🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS_talk:HYPHEN
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from MOS talk:HYPHEN)

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:

    Concluded

    [edit]

    Wikipedia mentioned in CMoS Q&A

    [edit]

    I thought MOS folks might be interested in this question from this month's Chicago Manual of Style Q&A. The gist of it is that they argue post–traumatic stress disorder should be written with an en-dash rather than a hyphen, since post- here modifies the open compound traumatic stress. They note that despite this reasoning, no one seems to use the en-dash here, not even Wikipedia, which tends to feature a lot of en dashes compared with other publications. I have my own thoughts on this construct but I thought I'd just share this and not digress further… —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure I agree with the premise that post modifies the "open compound tramatic stress". The disorder is the "stress" being suffered in the present, due to "trauma" that happened in the past. Therefore post- only modifies traumatic alone, and post-traumatic modifies stress disorder. I think that would mean the hyphen is correct. ~2025-33578-20 (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I tend to read it as {post-traumatic} {stress disorder} and not as {post–traumatic stress} {disorder}. I'm not sure I'd ever given it much thought but I suppose it is potentially ambiguous. DSM-5-TR uses the closed compound posttraumatic stress disorder while ICD-10 uses hyphenated post-traumatic stress disorder and ICD-11 uses the open compound post traumatic stress disorder. Per Ngram the closed compound posttraumatic is most common. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't seem right. The disorder is being suffered in the present due to stress, specifically traumatic stress, that happened in the past. It is not post-trauma stress disorder. The traumatic must be qualifying stress. So it's:
    {post {traumatic stress}} disorder
    But I'm just a proficient native speaker, and a grammar amateur. I'm also not familiar with the curly bracket notation so not certain if I have used it correctly, technically. Nurg (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong national ties to a topic

    [edit]

    MOS:TIES says An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the standard (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation. Why do we enforce that? It seems like a silly rule and detrimental to the encyclopedia.

    I learned American English. Surely that shouldn't disqualify me from writing about topics tied to, for example, the UK. But if doing so requires me to write in BrEng, I'd be lost. There's a few words for sure that I know I'm supposed to stick an extra "u" in (i.e. colour). I'd remember that "fetus" isn't right, but I'd have to go look up what the correct British spelling is. But mostly, I'm sure I would trip over all sorts of subtle variations of spelling, diction, idiom, etc without having a clue what travesties I was inflicting on a language I barely speak.

    I get that once you pick a variant for a given article, you should be consistent. But I don't at all get that we should force a particular variant based on the topic. It's almost like saying if I want to write about Charles de Gaulle, I should be forced to write it in French. As an American, I can read BrEng just fine, and I assume the same is true in the reverse. So why not let people just write in whichever flavor they are most fluent in and it'll be fine for everybody? RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The only way I've been able to interpret this is that you can write in whatever English you're capable of writing in, but everyone else is free to make what would otherwise be objectionable nuisance edits if it weren't for the fact that they were conforming your content to the variety of English applicable to that article. In addition, don't correct other editors' contributions based on your own notions of grammar and usage because what you're seeing might be correct in the applicable variety of English. Because, at first glace, you're right: There's even a "Use Bruneaian English" template, but what fraction of Wikipedia editors are competent to write in Bruneian English? I refuse to interpret this as "learn Bruneian English or else consider yourself barred from editing Brunei-related articles". Largoplazo (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's basically been my understanding although I have wondered if it might be considered disruptive to add substantial amount of new content to an article using a different variety. I've also imagined a scenario where I want to make substantial edits but choose not to because I'm not confident I can follow the local conventions consistently. That said, I find ENGVAR quite reasonable. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because a priori readers would expect an article about American history to be written in American English and the same for British history. ENGVAR is a contested subject as it stands, but at least TIES ensures that for the very many articles tied to Britain or the Commonwealth, America, Canada, etc., the variety of English expected isn’t subject to debate. I’d also guess that articles on British topics tend to have more British readers, on US topics more American readers, and so on, so TIES does its best to match what most readers will be familiar with. MapReader (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know the history but I find TIES helpful. For most topics, there's not good reason to pick one written standard over another. Having a clear rule for certain topics saves time by limiting disputes. Regarding MapReader's comment above, I don't think there's anything weird about writing an American history article in British English or vice-versa, but it's nice not to have to argue about it. I suspect most readers don't notice and don't care unless they read an article in a variety different than their own, regardless of the topic. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's the way I think we should think about RETAIN and TIES:
    • First, RETAIN is the main rule. TIES is a special carveout to it and should be applied only when it's clear.
    • However, RETAIN is not as scary as it might sound. It's not a prohibition on ever changing the variety of an article ever. If you have a good argument and you can get consensus for it, you can change the variety.
    • In this light, TIES is mainly a timesaver. When it's completely obvious what variety should be chosen, because of the connection of the topic to the country where the variety is spoken, you can just go ahead and boldly change it.
    Ideally that's the way things should work. Unfortunately there are enough editors who will try to stretch TIES to find some connection to a country (or who seem to think there's typically a "correct" variety to write a particular article in) that we get a lot of confusion and angels dancing on the head of a pin. I personally would be willing to junk TIES altogether over this and just let people argue their good reasons article-by-article; if the case is really clear then consensus should be achievable. It would involve some less-than-optimally-productive demands on editor time, but so does the current situation. --Trovatore (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • TIES was basically a compromise to prevent constant edit-warring over ENGVAR. Every petty nationalist wanted his bit of territory, and rather than having a free-for-all, it made sense to set up a rule to demarcate that territory by default. Personally, I think this is a ridiculous approach. American readers should be able to read articles written using American spelling, and British readers should be able to read articles with British spelling. The solution is simple: implement a converter like the one used for the Chinese Wikipedia, whereby the reader could easily switch between variants at his leisure. This would enable the writer to write in whatever English he wanted, without any impact on the reader. All ENGVAR disputes would disappear. Unfortunately, the English Wikipedia has historically shown little interest in such a solution, despite the fact that it is almost certainly technically feasible. Unlike in the Chinese case, the question of varieties of English, like most MoS matters, is treated as trivial by the community at large, and hence such a converter has been considered a waste of development resources. Alas, it is the reader who suffers for our indolence. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Marginally related, I think the {{convert}} templates should all go away. People should be able to set in their preferences "I prefer metric" or "I prefer that stupid shit we still use in the United States" and see whichever set of units they prefer. But that would make too much sense. RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I would be completely against any sort of automatic conversion of English varieties. First of all, it wouldn't work, at least not without using a lot of AI. But even if it could be made to work, we shouldn't coddle that sort of thing. People should just learn to read different varieties. It's not our job to hide the complexity of the world from our readers.
      Automatic rendering of units is maybe slightly less bad, because at least the right answer is clear-cut. But still, people ought to learn about different systems of units. --Trovatore (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Units are much more delicate than the issue of ENGVAR. There are instances where the source units should be prioritised for verifiability reasons, and also instances where simple conversions impede comprehension, such as those from metric to decimal imperial, instead of mixed units (i.e. metres to decimal feet instead of feet and inches). Unit conversions should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Conversion between ENGVARs can work, without AI; the Chinese Wikipedia system is a clear precedent. You argue that people should learn to read different varieties, and perhaps that is true. However, forcing readers to engage with multiple different varieties and muddying the difference between them may have a knock-on effect on English usage outside Wikipedia, leading to the gradual displacement of minority usages. AI makes this problem all the worse. Wikipedia is meant to be neutral, and should avoid influencing English language usage. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't like stuff that happens by magic. There should be one version of an article at any one time, not some sort of recipe for creating an article. (Tangentially, "abstract Wikipedia" is a terrible idea; fortunately it will never work.) --Trovatore (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      As far as I know, the conversion done on Chinese Wikipedia involves no more than the unambiguous one-to-one mapping between the traditional characters and the simplified ones. That's hardly at the level of difficulty that would be involved in a converter knowing to display "gaol" as "jail"—except in the case of Reading Gaol or other prisons with "Gaol" in their names; or knowing when to display "licence" for Brits and when to display "license" for Brits (one is a noun, the other is a verb; both are spelled "license" in US English). And so on. Largoplazo (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not correct. Please read the article I linked above. The different Chinese varieties also differ in diction, and these differences are accounted for by the converter. It is also capable of distinguishing between proper names and general terminology. The conversion tables themselves are edited by administrators, i.e. they are subject to editorial control. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything in your link that suggests the same text would be translated differently depending on its grammatical function in the sentence, which (at a minimum) an ENGVAR translator would have to do. (That said, I would be against it even if it were free and worked perfectly.) --Trovatore (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you don't like 'magic', the other option is to adopt one variety as the standard, as is done by every other publication. I would support this irrespective of the variety adopted. We have already made similar decisions before, e.g. the logical quotation mandate. Better than the pell-mell we have now, as far as I am concerned. Of course, this well never happen, as Wikipaedists are a curmudgeonly bunch. Myself, most of all! Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 09:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the other option is to do what we do now. Except as I mentioned I wouldn't have a problem with getting rid of TIES, which seems to be an open invitation to nationalists, and just going with straight RETAIN. In practice the outcomes wouldn't change that much, because for clear TIES cases you ought to be able to get consensus. --Trovatore (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn’t really make any sense. Such consensuses would be argued out and settled on the basis of ties, so you might as well have TIES. MapReader (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's my point. You probably get to the same outcome most of the time. But you take away the invitation to say "but the guy who first theorized the existence of goztillium was Freedonian, so the goztillium article should be in Freedonian English, and I can change it to that without consensus". --Trovatore (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You probably get to the same outcome most of the time. We save time by being able to point to a documented consensus at WP:TIES for the majority of cases. We can't prevent some editors from making dubious claims of TIES but it's easier to explain why these are inconsistent with the actual guidance than it is to argue from scratch each time. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I said it was a timesaver, in my first comment way up above. The problem is that when you start elaborating nuances on a timesaver, people forget that it's a timesaver and start to think it's the main principle, and start arguing competing nationalisms.
    The main principle is RETAIN; TIES is a carveout that, used properly, should save time and avoid people filibustering to "no consensus". That's a reasonable thing to want to do, but if we start to say too much about it, people are going to reverse those, and start thinking of RETAIN as just a tiebreaker, rather than the main point. --Trovatore (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You then said you'd be OK with getting rid of TIES because these could be settled through individual page discussions, likely with the same outcome as with TIES in place most of the time. You then brought up the added benefit of removing the invitation for certain kinds of bogus TIES claims. I read that as suggesting that the time suck from those discussions might be greater than the time saved by having TIES in place. Pardon my misunderstanding. Thank you for clarifying. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The license/licence thing is exactly my point. I had no idea Brits used both of those for different things. So, if I'm writing an article about some British topic, people are going to come along and say, "You need to be using BrEng" and slap a {{use british english}} template on the article. And then, since I don't know how to write in BrEng, they're going to keep coming along and saying, "You idiot, you keep spelling things wrong". It all seems kind of pointless. Especially at WP:FAC when it becomes an excuse to oppose a nomination. RoySmith (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just use the good, old-fashioned Ohconfucius script. It will have your writing sorted in a trice. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No one should be calling you an idiot for missing some nuance of a variety. Just do the best you can without spending too much stress on it, and let the gnomes clean it up. That's the sort of thing they live for. --Trovatore (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When adding new content, just make a good effort. The "use British English" template is a reminder to editors of new content to make that effort, and essentially forbids editors from replacing the existing British idiosyncrasies with American ones. If you get it a bit wrong, someone will probably come along and fix it and probably won't lambast you. pburka (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Agreeing with the above, I would add that there are far fewer differences among the national varieties in a formal, written register (“encyclopedic style”) than in colloquial speech or even informal writing. The spelling differences are mostly systematic, according to only a handful of rules, and differences in diction are pretty rare beyond a few technological topic areas, such as transportation. I would never fault someone for using the ‘wrong’ variety de novo—no more than for making a typo, anyway—which is very different from going around changing things willy-nilly to xyr preferred variety.—Odysseus1479 22:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This applies to national varieties established per MOS:RETAIN and is not specific to those governed by TIES. The script RGloucester shared appears quite useful. Perhaps this tool should be promoted among editors who work on and review Featured Article submissions. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you are stressing unnecessarily. Firstly, the differences between English variants are, in the grand scheme of things, very minor. Secondly, the whole point of WP is that editors make their best effort and other editors will come along to improve it / fix it later. Finally, even if TIES didn't exist, RETAIN still means that you will sometimes find yourself editing in a different English variant from the one you usually use. Furius (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:TENSE and Egyptian Gods

