Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 216

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

About two months ago I started this same conversation here and while there were “Opposes” & “Supports” (even if the “Supports” weren’t bolded and written as such, they were there), no conclusion was ever really made so I thought maybe I could revive it here since another user insists upon consistent reverts to my submitted content.

So again, I propose that when alphabetizing French surnames containing the prefix "de" or "d'"(meaning of), alphabetize under the actual surname, not under the preposition/particle. With the article "La" or "Le", the capitalization almost always occurs under the prefix.

Also, capitalization of the element is also considered a factor. La and Le are almost always capitalized while de and d' are usually lowercased, meaning, in alphabetized lists, names are alphabetized under their first capitalized element.

Examples:

Lesseps, Ferdinand de

Musset, Alfred de

and

La Bruyere, Rene

La Tour, Georges de

Issue:

The above has often been disputed and has led to occasional edit wars regarding proper alphabetizing in paragraphs and lists within articles. This issue isn't addressed anywhere in Wikipedia and maybe it's time? AnAudLife (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

References/Citations:

• "In French and Belgium surnames, the preposition de is usually ignored in alphabetization, while the article la usually is not. Lesseps, Ferdinand de and La Tour, Georges de." Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writers and Editors

• "In the names of Frenchmen and -women, de and d’ are almost always lowercased; treatment of du varies. La and Le are almost always capitalized. In alphabetized lists, names are alphabetized under their first capitalized element." GrammerPhobia

• "If the prefix consists of an article or of a contraction of an article and a preposition, enter under the prefix: La Bruyere, Rene and Des Granges, Charles-Marc. Otherwise, enter under the part of the name following the preposition: Musset, Alfred de and La Fontaine, Jean de." Book Crossing

Comments:

• To whom is the BookCrossing quote attributed? What are their credentials on the matter? Grammarphobia mentions "the names of Frenchmen and -women," and therefore, French nationals. The reference does not state how to alphabetize nationals of other countries with names of French origin (e.g. Americans with French names still fall under the American naming system). It also references Charles de Gaulle, a French national, being known as de Gaulle, providing an exception to the rule. Who decides these exceptions? The Merriam-Webster reference seems accurate, however, it also seems to observe a pattern rather than a definitive rule. It also requires deducing where one's last name originates, and a guideline of such seems excessive. KyleJoan^talk 20:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

We have tons on this somewhere (or in several places). It gets very complicated, and is not consistent. I don't entirely see why the nationality of the person matters - and how is one always supposed to know that? Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@KyleJoan: What is your basis for alphabetizing Lesseps, Ferdinand de (alphabetized by the "L") and Lesseps, Luann de (you're proposing by the "de")? What is the difference as you interpret it, they are the same particle and surname? Because she's an American that married a French man? I don't see why nationality plays a part at all. A French name is still a French name. Georges de La Tour is also alphabetized by the "L" as opposed to the "de", there are many names just like this that I've shared over and over and over. I've provided numerous references, discussions, even norms, where are yours? To address the validity of my sources...if you read them fully I'm sure you will have a greater understanding of their content. AnAudLife (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I think KyleJoan's point is that an American of French ancestry with the same name would almost certainly be alphabetized under "D" for "de la Tour". Even if they were descended from the same person as a Frenchman. So, in this English language work (Wikipedia), you seem to be advocating the idea that the American would be filed under D and the Frenchman under L. That seems weird to me. --Khajidha (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

As Johnbod pointed out, alphabetizing is already complicated and inconsistent, and in my view, assigning more guidelines based on the origin of one's name without regard to their nationality brings more confusion. For example, if two people of two different nationalities with no relation hold the same last name, per

WP:MCSTJR, the alphabetization may place them differently based on each country's naming system. Moreover, regarding Americans specifically, if one's last name contains a de, they would be filed under D regardless of capitalization. KyleJoan^talk

22:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

But standard English usage would be to not file under "D". Consider the English equivalent of the Duke of Edinburgh; he would be files under "Edinburgh, Duke of" not "of Edinburgh, Duke". Where the "de" has been permanently joined to the main part of the name the situation is different; "John DeLorean" files under "DeLorean, John". If this were an issue of transsexual names

