently styled quotation marks in unintuitive ways; and the suggestions that appear as users insert text ignore straight double quotation marks, but they treat other quotation marks as significant. They often distinguish straight and curly forms. For example, ‘occupy’ protests does not produce the title "Occupy" protests directly." Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Concerning block quotes

I'd like to address (and perhaps generate some discussion concerning) the current wording of the MoS section regarding the use of block quotes. At present, a segment of that section reads...

"Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{centered pull quote}} template, which are reserved for pull quotes)."

Now, I've previously taken this to mean that, for mark-up reasons, we do not enclose the entire template inside of quotation marks but that the wording is not meant to prohibit the use of quotation marks in cases of direct quotes and other grammatical/orthographic contexts in which they would normally be used. However, having just taken a look at MOS:QUOTEMARKS, I see that it presently does explictly proscribe the use of quotation marks with regard to block quotes and other extended/indented quotation formats, which explains why this has increasingly become the standard I've observed across the project. But I'm wondering if anyone recalls when this explicit wording worked its way into the MoS (I can't recall seeing it previously). This strategy seems to be largely in conflict with the conventions of common English usage and style guidelines from which we generally (though by no means universally) take our own ques with regard to punctuation.

The fact that this approach has become largely ubiquitous across the project (and would be very difficult to reverse) not withstanding, has there ever actually been any significant discussion or consensus on this matter? A search of the MoS talk page archives does not seem to turn up any discussion on this particular issue (though there are numerous discussion of quotation marks and the block quote formatting in general, needless to say). This approach seems highly counter-intuitive to me, both with regard to observing the common conventions that are least likely to confuse our readers and with regard to utilizing punctuation which distinguishes a direct quote from other material which may be presented via block quotes (a poem, for example). Any insights, thoughts? Snow talk 07:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the templates, simply ignore all that; everyone else does. In practice the {{cquote}} and {{rquote}} templates with the curly quotes are used a better-looking alternatives to the plain blockquote templates. Being an encyclopedia rather than a magazine we have essentially no use for pull quotes. I've been here ten years and I've never seen them used nor do I think they should be; and a quick check of the first ten random uses of {{cquote}} which comes up shows all ten used in place of other blockquote templates rather than for pull quotes. I've been doing it for ten years and nobody's complained that I know of.

Somebody ought to go over to those templates and remove the prescription to use them for pull quotes and the other stuff. It was probably written by some individiual person who is long gone anyway. Herostratus (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

In fact I've done this, for the templates. Since this reflects 100% of actual usage or very close to it, I don't expect this to be very controversial.

I have no idea where MOS:QUOTEMARKS fits in with the templates, but my guess would be: fine, or not at tall. The quotes in {{cquote}} and {{rquote}} are essentially graphic elements rather than text elements, and I expect any sensible person would suss that. I wouldn't worry about it. Herostratus (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Herostratus is questioning whether there was any serious discussion of whether the English Misplaced Pages should indicate direct quotations with quote marks or block indentation, but not both. I doubt there was any need for a discussion because if you look at almost any English-language style guide, you will see they agree with the English Misplaced Pages's approach. A list of external style guides can be found at the "External style guides" section of the "Manual of Style". Jc3s5h (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused by how this discussion has progressed. The MoS states: "Format a long quote … as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the centered pull quote template, which are reserved for pull quotes). Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged. Block quotations can be enclosed between a pair of blockquote.../blockquote HTML tags; or use quote or quote box." Since Snow Rise raised the issue, there appears to have been a high level of guesswork and some serious alteration of template documentation here and here.