    [edit]

    Over at the talk page for the Egyptian God Ra I've started a discussion after my changing of "was" to "is" was reverted. I believe that Ra (and by extension all the Egyptian Gods) should adhere to MOS:TENSE and be in the present tense, but two other editors disagree - although both also admit to mixing tenses in articles as well. I don't think this is a content dispute per se, more a difference of interpretation of MOS:TENSE, hence I thought I'd come here to ask for thoughts.

    My full rationale is on the talk page, quite happy to post it here as well if requested, but I don't want to hit the page with a wall of TL:DR. Pinging the other two editors out of courtesy: PharaohCrab and A. Parrot. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    To explain why I have trouble with consistent tenses, an article on a deity will include several types of statements:
    • Actions in myth (e.g., "Ra sends/sent his Eye to punish humanity")
    • Actions deities take within the world ("Ra sails/sailed his barque through the sky")
    • Specific verbiage used in ancient texts ("Ra is/was called 'far strider who came forth from Heliopolis'")
    • Imagery in ancient artwork ("Ra is/was portrayed as a falcon-headed man with the sun-disk on his head")
    • Acts of worship by ancient people ("Ra is/was worshipped in the form of the Mnevis bull")
    The first category is commonly rendered in present tense because mythic narratives can be treated in the same way as a plot summary. The last category is pretty clearly past tense, as these acts of worship do not take place anymore. The others are ambiguous. Both texts and artworks can be talked about in the present tense because those texts and artwork survive to the present, but they can also be in past tense because those texts and artworks were created in ancient times and are only a sample of what existed in the past (particularly for texts, where the same phrases were presumably often used in speech). I'd like to figure out some coherent way of handling these categories.
    I note that GAs on other ancient deities, like Athena, do use "is" in the lead sentence, but they don't seem to treat these categories of statements with consistent tenses either. A. Parrot (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, discussion on the talk page, but I should mention out that my main point is the lede intro: Ra is an Egyptian God, not Ra was an Egyptian God. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I ended up using "was" in the lead sentences for articles like Isis and Hathor because of the way I formulate those sentences: "Hathor was a goddess in ancient Egyptian religion". I write it this way because I want to emphasize the religion, not the mythology, which was only one component of the religion. The religion isn't practiced anymore, so I use "was". A. Parrot (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with A. Parrot's approach. If no-one practises a particular religion anymore, then everything about it becomes past tense, including the gods. I think this is backed up by MOS:Tense which can be summarised, I think, as 'everything is present tense until it's past tense.' I think ancient Egyptian religion (the key word being ancient) has become past tense. Dgp4004 (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Once a god is dead you may speak of them in the past tense. But you need a death certificate or other reliable source confirming the demise, Nietzsche saying so is not enough. Gawaon (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I base it on what's more helpful to the reader rather than philosophy. Once a religion ceases to be practised and no-one is around to believe in it or its gods, I think it's more helpful to refer to everything about it in the past tense. If an alien came to earth and asked who is this 'Ra', I think it would be more helpful to say that Ra was a god in ancient Egyptian religion. To say that they are a god suggests that the religion itself is still alive and kicking. Dgp4004 (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether practised or not, the term is still present tense - unless there has been a reliably sourced consensus to remove Hathor from the ancient Egyptian pantheon, then Hathor is a goddess in ancient Egyptian religion. Chaheel Riens (talk)
    Our Ancient Egyptian religion article is in the past tense, quite rightly. It seems contradictory to refer to its components in the present tense. NebY (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    However, our articles on ancient Greek gods such as Zeus, Athena, Hermes, Perseus all seem to use the present tense. And our article on the Egyptian language, linked from the one you mentioned, says it "is an extinct branch of the Afro-Asiatic language family that was spoken in ancient Egypt", using the present tense to describe its existence despite the language family being extinct. By the same logic, writing "Isis is [present]] a major goddess in ancient Egyptian religion whose worship spread [past] throughout the Greco-Roman world" would seem logical enough and more in agreement with how we deal with similar subjects in other articles. Also, MOS:TENSE starts with "By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering ... products or works that have been discontinued", which suggests that in cases of uncertainty (such as these ones) it's better to err in favour of the present, it being the default choice. Gawaon (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    1STOCC with acronyms

    [edit]

    There's a debate over how to format the article title at MS NOW. This TV channel was recently renamed but the name is also a forced backronym. 1STOCC doesn't seem to account for backronyms like this, where the backronym expansion is unintuitive and not the common name. Bringing here because the issue is at the MOS level, not an article-level issue. Pinging prior discussants @Nathan Obral, ClarkKentWannabe, and Samueldester1234:

    My Source [for] News, Opinion, [and the] World (MS NOW; formerly MSNBC) is an...

    MS NOW (My Source [for] News, Opinion, [and the] World; formerly MSNBC) is an...

    MS NOW[a] (formerly MSNBC) is an

    1. ^ A backronym for "My Source [for] News, Opinion, [and the] World"

    Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The third option with an explanatory footnote, and the footnote itself being cited, is preferable. The core difference between MS NOW and CNBC (another cable channel commonly owned by Comcast, being spun off to Versant) is that CNBC has always stood for "Consumer News and Business Channel" and is the actual channel name. "My Source for News, Opinion and the World" is only being used for marketing positioners and on the channel's digital on-screen bug, but is not the actual channel name. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 17:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the first option works best. The thing that is confusing here is that it technically aligns to 1STOCC, since the letters “MS NOW” is an acronym for “My Source for News, Opinion, and the World”. Despite the network primarily uses “MS NOW”, that doesn’t mean the name itself does not have a acronym. The acornym just being a “marketing slogan”, aruged by user Nathan Obral, doesn’t make sense, as multiple news articles refers “My Source for News, Opinion, and the World” a acronym. Samueldester1234 (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason why the marketing slogan (which it is) was drafted was to distinguish the channel from NBC, who had operated the channel for 29 years. It was a necessary marketing campaign given the channel's older demographics and those who are not media literate and aware of why it was losing its prior name. That being said, it is not the actual name of the channel, and unless there exists actual and definitive proof the channel is indeed named "My Source for News, Opinion and the World" and not "MS NOW", then 1STOCC simply cannot apply here. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 18:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Including “My Source for News, Opinion, and the World (MS NOW)” in the lead (not the article name just to be clear) is fully warranted and why dismissing it as “just marketing” doesn’t hold up. In its rebranding announcement, MSNBC states that “Later this year … MSNBC will take on a new name: My Source News Opinion World (MS NOW)."[2] establishing this phrase as the acronym’s full form. Multiple reliable sources such as PBS, CBS News, and the Associated Press also report the acronym in full form.
    Some outlets, such as The Guardian describes the acronym as “somewhat forced.” but that is a value judgment about the quality of the name, not evidence that the expansion is unofficial. Critique of a name’s aesthetics does not negate the fact that the full phrase is verifiably documented and used in coverage.
    Under 1STOCC, if an acronym is established, the full form should be given on first mention. WP:V requires that facts stated on Wikipedia be backed by reliable sources, and here we have multiple sources plus the network itself. WP:COMMONNAME governs the title of the article (which is correctly “MS NOW”), but it does not prohibit explaining in the lead what the acronym stands for when that information is reliably sourced. Including the expansion provides context for readers and is consistent with how similar cases are handled across other articles. Samueldester1234 (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, my stance is that the second option is the way to go. As I explained to Samueldester1234 on my talk page, MS NOW is a different situation from CNBC; CNBC originally utilized the full version of its name before eventually switching to the initialism, whereas both the long & short-form brandings for MS NOW were created at the same time. From what I'm aware of, "My Source News Opinion World" is the full branding MS NOW is going with, with several other outlets modifying it to either "My Source for New, Opinion, and the Word", or "My Source [for] News, Opinion, [and the] World" (formatting it to match the initialism). So, I'd be ok with Option 2. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per SamuelDester's reliable sources, I think we have to go with Option 4 - report the actual name, as annoying as it is without the bracketed additions. (Or modified Option 1, if you prefer to think of it that way.) Option 2 is downgrading the actual name to an explanation, and Option 3 relegates it to a footnote, neither of which I like doing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I visited the ms.now website and this so-called "full name" is featured neither on the start page nor on the About and Contact pages. If it really was the full name then, of course, it would appear prominently in all these places. Very clearly, the actual common and full name is MS NOW, neither more nor less. A single article claiming something else doesn't make it so. Gawaon (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now look at their help desk FAQ page at https://msnow.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/41161833728283-What-is-MS-NOW. (The Help link on their own website leads to their Help site hosted by ZenDesk.) Largoplazo (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A full name is not buried three links down in a FAQ, however. A full name is used wherever you would expect it to be found, such as in the imprint/about section, while an ad-hoc explanation of the name's origin or meaning may well be found in the FAQ. Also, the version "My Source for News, Opinion, and the World" seems to be a Wikipedia invention? In their own articles, they use "My Source News Opinion World". Gawaon (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A full name is not buried three links down in a FAQ, however. Is this encoded in the law somewhere? If informing the public as to their full, formal name isn't one of their top 50 priorities, then why would it be any higher up on the website than this? They put it in the FAQ for people who really want to know the answer to that question. For everyone else, they deem MS NOW to suffice. Compare the IHOP website, https://www.ihop.com/en. If you visit the News link at the bottom of their home page, you'll see that their boilerplate self-identification at the bottom of any of their press releases has the heading "ABOUT INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES LLC". It's also explained in their FAQ. That's their official name, even though you won't find it on their home page. Largoplazo (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly the material turned up here suggests that, when we do mention the expanded meaning, it should be referred to as My Source News Opinion World, so any of the above versions would be modified to suit. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, as far as my Google found it, "My Source News Opinion World" is mentioned exactly once on ms.now, in "A message to our community", while "My Source for News, Opinion, and the World" is also mentioned exactly once, in "What you need to know about MS NOW". So which one is official now? They don't even seem to know themselves. Gawaon (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gawaon While the network’s website may not prominently display it as full, Wikipedia relies on verifiable sources WP:V. Multiple reliable sources such as PBS, CBS News, and the Associated Press report the acronym in full form. In the link that Largoplazo put here that goes to their FAQ page, it even stated “ MS NOW (previously MSNBC) stands for My Source News Opinion World.”. Not all brands or networks would have its full acronym put up on its about page, It would be in a FAQ page because that would be frequently asked by people who are not familiar with the brand (as Largoplazo pointed out earlier) Samueldester1234 (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there other well-known cases where the full official name is only used in a FAQ? I can't remember of ever having come across such a case. Those reliable sources you mention all seem to be based on a single press release. I'd suggest to stand by for three months or so and check how often this so-called full name will show up in the future in either primary or secondary sources. If often enough, then sure, let's add it. Gawaon (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It has never been so painfully obvious—outside of, say, congressional bill titles—that a name was concocted to justify the acronym. Actually, that's probably the best example of how reliable sources—and, in turn, us—handle names of this variety. Ever heard of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001? No, but you've probably heard of the Patriot Act. The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing Act sounds obscure, but the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 not so much. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 20:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That certainly does happen. And, that having happened, those retrofitted, ungainly phrases become the full, formal names of those bills. The full, formal name of the Patriot Act is right there on the title page of the act, https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ56/PLAW-107publ56.pdf. Why they chose that name is immaterial to it being the name. It isn't a folk etymology made up after the fact by random people like "tip" = "to insure promptness" and "posh" = "port out, starboard home". Largoplazo (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if the MS NOW people do the equivalent of printing the name on the title page – mentioning it on the start page of their website or in other equally prominent places – then of course we should consider it official too. But that's not the case so far. Gawaon (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's weird to say that what a company says about what its own full name is is valid only if the places where they state it on their website meet your satisfaction. Largoplazo (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I already gave IHOP as an example. It took me about ten seconds for it to come to mind and I quickly verified that it was comparable. Largoplazo (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That one's not comparable at all since, as far is I can see, the full name is indeed frequently mentioned throughout its website rather than being buried deep down in a FAQ. It's not because the "full name" is contrived but because it seems to be essentially unused that I doubt it actually being the full name in any meaningful sense. Gawaon (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes PBS, CBS, and AP particularly reliable for answering the question "What is the actual official name for The Channel Formerly Known as MSNBC?? You know full well that "Generally Reliable" does not mean "Reliable for Every Factual Claim Under the Sun". So, why should they be deemed more reliable for what the channels actual name is than is the primary source: the channel itself? We may favour secondary sources, generally, but that does not mean that when a bunch of secondary sources copying one another publish claims that run contrary to the primary source(s) they are based on, that we still go with the secondary sources' claims anyway. Under such circumstances those claims in those secondary sources fail verification. ~2025-33846-04 (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The rebranding announcement itself already establishes the full expansion, the network directly states that the new name is “My Source News Opinion World (MS NOW).” Since that comes from the organization’s own announcement, it is already a strong, verifiable primary source for what the acronym stands for. The earlier sources I cited (PBS, CBS News, AP) simply reflect what the network itself stated; they are not inventing the expansion or contradicting the primary source.
    To add to that, a different outlet LA Times has reported the same thing: “MS NOW — an acronym for ‘My Source for News, Opinion and the World’ — is the result of the politically progressive network being spun off into a company called Versant.” This is significant because it shows the full acronym is recognized beyond just the initial wave of articles and is being repeated in new reporting, not just copied from a single source.
    The fact that the channel markets itself publicly as “MS NOW” doesn’t negate the existence of the acronym, it just reflects branding practice. We can’t simply ignore the acronym when it has been reported and reaffirmed by multiple outlets as well as the network’s own announcement. The documentation is clear that the acronym exists and is acknowledged in reliable coverage.
    That said, I agree with Gawaon that monitoring how often the full acronym continues to appear in the coming months will help solidify how it should be reflected in the lead. Samueldester1234 (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Unspaced slash

    [edit]

    Today's edit drew my attention to the section on slashes, MOS:SLASH

    First, a minor issue: it lists many situations in which unspaced slashes are the correct choice, but it misses the case where this formatting is a standard part of technical terminology or notation. An example is P/poly.

    Second, I think our guidance on how to use slashes in fractions conflicts with MOS:FRAC and is incorrect. Here, we say to use ÷ for elementary arithmetic and to prefer vertical fractions like to horizontal fractions like "in more advanced mathematical formulas". But the advice to prefer vertical fractions, without any additional qualification, is bad advice and MOS:FRAC does not express a preference between those two forms. Vertical fractions are often a good choice for displayed formulas like or simple inline fractions like but often a bad choice for inline text formulas with complicated numerators and denominators like because they extend above and below the rest of the text, making the text baselines uneven, and because they can lead to tiny tiny font sizes (like the exponent in the numerator of the fraction) causing readability and accessibility issues. And in situations where there are fractions in the numerators and denominators of other fractions, it is generally preferable to mix the two styles e.g. or (depending on context) instead of the horrific . We should follow MOS:FRAC and not express a preference for advanced mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The first maths example in MOS:SLASH is "7/8", which aligns with what you want. The form is meant for when you have a standalone formula that is not part of running prose. Complicated formulae are best avoided in running text. Admittedly, the MOS could be expressed clearer.
    Note also that users can select from 7/8, 7⁄8 and ⁠7/8⁠, with increasing amounts of space being added above and below the line to accommodate the larger amount of space taken by these characters.  Stepho  talk  02:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The current wording of MOS:SLASH does not make the intended distinction between standalone (displayed) formulas and formulas in running prose.
    Note also that the raised-lowered middle form you suggest is not allowed in mathematics articles, although it may be ok for non-mathematical topics. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    are these already covered by the page linked to from that bullet point? FaviFake (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Simplier version

    [edit]

    Recently there have been a few attempts to add a link to {{simple}} versions of the Manual of Style. While there was a discussion about the {{simple}} template broadly, some people suggested evaluating it on a case-by-case basis, as (usually) the shorter a guideline is, the less likely it is to need a simpler version.

