Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the MOS pit[Humor]


    Style discussions elsewhere

    [edit]

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

    Current

    [edit]

    (newest on top)

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Capitalization-specific:

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

    Move requests:

    Other discussions:

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Concluded

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

    Should we generally prefer romanizations over non-Latin script in running text?

    [edit]

    MOS:ZH has a guideline that Chinese characters should not appear in running text, proposing that readers only comfortable with the Latin script should generally be able to read sentences aloud (omitting any parenthetical call-outs) without hiccups:

    Red XN His name was 刘仁静 (Liu Renjing).
    Green tickY His name was Liu Renjing (刘仁静).

    I think this makes a lot of sense, and the main § Spelling and romanization section (or if not, perhaps /Text formatting § Non-English-language terms) may benefit from including a point to this end. Many articles, here Epic poetry § Etymology, do the following:

    The English word epic comes from [...] the Ancient Greek adjective ἐπικός (epikos), from ἔπος (epos), 'word, story, poem'.

    Should we specifically recommend editors do the following instead?

    The English word epic comes from [...] the Ancient Greek adjective epikos (ἐπικός), from epos (ἔπος), 'word, story, poem'.

    Remsense ‥ 论 09:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Consistency makes sense, and it is probably better for readers to read transliterations first. CMD (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My only worry is that those with little exposure to either the topic at hand or to language studies in general may not intuit that the native form is just that, if it is not given clear preeminence.
    Typically this may be lessened when forms appear in native–romanization order early, e.g. with the translated title topic in the lead sentence? Remsense ‥ 论 15:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I kind of expect Chinese to have transliteration first, potentially followed by characters, but I also expect Ancient Greek to have Greek alphabet first, possibly followed by a transliteration. Allowing Greek script but not Chinese script in the text may of course just reflect the bias of my somewhat classical education (and I kind of expect educated people to know Greek letters but not Chinese characters), but I would not want to have a rule that dictates we need to do it in the same way for all languages when this goes too much against scholarly convention. Consistency is always only local (if everything on Wikipedia follows the same rules it is usually inconsistent with the way everybody else uses the same words), so I do not value it very much. —Kusma (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I searched for a Greek example as a deliberate steelman, picking the least dissimilar non-Latin script. If anyone wants evidence in the wild I'll go find it, but also picture Russian, Hebrew, Arabic, Tamil etc. in your mind's eye.
    Essentially, I find myself making this fix across many articles. It often seems to read more amiably, even in Greek. Remsense ‥ 论 22:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to see any justification for transliteration not coming first. This is about basic accessibility for the vast majority of English-language readers. I'd go as far as saying the answer should be obvious to us all.DeCausa (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let the person making the sentence do what she thinks best. Nobody notices or cares if its done differently in different articles and neither is objecectively better. (Internal consistency within an article is different, but that is covered by the rule "For any debatable construction, if there is a consistent version used in the article, follow it" or whatever, which I assume we have such a rule or we had better have. Since the reader doesn't care or even notice, any rule about this particular issue would be solving a problem that doesn't exist, and just gives editors overly concerned about consistency justification for going around changing it to no gain. Herostratus (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't've posted this barring the thesis that is there is a meaningful distinction, suggested by the fact that people generally read linearly, and interruptions of unfamiliar/functionally illegible elements in running text aggregate to make reading more difficult. If you don't think there's anything to that, that's fine, but I would appreciate acknowledgement that I'm not merely seeking to make more work for editors to do. Remsense ‥ 论 02:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fwiw I agree with Remsense; I think this is a problem that exists and that Latin script text should be preferred when possible. It's functionally a de facto rule already imo; putting non-Latin text first is an exception rather than the norm. I've seen few cases where non-Latin first could be justifiable. seefooddiet (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be in conflict with MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV; the example given there is is of a name that's fairly similar in anglicised form and when transliterated but some of our articles have greater differences, so we go from Rhodes to Helen of Troy to Metropolitan Cathedral of Athens.