From my experience as a book editor, quotation marks around a block quote are completely unnecessary, and frowned upon. So can I ask, what's going on here – are you undoing established, clearly stated guidelines based on personal preferences and what a subjective look has determined is common practice on Misplaced Pages? Because, I've always adhered to that idea that the two together (block quotes and quotation marks) should be avoided, and, if it's down to personal experience, many GAs and FAs that I've seen do follow that approach, using the blockquote template. To my way of thinking, {{cquote}} gives an inordinate amount of weight visually to a quote that just happens to run over the length suitable for regular text enclosed in quotation marks. That's important in the case of opinions on music, film, art (well, anything really) – because any opinion or interpretation given such treatment is being trumpeted to readers, excessively. Apologies up front if I've misunderstood something here. I'm worried that the MOS:Blockquote guideline will be the next to go, when in fact (personal preference aside) it seems entirely consistent with WP:UNDUE. JG66 (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure about the weight argument; I just have a hard time seeing using that format as something which unduly prejudices the reader into more intensely embracing a given perspective merely because it's enclosed in quotes -- that just seems a stretch to me (no insult to your professional instincts intended). That being said, I do actually agree in a more general sense that the pullquote format looks a little encyclopedic, between the size of the marks themselves and the margins.

Getting back to the issue of common standard though, I have to admit that I just pulled a random sampling of more than a dozen different texts on various topics from my shelf and found that indented quotations without the quotation marks were in fact much more ubiquitous; I was honestly expecting them to be more equal in number but I guess my impressionistic observations are off on this one. But even bearing this mind, I wonder if it's the ideal approach for the encyclopedia. I hadn't seen much point in changing the wording on the policy on {{blockquote}}, given the existence of {{cquote}}, but reflecting on the aesthetics of cquote, I'm now wondering if there isn't room for a middle ground between the oversized approach of the latter option and the complete absence of the punctuation in the former. Snow talk 17:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It could be wrong or confusing to both indent a block quote and add quotation marks. Since it is nearly the universal practice in properly edited English writing to do one or the other but not both, if one does do both, it means the quote marks are present in the source from which the passage is quoted. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a bit of clarification in case it’s needed: The contents of blockquotes are direct quotes. Blockquotes serve the same function as quotation marks (the characters, not decorative niceties). Using both at once would be redundant. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

He said the following:

This is a direct quote. It goes on for some time. Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged.

Later, he added: "This is also a direct quote." —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no we all seem to be on the page in-so-far as that is concerned. The thing is, we also have {{cquote}}, which does permit the use of both. I don't think using indentation and quotations marks together is 'necessarily redundant because there are contexts in which it could distinguish from whole works which do not usually take quotations (say a poem) vs. a direct quote. But putting that debate aside for a moment, we do have {{cquote}}, which employs both simmultaneously, but has borderline-comically-scaled quotation marks, and if the combination of features is allowed in this context, I wonder why we shouldn't allow it with more conventionally proportioned punctuation. And mind you, I'm putting this forth without having formed a solid opinion myself on the matter. Snow talk 09:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that block quotes are automatically formatted with quotation marks when viewing Misplaced Pages on mobile devices, so adding extra quotation marks would be redundant. —sroc 💬 18:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Now that I look at them, {{cquote}} and {{rquote}} both use HTML tables rather than any kind of quoting structure like blockquotes… to me, that is just semantically broken. They should be using blockquotes with CSS instead. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with {{Quote box}}} is that, in my opinion, it is ugly and old-fashioned looking -- it's maybe a step up from using ASCII line and corner characters to to offset the quote. The problem with blockquote is that, in my opinion, it is insufficient in setting off the quote enough so that the reader can, with minimal effort, grasp that she's reading a quote -- especially when the quote is squeezed among images, images, and tables, in which case the indentation (the only indication that it is a quote) is sometimes lost entirely.

These are my opinions, but they are reasonable opinions, and I expect to continue using {{cquote}} and {{rquote}} for quotes. Other editors can do as they wish, including make other templates for quotes.

Heh. Looking at {{cquote}} talk page, I get this:

Well OK. At no time does the editor makes the case that there's anything wrong with using large quote marks, just that it's against the rule. The first response he gets is

"Most people don't know what a 'pull quote' is. They just like the graphical quotation marks..."