    In the case of the MOS, I think it's needed the most. While I suspect most people are redirected to a specific section of the MOS, I have to assume editors (especially newbies) opening it directly might not want to presented with such an incredible amount of detail. This is the goal of the {{simple}} template:

    The first link is most helpful to new users, while the second is a denser but still succinct summary. There's no harm in new editors browsing these pages as a first step, instead of simply closing the huge page we present them with. FaviFake (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Directing new users to essays on the top of policy and guideline pages Moxy🍁 00:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Moxy. These 'simpler versions' have not been vetted by community consensus, and essentially amount to the opinions of their creators. There are no grounds for promoting the opinions of select editors within these guidelines. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @FaviFake let's get you to assume lack of consensus when you have garnered zero interest in your proposal(s) when related to protocol pages. Although not directly related to adding a banner with oversized text at the top of this page Wikipedia:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies is a good philosophy to follow. This would be a similar situation as seen at Template talk:Essay#Icon that despite you advertising all over has garnered zero interest in the change as proposed. Do your best to follow the advice at User_talk:FaviFake#Wikipedia_is_not_your_private_plaything_to_mess_about_with_as_you_see_fit:_please_tell_me_why_I_should_not_block_you_straight_away Moxy🍁 01:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment. In my view, the banner doesn't really imply that they have been vetted by the community. Qite the opposite, actually! It seems logical to me that a user navigating to "simplified version of this page" will understand it's not the actual policy itself, since it's even written the target pages: (emphasis supplied)

    This is an explanatory essay about the Wikipedia Manual of Style.
    This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

    Plus, the second page is already linked in the very first bolded link in the sidebar of WP:MOS. This would just make it easier for newer editors to actually see it.
    Also, could you clarify where you see in these pages' editors promoting the[ir own] opinions? They both look and read like a simple summary of the MOS. FaviFake (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Describing them as simplified versions and directing new editors to them indicates that they are pure, accurate and endorsed distillations of the MOS. They may look and read like a simple summary of the MOS now (to you, at least) but they have not been vetted by the community, they are not going to be maintained by the community and they will not be kept in accord with the MOS by the community. We shouldn't direct new editors away from the MOS to pages which may not be in accord with it and may lead them to make edits which will be reverted as contrary to the MOS - upon which it will be of no comfort to say they should've read the fine print. NebY (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We shouldn't direct new editors away from the MOS
    What do you think new editors will do when they find this 235,852-byte page for the first time? My rationale is that, unless we give them something shorter to read, they'll just leave the page and never learn a thing. Or maybe read the first paragraph, only to realize there are hundreds more. Instead, what will happen with the banner is they'll at least learn the basics.
    Also, again: could you give some examples where these pages are "kept in accord with the MOS"? Because they sure seem to be in accord now, and if a MOS guideline (so major that it's even in the summary!) is changed, it's not gonna be a big deal if it takes one or two more days for the change to be reflected in the summaries, which anyone can edit. FaviFake (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they'll use the table of contents or other tools to find what they want on the page.
    You're not reassuring us that MOS changes will routinely be reflected in Help:Introduction to the Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style - and yes, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion of your disputed banner is on you. NebY (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    to find what they want on the page
    My point is that some newer editors don't want to find something on the page. They just want to get a sense of how we want our articles to be written, before starting to edit them. The lack of such a banner may lead [new editors] to make edits which will be reverted as contrary to the MOS, not the presence of one. We can't expect new editors to read this huge page before starting to edit. FaviFake (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We can expect 'newer editors' to have a brain, and to be familiar with how to navigate through a common reference book. One doesn't even need a ruddy index these days, as the lovely modern convenience that is the search function allows one to find what one wants in an almost immediate fashion. There is no expectation that an editor read this page before editing. Be WP:BOLD. The gnomish editors will handle the tidying up, and those dear 'newer editors' will learn as they go. We do not need a WP:POVFORK of the MoS that is likely to be out-of-date at any given point, and which does not reflect actual community consensus. If anything, the presence of such a page is more likely to mislead 'newer editors' than to provide them with any great boon. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 10:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the search function allows one to find what one wants
    But what if someone doesn't want to find something on the page? What if they just want to get a sense of how we want our articles to be written? "Do they use Sentence Case? Do they prefer American english? Do they prefer images on the right or the left? Do they have a preferred style for dates and numbers? Do they prefer serial commas? ..."
    WP:POVFORK of the MoS that is likely to be out-of-date at any given point, and which does not reflect actual community consensus.
    None of the pages are POVFORKS, they are both up-to-date, and they both currently reflect community consensus. You still haven't cited any incorrect recommendation from these pages despite me asking several times. FaviFake (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    POVFORK or not, it doesn't seem needed. We effectively already have two versions of the MOS – the main page and the various subpages which tend to cover additional details. Adding a third version would be a maintenance nightmare without clearly discernible benefits. Gawaon (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The mere fact that this page claims to be a 'simplified' version of the Manual of Style makes it a POVFORK, as the editors that created the page seem to be expressing the opinion that the Manual of Style is not simple enough. This despite the fact that the Manual of Style is a guideline, with community consensus behind it, i.e. as clear and concise as the community has decided it should be per the policy Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content. If there is something insufficiently simple about the MoS, you should focus your efforts on making changes to this page, not by creating or promoting a POVFORK. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 11:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How can it possibly be a maintenance nightmare if they both already exist and are already up-to-date? FaviFake (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NebY (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because they will need separate and continuous maintenance unless you assume that from today on there won't be any more changes to the MOS ever. Gawaon (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how a page that is already up-to-date could somehow get more outdated than it currently after being advertised more prominently.
    If anything, the reverse should happen! FaviFake (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? EEng 21:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What wasn't clear? I'm happy to explain my rationale better if needed.
    Simply, both pages are already up-to-date. And if we put in a big banner, it'll be even less likely that they'll be left out of date. FaviFake (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's what's unclear:

    • could somehow get more outdated than it currently after being advertised – I can't even parse that.
    • If anything, the reverse should happen! – The reverse of what should happen?

    It's hard to believe you don't understand that whenever the same material is presented in multiple places, it is inevitable that changes get made to one of those presentations without the other presentations being updated to keep them in sync. We've already got the main MOS page, subsidiary MOS pages, and Help:MOS, and you want to add a fourth. This will add significant maintenance costs, to unclear (to say the least) benefit. EEng 16:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I do understand that. But my point is that they're both already up-to-date (or in sync, as you say). Why should their maintenance costs increase if a link to both pages is prominently placed on top of the MOS, one of the most viewed guidelines? The maintenance has clearly been enough up until now, since they're already in sync with the main MOS; why would that change? FaviFake (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see we've been talking at cross purposes. You've been talking about the placing of the banner (re Simplified MOS and Help:MOS) at the top of the main MOS page -- and, yes, you're right that that doesn't increase any work. I've been talking about the existence of the Simplified MOS in the first place. To be honest, I didn't even know that it existed before -- I thought it was something new. And yes, its very existence increases the maintenance burden, because it's yet one more thing to maintain.
    Sorry to say it, but I think it's a very bad thing to have both Help:MOS and Simplified MOS. They clearly have overlapping functions, and I don't see what the use case is for them to be separate. If I weren't so busy I'd be proposing deleting one or the other. EEng 23:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuing

    [edit]

    I think the handwriting's on the wall that the "Simplified" MOS isn't going to gain community endorsement, but to the extent I'm wrong that discussion can continue in the section just above. Meanwhile, here are some related thoughts.

    We already have two levels of MOS pages -- the main page and the various topical pages (e.g. Dates and Numbers). I don't think adding yet another layer (in the form of "Simple") is a good idea, and it's certainly not a good idea given we've already got Help:MOS, which tries to do the same thing. (Whether it does that well or not is a question I won't go into now.)

    Nonetheless, it's undeniable that MOS would be more useful if it were less unwieldy -- the question is how to achieve that. One thought is to make a concerted effort, over a period of months, to see how much material currently on the main MOS page can be pushed to subsidiary pages. Random example: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Animals,_plants,_and_other_organisms currently reads:

    When using taxonomic ("scientific") names, capitalize and italicize the genus: Berberis, Erithacus. (Supergenus and subgenus, when applicable, are treated the same way.) Italicize but do not capitalize taxonomic ranks at the level of species and below: Berberis darwinii, Erithacus rubecula superbus, Acacia coriacea subsp. sericophylla; no exception is made for proper names forming part of scientific names. Higher taxa (order, family, etc.) are capitalized in Latin (Carnivora, Felidae) but not in their English equivalents (carnivorans, felids); they are not italicized in either form, except for viruses, where all names accepted by the ICTV are italicized (Retroviridae).

    Cultivar and cultivar group names of plants are not italicized, and are capitalized (including the word Group in the name); cultivar names appear within single quotes (Malus domestica 'Red Delicious'), while cultivar groups do not (Cynara cardunculus Scolymus Group).