    Even if it only applied to text after the first sentence, it might affect a lot of articles and peeve a number of editors when applied, so I'd suggest advertising it fairly widely and more clearly than the brief non-canvassingly neutral note I put at WT:CGR,[2] which I fear might not have made sense to anyone. Maybe an RFC? NebY (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I very specifically mean running text, meaning not in brackets, including at the beginning of the lead. Remsense ‥ 论 19:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks. NebY (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that, specifically in the case of Greek etymologies of English words (example Icosahedron), it would be incorrect and misleading to state the transliteration as the root of the word, with a parenthetical gloss stating the actual form of the root. We should state the root itself in running text in Greek script with a Latin-script gloss. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be awkward to formulate this rule with any cut-out, though it seems clearly incorrect if this were the case with, say, Hebrew. If people feel likewise I'm happy to drop this idea. Remsense ‥ 论 19:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hebrew characters in running text are an absolute requirement for some mathematics articles like continuum hypothesis. Greek characters in running text are similarly required for articles like pi and golden ratio. In these cases, the characters are mathematical notation rather than parts of words, but they are still non-Latin-script characters in running text. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, of course. Maybe I didn't articulate my position clearly enough, but those cases are clearly entirely outside the bounds of what I mean to suggest. Remsense ‥ 论 21:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I generally place the transliteration first when mentioning Greek words in running text, for the reason you've stated (reading without hiccups). I'm not necessarily sure that it should be explicitly recommended, though, and there are at least a few cases where I think having the Greek text first would be preferable. Stating, for example, that "the Greeks inscribed [insert transliteration here] on a tablet from ..." wouldn't be all that accurate, and particularly for more crude inscriptions the shapes of the letters might be important. Having the Greek text first would also be the better choice in a discussion of an ancient Greek manuscript's degeneration, or for illustrating a lacuna in a manuscript, and I could see that in some etymology sections editors might want to use the Greek text first. This isn't to say that it's not good advice in general (it is), but I suspect there might be more exceptions than initially thought, and editors in niche areas might find that such a guideline (if too absolute or all-encompassing) might be a source of irritation. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe something as simple as Be mindful of the potential for non-Latin scripts to interrupt the flow of reading for those who are unable to decipher them. In running text, consider placing the native non-Latin terms inside parentheses when they are needed, with a corresponding romanization or translation placed outside the parentheses and forming part of the sentence. That's too wordy as a first pass, but I wanted to at least concretize a tad. Remsense ‥ 论 05:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as it isn't worded in a way that will encourage gnomes to go around changing every instance without thought. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Trust me, that's my No. 1 priority here also. Remsense ‥ 论 06:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Michael Aurel's exception examples are ones where the actual form of the written word is relevant, I would expect them to apply for Hebrew, Chinese, and other languages too. CMD (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If we do want to add something about this (and I wouldn't say I have strong feelings on whether or not we should), then a passage along those lines seems fairly sensible. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:COLON sanity check