Well heavens to Betsy. They like the graphical quotation mark. Can't have layout elements that people like, can we. Good grief.

Our rules are supposed to be mainly descriptive at root. If the use is actually "demonstrably embedded... into the Misplaced Pages psyche" then we need to ignore the rule rather then going on a crusade to annoy people about it. That's why I say "just ignore it.

Or change it, but ignoring unhelpful rules is very much easier than changing them since de facto we work on a supermajority basis for these things, and since you always get sufficient numbers of people of the mind "I don't like or use it myself, and therefore it should be forbidden", that's probably a non-starter. If someone wants to start a war against {{cquote}} and {{rquote}} then we can do that though, I guess.

TL;DR: Don't like {{cquote}} and {{rquote}} for regular quotes? Don't use them. Herostratus (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, consensus here doesn't like or use those templates for regular quotations, which is why their documentation indicates not to use them for block quotes and why MOS says not to do so either. I've reverted your unsupported changes to the template documentation. Those are pull-quote templates, not block-quote templates. Also, the opening rationale for this discussion, that not putting quotation marks around block quotations "seems to be largely in conflict with the conventions of common English usage and style guidelines from which we generally ... take our own ques with regard to punctuation", is demonstrably false, and unsupported by any evidence at all. While I acknowledge that you've admitted this yourself after later review, its unlikely that much of the above will be read by anyone, so I'll provide some actual sources that demonstrate the opposite of the opening claim:

• Chicago Manual of Style (16th Ed., 2010), sec. 13.29, "Quotation marks in block quotations", p. 632: "material set off as a block quotation is not enclosed in quotation marks.... An author or editor who changes a run-in quotation to a block quotation must delete the opening and closing quotation marks and change any internal ones" .
• The McGraw-Hill Handbook of English Grammar and Usage (2004), section "Grammar Tip: Block Quotations", p. 275: "If you have a lengthy direct quotation ... you can use a block quotation: set off the entire quotation by indenting it, without using quotation marks."
• Oxford A–Z of Grammar & Punctuation (2nd Ed., 2009), section "Inverted Commas", p. 75: "f the passage to be quoted is fairly long it is often set out differently on the page, usually be indenting: When this is done, inverted commas are not necessary." (NB: "Inverted comma" is British English for "apostrophe or quotation mark".)
• New Hart's Rules: The Handbook of Style for Writers and Editors (Oxford, 2005), section 9.2.1, "Displayed and run-on quotations", p. 152: "Quotations can be run on in text or broken off from it. A prose quotation of fewer than, say, fifty words is normally run on (or embedded) and enclosed in quotation marks, while longer quotations are broken off without quotation marks."
• Oxford Style Manual (in particular, the volume The Oxford Guide to Style), section 8.1, "Quotations: General principles", 8.1.2 "Layout": "Quotations can be run on in text or displayed. Those that are run on intent are enclosed in ... quotation marks.... and the beginning and the end. ... Quotations that are broken off from text are called 'displayed quotations', 'block quotations', or 'extracts' ... are not enclosed by quotation marks".
• Los Angeles Times Stylebook (1981), section "Punctuation", p. 183: "Do not use quotation marks with ... extended textual excerpts."
• The Copyeditor's Handbook (Einsohn, UB Berkeley Pr., 2011, section "Run-in and Set-off Quotations", p. 199: "Short quotations are usually run into the text, and longer quotations are usually set off as extracts (block quotations). ... Creating an extract: To change a run-in quotation into an extract ... delete the opening and closing quotation marks that surround the block".

And on and on. I have 3 entire bookshelves of style guides and similar works, and cannot find even one that recommends putting quotation marks around block quotations, much less using ridiculously huge, decorative ones. Can we now put this perennial rehash back to bed?