    English vernacular ("common") names are given in lower case in article prose (plains zebra, mountain maple, and southwestern red-tailed hawk) and in sentence case at the start of sentences and in other places where the first letter of the first word is capitalized. They are additionally capitalized where they contain proper names: Przewalski's horse, California condor, and fair-maid-of-France. This applies to species and subspecies, as in the previous examples, as well as to general names for groups or types of organism: bird of prey, oak, great apes, Bryde's whales, livestock guardian dog, poodle, Van cat, wolfdog. When the common name coincides with a scientific taxon, do not capitalize or italicize, except where addressing the organism taxonomically: A lynx is any of the four medium-sized wild cat species within the genus Lynx. Non-English vernacular names, when relevant to include, are handled like any other non-English terms: italicized as such, and capitalized only if the rules of the native language require it. Non-English names that have become English-assimilated are treated as English (ayahuasca, okapi).

    Standardized breeds should generally retain the capitalization used in the breed standards. Examples: German Shepherd, Russian White goat, Berlin Short-faced Tumbler. As with plant cultivars, this applies whether or not the included noun is a proper name, in contrast to how vernacular names of species are written. However, unlike cultivars, breeds are never put in single quotation marks, and their names are never part of a scientific name. A species term appended at the end for disambiguation ("cat", "hound", "horse", "swine", etc.) should not be capitalized, unless it is a part of the breed name itself and is consistently presented that way in the breed standards (rare cases include Norwegian Forest Cat and American Quarter Horse).

    Create redirects from alternative capitalization and spelling forms of article titles, and from alternative names, e.g., Adélie Penguin, Adelie penguin, Adelie Penguin and Pygoscelis adeliae should all redirect to Adélie penguin.

    Now, seriously: does all that stuff really belong on the main MOS page? Here's my take: since a significant proportion of editors are unlikely to understand what most of that text is even talking about (cultivar ... genus ... taxa ... vernacular names), it doesn't belong on the main MOS page. It should be moved elsewhere, leaving behind just enough of a pointer such that a new editor (working in a topic area where stuff matters) will be alerted that it exists, and where they can find it. EEng 06:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In [year]

    [edit]

    Hi, should there be a comma after phrases like "In 2021"? For example, "In 2015, Google changed its logo" vs "In 2015 Google changed its logo". I've been unknowingly "correcting" these sentences by adding a comma, but I'm not sure if I should have done that. Is it regional? Thanks. — Awesomecat / ✉ / ✎ / 02:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is allowed but not required; some styles will use it, others will not. Whether that is a regional difference is disputed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some style sheets (not WP's) require it, some (I suspect) forbid or discourage it (in this specific case), but unless you're working for a publication adhering to such a style sheet, it's a matter of rhythm and pacing (as it often is when it comes to commas). People who insist that only one way or another is ever right are engaging in WP:MISSSNODGRASSism. EEng 02:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed; in general I’d say the longer what follows the date, the more likely a comma will be wanted to avoid a ‘breathless’ impression. If the above example is the entire sentence, I prefer the version without the comma. (OTOH in a full MDY date the year should always be set off by commas; I think some writers have somehow internalized that rule as “a year must be followed by a comma”.)—Odysseus1479 02:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • As established by the recent RfC linked above, this is not a regional difference. I concur with Mr EEng. In some cases, it may be beneficial to rewrite the sentence to avoid this construction altogether, given that it is a hallmark of WP:PROSELINE. I know that the editors here are wary of WP:CREEP, but given the recent RfC, perhaps we can consider adding a line of guidance to MOS:COMMA. Said guidance would specify that commas after introductory time clauses may be appended or omitted at editorial discretion, but that changes between the two stylings are discouraged without good reason. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 03:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This initial comma is much overused, especially after "in [year]" or month or whatever. The balance sheet for using/not using it should consider the length of the initial phrase (the longer the more likely a comma), and whether there's a numeral or capital letter after the year (more likely to use so the reader can separate them more easily). A comma must be present where followed by a nested phrase, like: "In 2011, more than two years after the earthquake, there were still missing persons ...". So it needs a little thought, and would be hard to legislate on. I tend to chop out the silly ones for the sake of our readers: In January the troops withdrew north. Without hesitation I approve of this proposition. On balance the government felt an inquiry was necessary. Since the 17th century our knowledge of plumming and sewerage has increased significantly ... . Tony (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The examples you have provided seem ripe for rewriting: 'The troops withdrew north in January', 'I approve of this proposition without hesitation', 'Our knowledge of plumbing and sewerage has increased significantly since the 17th century'. As I have said before, I tend to place a great emphasis on the prosody of any given text. I find it awkward to read 'In January the troops withdrew north' without pause. A matter of taste, of course. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 09:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Super interesting. I agree with RGloucester in that those sentences sound awkward to me, but I understand your (and others') reasoning behind omitting the comma for shorter sentences. — Awesomecat / ✉ / ✎ / 00:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It varies. It might be a good place to put a comma in otherwise unbroken text but if the text is already full of commas serving different functions, such as parenthetical, list, and Oxford, not to mention adverbial, adding one more, however justifiable, independently, can make the whole passage more difficult to read. NebY (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Deprecate Do not encourage use of the historic division symbol (÷)

    [edit]
    An obelus being used as a sign of subtraction in this excerpt from an official Norwegian trading statement form called «Næringsoppgave 1» used for tax purposes.

    At present, in Manual of style#Slashes, the text reads

    • in a fraction (7/8 or xn/n!), but prefer the division operator ( ÷ ) when representing elementary arithmetic in prose (10 ÷ 2 = 5) and a fraction bar () in more advanced mathematical formulas (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers §§ Common mathematical symbols​ and Fractions and ratios and Help:Displaying a formula);

    This is arguably poor practice, as the Division sign article explains in its lead:

    The division sign (÷) is a mathematical symbol consisting of a short horizontal line with a dot above and another dot below, used in Anglophone countries to indicate the operation of division. This usage is not universal and the symbol has different meanings in other countries. Consequently, its use to denote division is deprecated in the ISO 80000-2 standard for notations used in mathematics, science and technology.[1] In older textbooks, it is called an obelus, though that term is also used of other symbols.

    and continues in the body to say:

    The ISO 80000-2 standard for mathematical notation in science and technology recommends only the solidus / or "fraction bar" for division, or the "colon" : for ratios; it says that the ÷ sign "should not be used" for division.[1]
    In Italy, Poland and Russia, the same ÷ sign was sometimes used to denote a range of values, and in Scandinavian countries it was, and sometimes still is, used as a negation sign:[2]

    Accordingly, I propose that MOS:SLASH be changed to remove the stated preference for the elementary school division sign (÷)

    • in a fraction (7/8 or xn/n!) in most cases, use a simple ASCII slash (U+002F / SOLIDUS), but a fraction bar () may be used in more advanced mathematical formulas (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers §§ Common mathematical symbols​ and Fractions and ratios and Help:Displaying a formula); (Avoid using the division sign ( ÷ , e.g., 10 ÷ 2 = 5) because (as the Division sign article explains), this symbol has other meanings worldwide.)