    [edit]

    This diff represents correct applications of MOS:COLON, right? It just looks bizarre to me. Remsense ‥ 论 21:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks bizarre to me too, but the capitalizations are correct per MOS:COLON. I'm not sure that many colons is necessary or even good writing though. Schazjmd (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my thought. I spent a lot of time hammering out this prose, and still am never quite sure when to use dashes versus colons in articles where a lot of statements qualified by lists are made. I guess I have a clearer sense not to use a colon when it would look this strange. Remsense ‥ 论 22:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realized that I avoid colons, except when introducing a list. Don't know if it's the influence of some childhood teacher or what, but using them between two independent clauses just reads wrong to me. I mean, I know it isn't technically wrong, just somewhere through the years I absorbed a disapproval of them. My personal quirk, I guess. Schazjmd (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unable to justify colons, I am left largely to use dashes, which I have previously feared I overuse. In these instances, semicolons don't read as connecting the two thoughts strongly enough—in dense, technical prose, those more explicit logical connections seem pretty conducive to easing reader comprehension. Remsense ‥ 论 23:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it matches MOS:COLON, but in my experience, lower-case is commonly used in such cases even when a complete sentence follows. So I would tend to make the "start it with a capital letter" rule optional for such cases. Gawaon (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Remsense, I would disagree regarding the capitalisation after the colon in the example in some cases. As a general rule, shorter sentences are a more readable style. If it is indeed a complete sentence after a colon, it should probably be written as a separate sentence. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you feel about the current revision? I mostly replaced the problem colons with dashes, but also a semicolons and some splits into separate sentences. Remsense ‥ 论 00:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that many of those sentences where the dash is used could be split into a separate sentence following the dash (ie omit the dash). An exception would be where the dash is followed by for example. Just my thoughts. To your initial question, I would only cap after a colon where it was a complete sentence as a quote or perhaps: [T]he quote can be treated as if it were a complete sentence even if it was part of a longer sentence in the original text but end with a period or elipses as appropriate. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by Fowler (4th ed.), this is something which varies between British and American English: Note that in British English the word following a colon is not in capitals (unless it is a proper name), but in American English it is capitalized if it introduces a grammatically complete sentence. I live in a country where British English is predominant, and I wouldn't ever use a capital letter after a colon (except when needed for other reasons). – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a valid use for empty section headers?

    [edit]

    T368722 proposes to create new Linter tracking for empty section headers (e.g. === ===). Are there valid uses for empty section headers that outweigh the negatives? Please respond at the original thread: Wikipedia talk:Linter#New lint category for empty headings. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC on NCCAPS capitalization threshold

    [edit]
    Procedural close: per several people below, the framing here will make it very difficult to determine consensus. Feel free to revert me if you like, but I strongly suggest starting a new RfC without simply inaccurate claims like Consensus is currently to treat the threshold for such as about 90%. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Should the threshold for capitalization of article titles in NCCAPS be reduced? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Current wording

    [edit]

    For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence. (Consensus is currently to treat the threshold for such as about 90%.)

    Proposed wording

    [edit]

    For multiword page titles, one should consider what sources use, particularly midsentence. If a substantial majority of sources (defined as about [depends on option]) leave the title capitalized, the title phrase can be considered a proper name in most cases. If that substantial majority is not reached, leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase.

    • Option A: Status quo; 90–95% capitalized.
    • Option B: 75–80% capitalized.
    • Option C: 2/3–70% capitalized.
    • Option D: 60% capitalized.

    Discussion

    [edit]
    • Support, ideally option C or D as proposer. My reasoning is explained at this village pump thread. I originally supported a more radical version (instead of 70%/two-thirds, 51%), but the comments there and at the original discussion have persuaded me to adopt a more moderate stance with a greater chance of passing. TL;DR: Ignoring the vast majority of sources to uphold some editors' interpretation of grammar rules goes against the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      In what way is the status quo a problem? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It ignores the majority of sources. If four out of five sources use uppercase, we use lowercase. This goes against our core principle of following the sources. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: There are no circumstances under which a word or phrase should be treated as a proper noun/phrase in a title but not in body text. Any guidance as to whether to treat something as proper, including consensus thresholds, ought to be at MOS:CAPS, more specifically at MOS:PROPERNAMES, not MOS:NCCAPS. Largoplazo (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused by where the "Consensus is currently to treat the threshold for such as about 90%" comes from, since I can't find that in WP:NCCAPS. Gawaon (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RfC per Gawaon, there isn't any "status quo" 90–95% threshold in the relevant policies. Beyond that, Oppose having separate thresholds for title and body (which would only lead to inconsistencies), although I wouldn't be opposed to a RfC establishing a slightly lower threshold for both. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ^ This. The RfC based on so many wrong premises, not least of which is setting an arbitrary numerical threshold for something that shouldn't use one. It ought to be called off ASAP. Toadspike [Talk] 14:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Our MOS often incorporates best practice as seen in other style guides or in some sources, but like any style guide which provides a degree of consistency in publications, it has to dare to settle on choices which some will see as arbitrary or going against common practice elsewhere. We don't use the same spelling, units of measurement or representation of numerical values as our sources, switching from paragraph to paragraph or article to article; we follow our own MOS. This saves us from considering whether the sources are RS for style as well as content – this proposal would have us counting antique sources with modern ones, tabloid newspapers with academic journals, and British English with American and Indian. TL;DR: Wikipedia presents content in its own way, and that's fundamental. NebY (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: First there absolutely should not be different criteria for capitalization in article titles than in running text (except for the first letter). It invites a mess and would be a major change which would benefit no one. Second, Wikipedia style is to capitalize for proper names and acronyms. That is the style we've chosen and as determining exactly what is a proper name is difficult, we use other sources as a guide to determine what is and is not a proper name. We don't just follow other publications' capitalization because other sources capitalize for other reasons. Many capitalize all headings or article titles. Many capitalize for importance in a topic area. Many sources capitalize for no apparent reason. I see no reason for change. SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Do honors/awards need to have notability?