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  16:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: You're also quoting me out of context and misconstruing what you're quoting. I've certainly never suggested that most people like the graphical quotation marks in the templates you favour, only that most editors are not familiar with the term "pull quote" and its distinction from "block quotation". (Also, clearly, some minority of editors really do like the huge graphical quotes for whatever reason; see MOS:ICONS for the reasons we generally to not give in to the urge to use decorative little images.) Since WP is not a journalistic vehicle, in which pull quotes would normally be used, there are few legitimate use cases of these templates in mainspace, and they've survived WP:TFD primarily because of a) their appropriate use on projectpages, and b) their documentation having been clarified enough to provent their abuse in articles – clarifications you've been deleting without consensus or discussion. PPS: Your idea that any aspect of Misplaced Pages may be discarded based on your theory that it was "probably written by some individiual person who is long gone anyway" is not how Misplaced Pages works. Everything on WP is written by "individual persons", and whether any given one happens to be around right now to personally object to or support something is completely irrelevant.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  16:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Amendment to Celestial bodies section - paragraph 2 at MOS:CAPS

Discussion at Amendment to Celestial bodies section - paragraph 2 Cinderella157 (talk)Cinderella157 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Is or was

66.74.176.59 (talk · contribs) has amended about 140 articles in 7 hours, changing "was" to "is" so that we now have, for example, "Seneca lived through the reigns of three significant emperors; Augustus (ruled 27 BC – 14 AD).... He is the father of the stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger...." (my emphasis). Edit summaries are usually "1 death has no effect if someone is your father or son. even when someone dies one "is" the father and the other "is" the son. the interaction may not be as before but one "is" the father and one "is" the son".
Rather than spread the discussion out across 140 talk pages plus an IP talk page, can anyone point to the appropriate part of the Manual of Style or an existing consensus, or (if the matter hasn't arisen before) can we discuss this here and reach a consensus? NebY (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I doubt there's anything in the Manual of Style concerning thisg, because it's just basic English. The IP in question is trolling and should just be reverted. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It is? Seems to me that they'd both be correct. Verbs of just plain being are tricky I guess. "Was" would be preferred I guess, and even if not it'd justified to revert on the basis of "not an improvement" if you want to. I wouldn't call it trolling. The IP sounds like an intelligent person who wants to improve the encyclopedia and, like many of us, is going to need practice and maybe engagement to find helpful ways to do that. I wouldn't brush him off as a troll. 13:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Just for informational purposes, have you heard of E-Prime? Quite the writing style, and seems to give more factual information than either 'is' or 'was'. I try to use it while writing when I remember it, but don't always succeed. Good to study and practice though. Randy Kryn 13:25 21 February, 2015 (UTC)

I would revert back to past tense, but do so politely... have you tried contacting the editor in question to engage in discussion? He may be able to explain why he made the changes. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor has been explaining their reasoning to I am One of Many at Talk:Sisyphus#"He was the father of Glaucus" and I hope they'll join the discussion here, where other editors may be able to make a clearer and stronger case for "is". As it stands, it would seem Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Biographies#Tense applies and "was" should be used. Sorry, I should have noticed that sooner. NebY (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Then the manual of style follows English usage, and not some misbegotten appeal to "logic" by an unregistered user who can't write coherent English. Which is as it should be. Sisyphus, though? I was under the impression that mythocal, legendary and other such non-existent characters should be written in the present tense. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That was my impression too, though I don't know where to find the rule or which side of (for example) Menelaus or Lycurgus of Sparta the line is drawn. Still, at present all that part of that article uses the past tense. NebY (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I can understand and maybe even agree with the rationale. Even today, Seneca remains the father of Seneca the Younger as a matter of historical record; at no point did that blood relation cease to be. If we don’t have guidance on verb tense, we probably need some. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

If a new guideline evolves, maybe Misplaced Pages can include E-Prime in some form. Randy Kryn 13:42 21 February, 2015 (UTC)