    I realise that this proposal will be 'difficult' for those of us whose primary school days are in the dim and distant past, but that was then and this is now. The symbol is not even provided on any standard keyboard. Comments? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose this change: it's really not relevant for English Wikipedia if the symbol ÷ sometimes indicates a range in Italian or sometimes indicates subtraction in older Danish. For example, the symbol ; indicates a question in Greek, but that's not a reason to avoid semicolons in English. Doremo (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it does not. "The decimal sign is either a comma or a point on the line. The same decimal sign should be used consistently within a document". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may be thinking of "ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2" (the rules for structuring and drafting ISO and IEC documents), which instruct technical committees to use the comma as the decimal marker in the standards themselves. That is their internal MOS, it doesn't over-ride the standards themselves. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In Italy ... the same ÷ sign was sometimes used to denote a range of values,
    I'm italian and I've never heard of this use. If an italian sees ÷, the only thing it can mean is division. I don't even know how one would use it to display anything else.
    And it's irrelevant; this wikipedia is in english, not italian or Norwegian. The ÷ sign is simpler and clearer (can't be confused with an "and/or" slash). FaviFake (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • That it may occasionally have different meanings in other languages seems no good reason to deprecate it. Its usage in English is unambiguous and clear enough. Gawaon (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't deprecate but don't recommend We don't need to police usages of this symbol but it is definitely not preferable; the language that says to prefer it over the slash should be removed. --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was certainly the prefer the division operator ( ÷ ) when representing elementary arithmetic in prose (10 ÷ 2 = 5) that made me go woah! That variation is acceptable to me (and is one less MOS instruction, which is A Good Thing). Editors who want to use it must be assumed to have a good reason to do so since it means jumping through hoops to type it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. FaviFake (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I am agreeing with @Trovatore's analysis and accepting that it is a better proposal than mine. We should not "prefer the division operator ( ÷ )", but it will be enough simply to remove that assertion of a preference. Very few editors will want to bother using it in any case because it much easier just to press the slash key. Anyone who does choose to use it must have a good reason to do so, since it requires extra work – so deprecation here would be over-ruled locally in any case. Does that answer your question? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I think I'm more confused than before. how is the fact that that a character takes a few more seconds to insert related in any way to the creation of a local consensus that disagrees with the manual of style? FaviFake (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that's a side issue. If we agree on just removing the asserted preference for the ÷ symbol, we don't reach that issue. --Trovatore (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        what issue???? FaviFake (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        A hypothetical consequence of a proposal that I have withdrawn in favour of Trovatore's much-improved new proposal. It is now what Americans would call moot. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Typing ÷ is no more arduous than typing — or  . Regardless of that, I see no reason to prefer ÷ over /. Largoplazo (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Image used by it:Obelo
    Both. It depends on the grade level and the complexity of the problem. We use the division symbol (÷) in elementary schools for basic math (96 ÷ 3 = ?). In high school algebra we continue to use it to introduce basic algebraic notation (such as 2n ÷ 4 = 16) but is phased out as the problems become more complex and the slash is introduced. In higher mathematics, a slash is used exclusively. Blueboar (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I'm reminded of the old idea that Wikipedia should be accessible to a 14-year-old reader (qualified as "inquiring" or "intelligent"?); for them the division symbol (÷) might be becoming a childish thing, to be put away. NebY (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See section above, § Unspaced slash: the rest of this section's advice on formatting division is also bad. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Question / alternative proposal: If I understand the exchange above between @JMF and @Trovatore correctly, we should say neither "prefer the division operator (÷) when representing elementary arithmetic in prose" (current text) nor "avoid using the division sign (÷)" (original proposal by JMF), but something like "alternatively, the division sign (÷) may be used when representing elementary arithmetic in prose". Did I get that right? Other suggestions welcome. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Another alternative would be to say nothing at all. Let editors decide which symbol is appropriate in any specific context. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify: Does that mean removing the whole sub-sentence "but prefer the ... mathematical formulas"? — Chrisahn (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what @Trovatore and I are saying. Just remove the statement of preference. Neither promote nor deprecate. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that a reply to me or to Blueboar? Blueboar said "say nothing at all", but that's not quite what I suggested... — Chrisahn (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. The argument from ISO standards might have some weight, and might point us towards the alternative proposal, but I think that the symbol is still very commonly used and perfectly well understood. The Italians occasionally using to it indicate a range seems a doubly flawed reason to depreciate. Firstly, I had a quick look at the Italian Wikipedia article about electronic calculators (it:Calcolatrice) and every electronic calculator shown used the symbol to mean division. Clearly this is not confusing to Italians. They know it means division. Secondly, almost the same argument that could be made that we filthy English speakers sometimes use a minus sign to indicate a range because we are too lazy to work out how to do a proper dash 80-90% of the time. Should we depreciate the minus sign as ambiguous then? Obviously, not. That would be silly. The alternative proposal might have merit but I see no reason to fully depreciate. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To prevent further misunderstandings, I have changed the section title. (Strictly, I should close the initial proposal and open a new proposal but who has time for that.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should also update your proposal, i.e. upate what comes after "I propose that MOS:SLASH be changed to read ...". At the moment, it's unclear what we're discussing here: Delete the sentence "but prefer the ... mathematical formulas"? Or replace it? If so, by what? — Chrisahn (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno if this really on-topic of me, but I thought I'd point out that MOS:RANGE does indeed indicate that an en-dash should be used, not any other type of dash or dash-like character. And, while in my personal life I find a standard hyphen-minus a fine character to use "lazily" for this purpose, I don't think it's silly for it to be deprecated on Wikipedia on a sort of best-practice basis. (It also would be kind of crazy to go to the trouble of using a true unicode minus or true unicode hyphen for this purpose, but I assume that's not what you mean.) Great point about the italian calculator page, by the way! Dingolover6969 (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The revised proposal

    [edit]

    @Chrisahn's point is valid, so here is the revised proposal:

    Accordingly, I propose that MOS:SLASH be changed to remove the stated preference for the elementary school division sign (÷)

    Does anybody really want to say that the elementary school division sign is acceptable and may be useful in some contexts? But that opens the Pandora's box of other specialist notations like U+2044 ⁄ FRACTION SLASH, U+2215 ∕ DIVISION SLASH and no doubt more.

    Further comments? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anybody really want to say that the elementary school division sign is acceptable and may be useful in some contexts?
    I still do, for the reasons stated above. FaviFake (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So can you propose a phrase or sentence? (and where it might go). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not been convinced the current wording is doing more harm than good, so I prefer it. FaviFake (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The current advice to prefer the ÷ sign over the slash is at variance with most serious usage. I consider the concern that the slash could be taken for and/or to be...a point, but not a particularly compelling one. --Trovatore (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This effectively seems to prohibit the division sign altogether, since it's no longer even mentioned as a valid option. (Only slash and fraction bar would remain valid options.) The sign is really not so bad to deserve that. Gawaon (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's an...unusual interpretation. In general not mentioning something in the MOS leaves it up to editor discretion and common sense; it doesn't ban it. We don't have to mention everything editors might do. --Trovatore (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        But that would mean to delete the "use a simple ASCII slash in most cases" advice and the rest of the sentence too. Then the issue would indeed not be mentioned and it would be up to editor discretion and common sense. But the suggested wording says "use a simple ASCII slash in most cases, but a fraction bar" in (presumably) the rest, leaving editor's choices essentially limited to these two options. Gawaon (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't have an opinion, just wanted to point out that the division sign ÷ is mentioned in the linked section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Common mathematical symbols, one click away. Close enough, maybe? Of course, another option would be to still mention the sign in MOS:SLASH, but in a neutral way, neither recommending nor discouraging its use. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That latter one would be my favourite option. Gawaon (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    I had intended the sentence to convey that a simple slash is preferred to a fraction bar, not that these are the only options. So would this be more acceptable:

    though it is worth recalling that the line is ostensibly about fractions and 10÷5=2 is not a fraction. So for that reason, I consider this wording to be an unsatisfactory and long-winded compromise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    We could make it a fraction by changing the example to 10 ÷ 4 = 5 ÷ 2. ;-) But I agree that it's already long-winded, and that would make it worse. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ a b BS ISO 80000-2, "Quantities and units Part 2: Mathematical signs and symbols to be used in the natural sciences and technology", Section 9 "Operations", 2-9.6
    2. ^ "6. Writing Systems and Punctuation" (PDF). The Unicode® Standard: Version 10.0 – Core Specification. Unicode Consortium. June 2017. p. 280, Obelus.

    First sentence dispute

    [edit]

    Please see Talk:Fall of Phnom Penh#RfC on lede wording. I believe that additional participation will help resolve the dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Amend: Car Units

    [edit]

    The WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions states: "We use the local standard(?) first when making judgments on localized units and terms”. This is open to interpretation and cherry picking. Local standard is too ambiguous.

    Wikipedia Dispute resolution Primary Unit Archive 247 (Peugeot) discussed this ambiguity. Due to the complexity of where a vehicle is made or marketed and what units to use, SI or non SI, I’d like to recommend we change the WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. WP:CAR UNITS

    Tesla vehicles are made in the USA, Germany and China, Headquartered in the USA. Mercedes are made in a number of countries but headquartered in Germany. I suggest that the primary unit reflect the location where the headquarters of the manufacturer are located.

    It was pointed out by the moderator on Archive 247 that choosing units from your source can be classified as cherry picking. So I'm going to suggest that the first paragraph be amended to:

    Line one (removed)

    The unit order follows a vehicle's headquarter location. For example, vehicles with American headquarters use "horsepower" (hp) with "kilowatts" (kW) in parentheses. British cars will use brake horsepower (bhp) and kilowatts (kW). Rest-of-world cars will use kilowatts (kW) and metric horsepower, with the general Wikipedia standard suggesting using PS as the abbreviation (from the German pferdestärke, as per German, Japanese, and South Korean practice) for metric horsepower. The wheelbase of an American-market car would be written as "116 in (2,946 mm)", while the wheelbase of a car from a metric country would be written as "2,946 mm (116.0 in)". Avi8tor (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I support this proposal. Do metric countries really state their wheelbases in mm, though? (As opposed to cm?) ~2025-35317-03 (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. As per MOS:UNITS, In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units (such as kilograms), non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable sources discussing the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, mass and luminosity of the Sun, etc.). In any case, I don't think this is the place to change the recommendations of the Automobile Project.
    Changing the units based on where the headquarters are located is unclear and would lead to anomalies - the Toyota Tundra, for instance, is a car developed for the US and built in the US and almost exclusively sold in that country. If editors choose to lead with inches and hp (the units used by reliable sources), that would be correct based on the applicable guidelines. Are Opels going to use PS, kW, or hp? It used to be a German subsidiary of Detroit-based GM, nowadays it belongs to the amorphous Stellantis group - their legal headquarters are in the Netherlands, but the CEO's office is in Michigan. Chrysler has changed hands repeatedly the last few decades, do we keep changing units based on when each car was built?  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose the changes because I agree with @Mr.choppers that this is not the correct forum for this discussion. Changes to WikiProject Automobiles conventions should be discussed at WikiProject Automobiles. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Do metric countries really state their wheelbases in mm" – They generally do, sometimes (maybe often, I don't know) even in material for US customers. A few (pretty random) examples:
    • Range Rover (UK brand, US site): mm [3]
    • Citroën (French brand, Australian site): mm [4]
    • Chrysler (US brand, US site): inches [5]
    • Chrysler (Canada site): mm [6]
    • Toyota (Japanese brand, US site): mm [7]
    • Toyota (UK site): mm [8].
    • VW (German brand, US site): in/mm [9]
    — Chrisahn (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's all meters, just move the decimal place. 2,946 mm is 2.946 meters. ~2025-36215-25 (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Writing all higher taxonomic names in italics

    [edit]

    Previously all higher ranks than genus and epithets have been written non-italicized. An article had proposed to change this for easier recognition in texts. Here is the article:

    "Thines, M., Aoki, T., Crous, P. W., Hyde, K. D., Lücking, R., Malosso, E., May, T. W., Miller, A. N., Redhead, S. A., Yurkov, A. M., & Hawksworth, D. L. (2020). Setting scientific names at all taxonomic ranks in italics facilitates their quick recognition in scientific papers. IMA Fungus, 11(1), 25–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43008-020-00048-6 "