    [edit]

    For some reason I thought we expected them to have their own articles. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would expect them to have their own articles if notable by general notability criteria. Why would they not? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should be stated in the MOS. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Are they sufficiently different from other topics to need special guidance? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For there to be an article about an award, it would have to meet general notability criteria. For an article about some other topic to mention an award does not require that. Perhaps that's the confusion here. SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I, and MOS:FILMACCOLADES, disagree. An award giver should have an article about their awards at the bare minimum, for an award to be included in an awards table. Gonnym (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this apply in general, or just to films? SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely not. I see minor awards/honors used in biographies to make the person seem more important. I thought we don't allow that. Doug Weller talk 07:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do they actually make the person seem more important? I suppose they might, depending on the reader. Is it important to an encyclopedic article? My guess is it would depend on the context, but this is not really my field of interest or expertise. A basic rule of thumb might be "If you can wikilink it you can mention it, if not, have a good reason why it is worth mentioning". Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In some instances I think the notability of the award and the award giver is collapsed into a single basis for notability, such that there should not be separate articles on the two. If there is an article on an award giver that substantially mentions the awards that they give (which is probably the case with some film critics organizations that give film awards), I think that would suffice. BD2412 T 21:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I really could use some context. The only more fully expressed questions underlying yours that I can come up with would belong at WP:N instead of here. Largoplazo (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An example:"In 1981, They Came Before Columbus received the "Clarence L. Holte Literary Prize". Sertima was inducted into the "Rutgers African-American Alumni Hall of Fame" in 2004. "
    No article for the "literary prize". Doug Weller talk 07:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I can see how the question might be suitable here, if the question is whether to mention the award in an article about a person whose notability is established through other criteria. It just made me think of cases I've frequently encountered where a list of awards seems to be the article creator's basis for imputing signficance/notability, yet none of the awards are notable. That's why I had WP:N in mind. Largoplazo (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is a question about triva/cruft, then as a general rule they should be avoided. However, it is easy imagine how a non-notable honor/award (being awarded a scholarship?) might play a significant role in someone's life, and thus be worth a mention in a biography. Does Aurelian being named Restitutor Orientis count as an honor? What seems important is that the honor/award is remarked upon as significant by secondary sources. Sources from the subject or the award body shouldn't mean much. CMD (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am pretty confident that in the last 10 years we had a centralized discussion that awards and honors (not just film) should be notable (not necessarily a standalone page, just being able to show that the general body of those awards could be documented with non-primary sources), as it was creating excessive fluff on some bio and other creative work pages to include every no-name award. Unfortunately, I can't find it easily. Masem (t) 12:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why in the world are the archives set up so you can't search them? I presume this can be fixed. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just rearranged the top boxes so that the search box is next to the archive list. Easier to find now? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely, thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you maybe thinking of the not-yet-a-guideline Wikipedia:Awards and accolades and its talk pages, or some discussion that led to it? NebY (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that was the resulting page or at least the ideas I call discussed from that prior discussion. Masem (t) 14:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So maybe work towards making it a guideline? I know I, clearly mistakenly, remove awards etc if they don't have their own article or very clear notability. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Animal pronouns

    [edit]

    Does the man