The article is a mess, but it’s very interesting! The article needs a lot of work, possibly even a full rewrite, but the concept intrigues me! Thanks for mentioning it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A blood relationship can never be changed from existing to not existing therefore it should always be an "is" and never a "was". Your parent is always your parent regardless if that person is dead. If "was" is used then the statement is made factually incorrect. Those from whom you descent will always be your descendant and those that that follow will always be those that descend from you. So in describing that relationship it can never factually be in the past tense.66.74.176.59 (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Our of interest, is English your first language? --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Grammatically, tense depends on the subject of the sentence. In the case of people, if the subject is alive, then we use the present tense... but once the subject has died we shift to past tense. So... <Living child> is the son of <dead parent>, but <Dead parent> was the father of <living child>. ... and if both parent and child are dead... then we should definitely use past tense. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, that is the style we currently use. But should it be? Or should we use the eternal present tense, as we do when discussing creative works? Just as <dead author>’s book discusses philosophy (it never stopped being that), <dead parent> is still a biological and/or legal parent, and that relation will never cease. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, you know perfectly well what English usage is, but you think it should be something else. That's not what Misplaced Pages is for. Stop it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I am not the same editor you originally replied to. And yes, I know perfectly well what Misplaced Pages’s English usage is, and I think Misplaced Pages’s usage should be something else—or at least I think it’s worth considering. We do use the eternal present for the works of deceased creators, as MOS:BIO#Tense explicitly states. Maybe we should use that for familial relationships, too. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I know you're not the same editor. But what you're proposing is changing English usage, not just Misplaced Pages guidelines. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you source that claim? Does CMOS or Fowler’s or some such guide state that present tense is never to be used in describing aspects of the dead which do not change with death or time, or anything similar? Because at face value, it makes sense to use the eternal present; so I’d be surprised to find that proscribed by an authoritative guide. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Find me a single example of your proposed usage in the real world. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

By contrast. Google searches of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which by definition only includes biographies of people who are dead:

• "was the father of": 7 results; "is the father of": none
• "was the mother of": 61 results; "is the mother of": two results, neither of which are part of a biography
• "was the son of": 1,210 results; "is the son of": 4 results, all of which are about what is written in a particular text, not about historical family relations per se
• "was the daughter of": 919 results; "is the daughter of: none

Searches of the Australian Dictionary of Biography:

• "Was the father of": 29 results; "is the father of" none
• "Was the mother of": 16 results; "is the mother of": none
• "Was the son of": 118 results; is the son of: 1 result, referring to a living person not the subject of the biography
• "Was the daughter of": 54 results; "is the daughter of": none

Frankly, I'd be astounded if any style guide felt the need to prescribe this, because it's universal. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Point of curiosity: How do those sources treat the works of dead subjects? Do they discuss what the works are or what they were? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that while some languages have a slew of tenses, we tend to use only three in normal English wording of the many tenses which exist. "George (dead) is the father of George Jr." is not incorrect -- the state of fatherhood does not consist of a single event in the past. "George (dead) was the father of George, Jr." is also not incorrect. Of course we could simply use "begat" I suppose - but neither position is "wrong" as we normally use the language. I found both used in newspapers, so maybe we should count this as a matter of trifling import at best? (Genealogical folks tend to use "is" by the way) ("Was" is far from universal by the way) Collect (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Would it be preferable to simply avoid attributive sentences and say, e.g., “George, father of George Jr.,” or “George’s son, George Jr., …”? Especially if the relative is notable for anything other than being a relative, there’s surely a better way to introduce him than “He is/was a relative.” —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That would be very awkward. In the example I gave at the start of this section, we wouldn't want to begin the article "Seneca the Elder, father of Seneca the Younger and son of Seneca the Even Older...." We'd be damaging the article's structure and readability just to avoid offending one editor (perhaps more) with "was" or jarring other readers (I think rather more) with a sudden "is" in amongst the past tenses. NebY (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