    That states that all higher taxonomic ranks should be italicized. Should someone add this? I would love to go through some pages and add italics to higher rankings, and add the reason to this. But I would love to hear more opinions on this … I read the article and have to say I fully agree. MagnusVandbakk (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is not a scientific paper, and unless the authors of such papers widely adapt this new proposal (which seems highly unlikely me, but who knows?) we have no reason to do the same. In general, we follow the existing conventions; establishing new ones is not our goal. Gawaon (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I agree with Gawaon. This practice has not been widely adopted in scientific literature nor in other general reference works and style guides like ours. Our MOS mostly catalogues existing consensus on best practices and addresses perennial usage and style questions that arise on en-wiki. Adopting this new approach would affect tens of thousands of pages and likely cause more inconsistency, confusion, and disputes. I have my doubts about the paper's proposal on the merits but I think those are secondary at this point since our current practice is working fine. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Notice placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose for now. I'd want to see at a minimum some major publishing bodies or standards organizations adopt this into their style guides. It's been five years and I have not seen uptake in recently-published articles that I've or local conference posters. Though I am mostly in the chem/biochem arena, not deeply hardcore-bio, I'd still want to see adoption outside of a subset/niche bio area since it would affect a much wider scope on enwiki. DMacks (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That article was published in the journal IMA Fungus in November 2020. Has practice in mycology changed since then? I don't know how reliable Springer's metrics are, but they indicate that the article has had 44k accesses and no citations.[10] NebY (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It for sure has citations as mycologists I work with have cited it in several papers. MagnusVandbakk (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Has practice in mycology changed accordingly? For example, was such italicisation adopted in IMA Fungus before its demise, and have other journals adopted it? NebY (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From the cited 2020 paper:
    "We note and welcome that the practice of italicising scientific names at all ranks is already being adopted in a growing number of mycological and taxonomic journals. These include IMA Fungus, Fungal Biology, Fungal Diversity, Mycotaxon, Mycosphere, Studies in Mycology, Persoonia, Fungal Systematics and Evolution, The Lichenologist, and Willdenowia, among others. We are further pleased to note that this practise is also being adopted in recent mycological books…"
    I noticed that the major mycological journal Mycologia (published by the Mycological Society of America, contrasting with the generally international/Euro flavour of the above journals) wasn't on this list, so I checked, and its recent pubs show that it does not follow the practice. I looked in some of the 44 pubs that cite the 2020 paper to see what they had to say. Some snippets:
    Yes things are changing. If they weren’t I wouldn’t bring it here. As Esculenta wrote many papers are citing this paper and adopting the practice.
    This isn’t just mycology but botanical journals as well. I was actually planning to contact my museum as well to see if they would also start italicizing higher names. MagnusVandbakk (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No per everyone else. We follow established scientific and nomenclatural (is that a word?) consensus, not the latest recommendations and fads, no matter how well-informed the recommendations are. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not no per everyone else. This is also being applied in several botanical journals. Above @Esculenta even cited a holocephalan and oomycete paper agreeing and implementing. And even a paper that cited another article proposing the same for algae, plants and fungi. MagnusVandbakk (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also proposed by OP and discussed at Template talk:Taxobox#Writing all taxonomic ranks in italics, so courtesy ping to editors who participated there: @Kevmin, @Peter coxhead. NebY (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also oppose this, primarily on the grounds that this is a recent proposal with extremely limited adoption, though I must also admit that I think this is an extremely odd proposal that would make the literature more confusing rather than less. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole point is to make it more recognizable when people read taxonomic names. There is truly no reason to limit the italicization to only genera and epithets. MagnusVandbakk (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that by italicising all ranks, it is no longer immediately obvious whether a taxon is a generic/binomial name or the name of a higher rank. That is the advantage of italicising only generic and specific epithets: their rank is immediately recognisable regardless of what type of organism it is. For those of us familiar with the ICN it's easy to recognise most plant ranks by their suffixes, but this is not always the case and is not well known by non-botanists anyway. The use of italics for a generic name in the title of a paper makes it clear that this is referring to a genus, even if the reader has never heard of the genus before or even know what domain it belongs to - this allows even uninitiated readers to understand that Malva is a genus and Malvales is a higher taxon. But that's all besides the point that there is currently no consensus for such a change in the wider field of biology. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These suffixes aren’t only applicable to plants. In mycology we have the same thing. -mycota being a phylum for example. Or entomology with -tera being phylum.
    This isn’t just a thing in botany and the main thing is recognizing taxonomic groups. I’m really supportive of this proposition and will use it in my papers. I thought maybe Wikipedia would like to join in as well. MagnusVandbakk (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about mycology or botany, but as far as I've seen in zoology at least the practice of italicizing ranks higher than genus doesn't appear to be widespread yet (or at least in entomology works, since those are the ones I look at normally). You linked a paper on fossil fishes that does it, yes, but I don't feel that's enough to justify doing so across all Wikipedia. I feel it would have to become provably common practice for us to adopt it too, Wikipedia doesn't need to get ahead of the game?? (WP:CRYSTAL comes to mind, but if that doesn't apply here then ignore that)
    Interestingly, checking the ICZN code, an appendix giving general recommendations (which I forgot or didn't realise existed before, huh) actually recommends not to italicize names higher than genus:

    The scientific names of genus- or species-group taxa should be printed in a type-face (font) different from that used in the text; such names are usually printed in italics, which should not be used for names of higher taxa.

    Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, btw, a side note: "'tera being a phylum" in entomology isn't quite true if you forgive me being pedantic: 1) you probably meant order not phylum (Arthropoda is a phylum, Insecta a class (unless you follow WoRMS), and Lepidoptera, Diptera, Coleoptera, etc are orders) 2) the actual suffix is -ptera, meaning "wing", and even then it's not applied to all insect orders anyway (Blattodea for one) 3) there is no actual standard for naming of higher ranks in zoology altogether, it's actually completely arbitrary and haphazard in practice last I checked. I recall reading that standardization of such names in zoology has been attempted in the past (probably a couple of times even), but ultimately nothing ever really stuck. Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah my bad, I meant to write order:) MagnusVandbakk (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By that as it may, the burden is on you, MagnusVandbakk, to prove, by citing reliable sources such as pertinent style guides, that this proposed new convention is already widely followed in recently published literature. If yes, we could consider to adopt it too, if no, we obviously won't. Gawaon (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I will come back if such a guide is published. MagnusVandbakk (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I already weighed in elsewhere with a solid NO, but I will elaborate further that while the current Madrid Code for non-animal/viral taxa follows the practice, it specifies that it is NOT a rule, just a recommendation. Also, as already noted, it's in opposition to the current ICZN code, which restricts italics to only genus and lower. Wiki will make a change when there is broad usage and consensus across all life publications and its a generally accepted best practice for biology writing as a whole. as a side note @MagnusVandbakk: please note WP:forumshopping is frowned upon.--Kevmin § 18:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Gender neutrality in grammar examples

    [edit]

    Articles about languages, or about their grammar, typically include examples of sentences in the language and their equivalents in English. Many languages don't make a gender distinction in their pronouns, so a sentence using the third person singular could equally well be talking about someone who, in English, would be referred to as "he" or "she" or singular "they". In several places, Greenlandic language uses "(S)he" for these cases.

    With this edit, DdeWylvyn changed "(S)he says" to "They (sg.) say". While recognizing the omission made by "(S)he", I felt that, particularly since all the other examples "(S)he" were left intact, this made it look like the Greenlandic sentence could only be translated with the gender-neutral singular pronoun, that the Greenlandic equivalent to the sentence with "he" or "she" instead would have been something else. So I undid their edit with the edit summary While I've taken to using "they" as an indefinite singular in prose, this is too confusing, implying that the word is used ONLY for singular they and not for he or she. Also, you made it inconsistent with the other occurrences on the page. If anything, perhaps change it, consistently, to "(S)he or sg. they".

    But that led me to think I should get feedback, hence this post. I'm also going to notify WP:WikiProject Languages of this discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Tentatively, would it be worth footnoting the first instances of (S)he and he/she/it to the effect that in this article they stand for gender-specific, gender-neutral and impersonal third-person singular nominative pronouns such as she, he, singular they and it? NebY (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That would seem sensible: err on the side of comprehensibility in the text, and then give the specific bounds in precise terminology in the footnote. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems reasonable. Largoplazo (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise for having left inconsistency in the article; I was in a hurry at the time and it slipped my mind to go through the rest of the article. I believe that use of "they (sg.)" is most natural and logical, as it includes all 3rd person arguments regardless of gender (though perhaps not including inanimate ones) without any clunkiness. (unlike something like "he/she", "(s)he" (both implying the existence of only two genders) or "he/she/they" (very long; is unclear as to number) ("/it" could also be appended, for including all possible 3rd person pronouns)
    Honestly, it is just really inconvenient and annoying that English lacks any simple 3rd person gender-neutral pronoun. DdeWylvyn (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it use the word "one", as in substituting One can use "one" as a gender neutral pronoun" for They (or she or he) can use "one" as a gender neutral pronoun sometimes useful. Unfortunately, it sometimes sounds awkward, but much of the time it works fine.
    Informally "s/he" sometimes work for a generic person. It obviously does not suffice when referring to an individual who has identified a set of pronouns.
    Neopronoun is a relevant article for this discussion. Peaceray (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think "one" really works as a replacement for a third person pronoun. Its use is (~was) as an impersonal pronoun, never referring to a specific person. English usually uses "you" for that now. ("Can one/you be acquitted for a crime they didn't commit?" (yes, that is a strange example sentence that I just came up with))
    I generally use "they" for people, especially if I'm unfamiliar with them. If someone asks me to use something else, I will of course oblige.
    My opinion is that the best option for gender-neutral language in English is something like "they (sg.)" I haven't ever really heard a better alternative, and "they" comes quite naturally to me. DdeWylvyn (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I noted earlier, the problem with that is that it implies that the non-English sentence is likewise using an explicitly gender-neutral pronoun or suffix where a different pronoun or suffix would be used for sentences equivalent to English ones with "he" or "she". Since I don't know Greenlandic, I'll use Turkish, which also has no grammatical gender, to illustrate my point. If an example of Turkish were "Bana bir hediye verdi" (where ver- is the root for "give" and "-di" is the third-person singular past) and we translated it to "They (sg.) gave me a gift", that would imply that the Turkish sentence equivalent to "He gave me a gift" or "She gave me a gift" would be something other than the example given, that "verdi" is specifically for non-binary usage and Turkish uses one or more other third-person suffixes for male-identifying and female-identifying people. But that would be wrong. "Bana bir hediye verdi" means "He gave me a gift" and "She gave me a gift" and "They (sg.) gave me a gift". Writing only "they (sg.)" is just as misinformative as writing only "she". Largoplazo (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see it as implying that. Would you read something similar into "you (sg.)", and if so, what? Gawaon (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Modern English has only one second person singular pronoun, there's no analogy with the third person case with respect to the issue that I'm raising. (If this were Hebrew Wikipedia, where Hebrew does distinguish "you (m.sg.)" from "you (f.sg.), that would be another matter.) I'm also wondering whether you think my problem has to do with "(sg.)". It doesn't. If the pronoun that eventually came to be generally accepted for those who don't use "he" or "she" had been "ze/zig/zigs" instead of "they/them/their", and DdeWylvyn had made the same edit but with "ze" instead of "they (sg.)", I'd still be raising this issue. Largoplazo (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the obvious difference is that singular they is widely used and understood, while ze is not. And it's used as neutral pronoun, not just 'for those who don't use "he" or "she"'. Gawaon (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My premise was that "ze" had attained the role for the singular non-gender-specific pronoun that "they" has in fact attained. So, in that scenario, it wouldn't be a difference at all, the scenario is defined by it being the equivalent situation.
    You've just illustrated further what's wrong with it. My concern was already that it's misleading; you've just pointed out that it's ambiguous as well. Expecting readers to see "they (sg.)" in examples like these and to know intuitively that it's being used as a neutral pronoun for which "he" or "she" could just as well be substituted rather than as a non-gender-specific pronoun for which "he" or "she" could not be substituted is unrealistic, especially since in other situations, with other languages, it could be the other way around. The reader doesn't know which of these two equally possible meanings was intended. Since the point of the translation is to hone in on exactly what's going on in the other language, this fails the purpose of the translation. Largoplazo (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "They" is also used in English when someone's gender is unknown or unspecified, not only for non-binary people. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is another reason why just having "they (sg.)" is a problem. The reader doesn't know whether it's being used this way or the other way, and the difference is relevant to understanding what the sentence in the other language does mean and what it doesn't mean. My original concern was that this approach is misleading; it's even moreso because of this ambiguity. Largoplazo (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Using singular "they" usually works very well, but Greenlandic language does rather reveal English's problems. Some of the illustrative examples are translated using he/she/it, some with (s)he, and some with he/she/it/they, and Largoplazo asked for feedback here after you gave "They (sg.) say" instead of "S(he) says". That last highlights that if we use singular they, we have to change the English verb's inflection, or offer alternatives as also in the article, ""He/she/it/they love(s) us" and "He/she/it/they love(s) you (pl.)".
    As someone that doesn't know Greenlandic, I worry that we might not always represent the language correctly if we made such changes throughout (e.g. is that a singular or plural inflection of the verb in Greenlandic?), and also that we might make it harder for general readers to follow all our examples in a long article if we phrase them at such length. What to do? NebY (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Another issue with turning "(S)he says" to "They say" is that "They say" more often indicates plural than it does a singular. Would such a thing not cause confusion? Assuming, that is, that the word in Swedish is an exclusively singular, though gender-neutral pronoun? ~2025-38703-06 (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That's what DdeWylvyn anticipated by writing "They (sg.) say". Largoplazo (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Atleast in English there are only two genders, and inanimate object dont't carry a gender. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Except ships, of course. EEng 18:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the laugh! Any opportunity to get eyes on the old essay, eh? 😄 Largoplazo (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some say "God bless America, land that I love. / Stand beside her and guide her / Through the night with the light from above." NebY (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a sinking ship. EEng 19:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then there's the Church, "she" to Catholics and Anglicans alike, though also, per Mystici Corporis Christi, the mystical body of Christ. NebY (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's incorrect. "It" is the neuter pronoun used for inanimate objects. But these examples are generally about people so "it" wouldn't be an appropriate translation for the example in the other language. Largoplazo (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that it is pertinent to this discussion to mention that the singular they was first used in 14th-century English,[1][2][3] although its use has been criticized since the 18th-century.[4]
    FYI
     – I took the references straight from the singular they article.
    Peaceray (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When addressing people who insist "You can't use 'they' as a singular pronoun", sure, some respond by noting "Of course we can, it's been done since the 14th century." But that's not what this discussion is about. Largoplazo (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that Largoplazo has dismissed my comment as dismissive. However, I think that my comment is germane. My intent was to broaden the discussion. Peaceray (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And it is so tempting to broaden it – or digress wildly, as I did! But I do worry that we're not helping resolve the issue Largoplazo brought here, how to present the grammar examples in Greenlandic language. I'd even narrow it down further to one test case: how should the table in Greenlandic language#Noun incorporation be phrased? NebY (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "... broaden the discussion" = "take it off topic". Do you mind not diluting a discussion someone initiated for a specific purpose by turning it into a free-association free-for-all so that the original purpose gets lost? Largoplazo (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Balhorn, Mark (June 2004). "The Rise of Epicene They". Journal of English Linguistics. 32 (2): 79–104. doi:10.1177/0075424204265824. ISSN 0075-4242. S2CID 144747717. Archived from the original on 17 April 2023. Retrieved 1 June 2023.
    2. ^ Loughlin, Ayden (23 May 2021). "Frequency of singular they for gender stereotypes and the influence of the queer community". Lavender Languages and Linguistics Conference. Archived from the original on 25 May 2023. Retrieved 1 June 2023.
    3. ^ "they". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
    4. ^ Wales, Katie (1996). Personal Pronouns in Present-Day English. Cambridge University Press. p. 125. ISBN 9780521471022. Archived from the original on 13 December 2023. Retrieved 13 November 2019.

    Jargon definitions: Italics vs quotes?

    [edit]

    When doing FA/GA reviews, I often encounter sentences like: Gizmos that are purple are called gadgets, and are used ... I look to the MOS to get guidance on whether "gadgets" should be in quotes or italics (or neither). The MOS has three guidelines that may apply:

    These guidelines are overlap a bit and may appear contradictory to editors. Specifically, two of the guidelines say to use single quotes; but MOS:TECHNICAL says italics or quotes (and is silent about single vs double). Clarifying MOS:TECHNICAL to address the following questions may help future editors:

    1. Should the phrase "it should be italicized or quoted" from MOS:TECHNICAL tell editors that double quotes are discouraged (so it is more consistent with the other guidelines)?
    2. If MOS:TECHNICAL has situations where double quotes are permitted, should those situations be identified?

    Noleander (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    My two cents:
    – Gizmos that are purple are called gadgets ...: This is a normal grammatical role (a subject complement), syntactically equivalent to Young geese before fledging are called goslings. No italics or quotes are required.
    – Gizmos that are purple are called gadgets ...: This subject complement in italics shows emphasis; it is functionally equivalent to boldface or underlining (but more subtle).
    – Gizmos that are purple are called "gadgets" ...: This subject complement uses scare quotes for emphasis, which may also convey irony or indicate inappropriateness, as in These applications are known as "gadgets" ...
    – Gizmos that are purple are referred to with the term gadgets ...: This is apposition (equivalent to the word gadget, the noun gadget, etc., and would generally be set in italics as a word mentioned as a word. Doremo (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If these various approaches are the WP consensus, these kinds of examples may be useful on the MOS. Question: Your examples do not show a usage with single quote marks 'gadgets', yet MOS:SINGLE says to use single quotes when "defin[ing] unfamiliar terms"; was your choice of double quotes deliberate? Noleander (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    However, I think we'd want quotes in
    - Purple gizmos ('gadgets') are ...
    Italicizing that would be wrong, and scare quotes usually so, although maybe
    - Purple gizmos (jocularly "purdgets") ... Still, single quotes would also work here. NebY (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, Fowler seems to distinguish between familiar and unfamiliar words. The section on italics includes "Words, phrases or letters mentioned by name: 'The word loyally has three ls; the sentence adverb frankly is the equivalent of the phrase to be frank.'" The section on quotation marks has "may be used to enclose an unfamiliar or newly coined word or phrase, or one to be used in a technical sense: 'hermeneutics' is the usual term for such such interpretation; the birth or 'calving' of an iceberg." (italics in original) NebY (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Single quotes are conventionally used for glosses in linguistic contexts; for example, The Ukrainian word ґаджет 'gadget' is borrowed from English. Doremo (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=1327123338"