In the case of Seneca the Elder, I would instead change it to: “His son, the stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger (Lucius), was tutor of Nero.” But I don’t think that’s ideal, either. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think genealogy and biography differ here. To a genealogist looking at a family tree, each and every person is on the family tree at once. To a biographer, everything happened in the past and the person was a son, a mother, the lover of Marie Antoinette, her lawyer, a horny-handed son of the soil, the general's enemy, the apple of her mother's eye. NebY (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

--Nicknack009, so your position is that language should never change, or at least that of grammar? Pull out your copy of the 1st ed. Encyclo Britanica to the pull out on writing structure and tell me just how useful were those rules that have since then undergone such a vast change--at least in the manner of explanation on paper? For having such a distinguished level in WP, the manner in which you evoke support for the position is rather shortsighted with very unpleasant connotations. So I am a troll? Or do you withdraw that statement as if it never happened? In fact, his statements are a "grand slam" when it concerns the sensitivity of some WP participants. I prefer to use the neutral value of an IP address by which to contribute to WP? According to WP policy there is absolutely nothing wrong with that practice although it will speedily be met with it is generally found that IP users are up to much mischief on WP. The there is the language of origin question but not stated as so but is English my primary language. Does this person ever give himself an opportunity not to become the spokes person for the less than optimistic aspects of WP? Like I said, the grand slam, managing to hit all the righ marks of a less than advantageous distinction. So we need to subject this test to a numbers strategy to be sufficiently legitimate for a "change" in an area that you do not want change? If so then why subject yourself to such potential ridicule. What is here, will never go away and the promote in WP from within WP practice only reinforces that what happens in WP with memory will always have an opportunity to be remembered, to return to the fore--maybe a matter of regurgitation? Does it matter what is one's primary language? Maybe a life that has been subjected to the internal critique of an anthropologist seeking out what is going on and what is its meaning instead of how is it going against the masses? I want to say without prejudicing my position that you seem to bot be ready for a change in this issue because it has long ago been settled within a group that has held the reigns. But those reigns will not always be held by the same people. You have the absolute monarch that what they say goes. Then you have the Magna Carta activities. Then you have the what land you hold issues. Then comes that you are a male. Then comes that you are a human being. and so on and so on. These things change because new issues develop.

The current usage seems to be heavily influenced by life or death. So much of it is in the past therefore it "sounds" logical to refer to it as "was" although a blood relationship can never be undone. There seems to be a great absence of mental agility to accept that which can never have change even with death and should be referred to as in the present. For those familiar, this probably represents an "Archie Bunker", a person stuck in usage. And this is not a criticism of being stuck because there are a great many people who are in as good place with a weltanschauung that gives them the ability to rethink that which posses potential road block in life.

It is not a position that emanates from the "official" rules or numbers game in usage. It is merely a matter of what good is there to maintain or deviate. WP looks at presenting supportable factual statements. On the face of it, a statement about a blood relationship where it is of life today, tomorrow or millennium ago, that relationship has not changed. Yet it seems validity is granted (at least presently) to the view that characterizing a relationship is best left to a confusing brought about by the imposition of time in the issue rather than solely whether a relationship exists or can be undone.

I remember for years whe younger the statement "The day after yesterday was a perfectly acceptable colloquialism but once that usage was outside that environment then the logic of the statement was called into question. The same logic is called into question with the "was" use versus characterizing the relationship as a current.

Well, I need to get to the grocers so will end this at what point it is with the understanding that much is being asked of people that have trained themselves to think a particular way and being faced with that not being potentially less credible may have an air of imposition.

Referring to that relationship should be by the value of that relationship, not when it happened. The latter is time not the relationship. Concentrate on the relationship and avoid the need to find confusion an acceptable means of presenting a view that is distorted.66.74.176.59 (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Consider this... When your parents die, you no longer have parents... you had parents in the past, but now you are an orphan. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

(I dearly hope this is not sensitive subject matter for anyone present.) But one would say, “My parents are dead.” The dead people are his parents, in perpetuity, even if he no longer has them. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhpas, but not always... if you are discussing the past you would say: "I grew up an orphan. By the time I was six, my parents were dead". And once you die, someone referring to you would say he/she was an orphan, his/her parents were dead by the time he/she turned six." Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

But that is the fallacy into which that statement is trapped. You do still have parents although an orphan. You will always have parents although you will pass someday. The situation is that they are not alive or you may not be alive but nonetheless parents exist. All the fallacy does is trap one into believing that the parent(s) life form previously existed alive at some point otherwise it is very difficult to (with current technique) to exist. The state of the relationship remains current, parent/child. You may continue to use the statement but that dos not mean it is true. There are two different things here that are being fallaciously combined to confuse the matter. One is whether or not a relationship exists and whether or not a time exists. Science shows us that we cannot put two things in one space. I get reminded of this every time I go to the car park. Every time someone unsuccessfully manages to be unsuccessful in this activity has to call their insurance agent--they just had a accident. When you attempt to say that a relationship and time are the same you reach the fallacious perception that the relationship has ended and never existed because things either exist or they do not exist. A parent will always be a parent; you have a child, you are a parent. The same about being a child; you are born to someone(s), you will always be born to that someone(s). You cannot change that. Some one dies but it is not the relationship that dies, it is the person(s).

Government welfare gay comes about for every society it seems. You have the previous year earned your money and then have to pay the government so that they can do what supposedly you want done. Nothing in the world can change what you made then and what you paid then in taxes--nothing will ever change that amount for time infinitum. From year to year the amounts may change but they remain on record.66.74.176.59 (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Try again... what is past is past... you were born to someone, and you always will have been born to that someone. I earned money (past tense), and then paid my taxes (again past tense)... I would be very upset if the government came back and told me to pay (present tense) again. Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

My initial opinion was that 66.74.176.59. I am even more convinced of than now. I now also think that 174.141.182.82 is trolling. This discussion should be closed. Whatever happens, after seeing their response to my efforts to provide evidence of usage, I will waste no further time on them. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:No personal attacks, and WP:Assume good faith. The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I’m trolling. The fact that you apparently refuse to think critically about the matter similarly does not mean you are trolling. And I think you missed User:Collect’s comment about usage, and also my followup question about your examples of usage. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

As someone who until recently had a mother, I have no hesitation in saying I no longer have a mother - she is dead. One cannot have anything that no longer exists. The relationship argument holds no water either "I had a good relationship with my mother, but we no longer have a relationship." Similarly, one always says "John Smith's parents were the late Fred and Freda Smith." Giano (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

My condolences. I also recently lost my mother, and I agree entirely with your take on the situation. However, I think any argument about whether the person or the relationship still exists or not is not really the point. This is a question of usage. Whatever the logic, whatever anyone thinks should be the case, English simply does not refer to relationships between dead people in the present tense. The examples I have provided demonstrated that. No counter-examples have been provided. User:174.141.182.82 saw my willingness to do research and provide data and, rather than do any work of their own, tried to get me to do more work on an question of no relevance to the discussion. This "follow-up question" was a blatant attempt to yank my chain. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It was not “of no relevance.” You demonstrated that those sources do not use the eternal present in a case where WIkipedia currently does not. If they also do use the eternal present in cases where Misplaced Pages does, that would be significant; if they do not, then perhaps they just opt not to use it at all. And I’ll ask you once more: Please stop assuming bad faith of me. If you care to question my motives or methods, then feel free to do so and I will answer, but don’t accuse. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me of the scene in "Lincoln" when he says about slavery, after establishing that there will be problems they have as yet to identify but he thinks that the negroes just assume be free as any one else would think of for themselves. If examples that say relationships can change, and in this discussion disappear, the continued presentation of examples that state for the relationship that which applies to time (i.e., in the past) are just continuations and perpetuations that something unchangeable can be changed. Do the math and science experiment. It just cannot be done and be the truth. As for civility, Nicknack destroyed that long ago with the knee jerk reactionary unfortunate statements.66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:24, 22 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)