MOS:GENDERID would be insisting that we use the name by which a person wishes to be known. Should not the same apply here and we should stop trying to force non-English names into an assumed enGB or enUS pattern? Martin of Sheffield (talk

) 22:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

But "Duke of Edinburgh" is an actual English phrase with an actual English meaning. By contrast, "de la Tour" has no meaning in English aside from being a name. --Khajidha (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree that one's preference regarding the alphabetization of their name should take precedence. I'm addressing situations where said preference isn't known. On the subject of de separated from the main part of one's name, Olivia de Havilland, an American-British-French national, is alphabetized as de Havilland, Olivia. Such might be her preference, but aside from that, her French nationality directs that she should be alphabetized as Havilland, Olivia de. To further complicate it, both of her parents were British; therefore, her nationality and the origin of her name aren't identical. We may not even know the origins of some names at all, so I believe assumed en-GB and en-US patterns are fair when the subjects are nationals of those countries. KyleJoan^talk 00:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Both List of Pi Kappa Phi chapters and Sigma Delta Alpha both have a *block* of comments more than 25 lines long on the proper way to change or add rows to the chapter table. While as far as I can tell, these are correct, is this a proper use of the Comment block? I'm not sure that an edit notice can be restricted to display only if that section (or the entire article) is edited. I don't like the block, but I'm not sure what would be better.Naraht (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

If it's hidden in an HTML comment, it's harmless. In these cases, they're useful, because article like this will attract the edits of noobs (e.g. fraternity members) who have no idea how to edit wikitables and who aren't likely to go read a separate documentation page. The material could probably be compressed a bit, but it's not directly affecting the output for the readers, and indirectly affecting it positively (by heading off well-meaning but incompetent changes that mangle the tables). So, it's not really a style matter. — 

AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c

15:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

AReaderOutThataway Given that WP:COMMENT appears to be the policy that most directly pertains, I think that this would be the place to discuss. I agree that it doesn't hurt it, but I think there needs to be something indicating what is an isn't appropriate in a comment...Naraht (talk

)

No, this isn't the place. Work it out on the talk page of one of the articles. EEng 22:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, we really have no interest in micro-managing HTML comments. Whether any are needed at a page and what one should say generally depend entirely on the editing history, formatting, and other aspects of the article. E.g., at a list of rabbit breeds or pool and billiards games, one might need an HTML comment mentioning

AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c

06:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The titles of some news/magazine articles use sentence case (e.g. "Here's what we know about the fires in the Amazon rainforest") while others use title case (e.g. "The Amazon Cannot Be Recovered Once It's Gone"). Should these titles be standardized to one style of capitalization within an article, or should the original capitalizations be retained? The preferred approach isn't clear to me after reading through

Using a headline in an article would be a form of quotation, I reckon, so I'd recommend putting it in quotes and styling it however it was in the original. But I don't think there's specific guidance on it. Primergrey (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing he means in citations. I'd be OK just copying the original (not all-caps though), or making them consistent; whatever reference style is picked for an article (consistent or mixed case) should then be left alone. Unless we someday have a preferred reference style about such things. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the capitalization style in citations. In response to

MOS:CONFORM says that it's fine to alter quotations in order to align them with Wikipedia's house formatting guidelines. I was just wondering if Wikipedia actually has a house style when it comes to the capitalization of headlines in citations. From what Dicklyon is saying, it doesn't seem like there's a specific guideline about this. I personally think that standardizing to title case looks best if some of the headlines in the references section already use title case—but I agree that copying the original titles and leaving them mixed-case would also be fine as long as it's done consistently. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk

) 05:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Every publisher alters capitalisation in titles of works cited to harmonise with their own house style. Otherwise reference lists would be a mess. WP prefers not to capitalise unless necessary. Tony (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

My take is that a headline is the title of a work within the paper, much as a journal article within a journal. I would suggest consistently using title case for same. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Our default (per

AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c

15:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This is what I was thinking initially; I just wasn't sure if

MOS:TITLECAPS's guidelines about the capitalization of "works" applied to "sub-works", as you call them. However, it makes sense to consider newspaper articles, book chapters, etc. as works in their own right, and to convert them to title case accordingly. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk

) 17:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Tony1, just so I'm clear: When you say that Wikipedia prefers to avoid unnecessary capitalization, are you suggesting that the titles of newspaper articles and the like not be normalized to title case? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I certainly would downcase newspaper article titles—Especiallly New York Times Practice of Capping The Start Of Even Small Words Like "To". I can't believe they still persist, and it's a disservice to our readers to plant it in our articles. MOS insists on consistent approach within an article, So If Reproducing That Style, It Should Be Done Throughout For Article Titles From Not Only Newspaper, But Academic Journals. :-) Tony (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, if using title case, we would adopt our style rules for title case and not just cap every word. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, after seeing this reply I'm less sure about the answer to my question than I was to begin with. Downcase all headlines? Copy the original headlines and leave mixed-case? Convert all headlines to title case per

MOS:TITLECAPS? People in this discussion have suggested all three options. I guess there isn't a firm consensus on this issue. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Lord Bolingbroke (talk

) 16:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The default would be to convert, as needed, per MOS:TITLECAPS. Deviate from it, per WP:CITEVAR, when the article is already consistently using a citation style that demands a different treatment (most often sentence case), unless it's all-caps, a style that is effectively banned by MOS:CAPS. There's really just one answer, if you know the applicable guidelines and how they interrelate. However, simply copy-pasting the original formatting from the source into a citation is entirely permissible; no one has to comply with MoS to add material, and adding viable citations in particular is more important that tweaking their orthography (just don't fight against

AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c

06:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors can program Wikipedia’s engines to control the language with little thought or consideration — robotically. And some do, with hundreds of edits: They use search engines to go around correcting grammar all across Wikipedia in a wholesale manner. For example, if an editor doesn't like sentences to end with prepositions, or they don't like the Oxford comma. To mention two examples that experts are divided about, that are not "settled law", and which the language in it's usual way, may eventually deal with. The English language has evolved naturally over time. That should be allowed. Instead, some editors, armed (cyborg-like) with engines and other tools, attempt to subvert and inhibit in a thoughtless way both English usage, and the language’s ability to evolve naturally. (We should all be either “pro-evolution” or else speak in Old English. Grammar-Nazis are on the wrong side of history.) How the language is affected by our devices, as a principle, should be considered. Wikipedia is a thing built out of language (and also engines). I’d like to know if anyone else has considered this, or can think of what to do. I think one possible solution is for Wikipedia to publish some kind of guidance against thoughtless, wholesale editing of this type. Thanks. - Quarterpinion (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

So you want a guideline saying "Editing thoughtlessly is not recommended"? EEng 14:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure SMcCandlish had commented on an addition like this at some point recently. I'm not sure where it is though. --Izno (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry to point out that SMcCandlish hasn't edited since May. I'm guessing this is a result of the Signpost kerfuffle, but whatever's going on, I hope he comes back when he's ready. Though he could be a bit of a motormouth at times, his knowledge and insight were more than valuable. EEng 04:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, wait, good. He's not dead [1]. EEng 04:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Aside from seeking obvious errors (Hapsburg, millenium, the the, etc.), I think nearly everyone already agrees that drive-by edits solely based on personal preferences are largely inappropriate. Doremo (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

As background for anyone who's not aware, this relates to Quarterpinion falling foul of

Iridescent

14:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

In terms of disruptive crusades, Griraffe's seems one of the least concerning to me. It's not a hard-and-fast rule (is there anything in English that is?) but it's also not hard to work around, and it's nowhere near as big an effect on article structure as most other MoS issues. It'd be like me going around to change "hold down the fort" and "chomping at the bit" to the correct versions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

To respond to a couple of comments:

EEng, I think a possible guideline could say something like: “Wikipedia editors have the ability to program Wikipedia’s engines to control the language wholesale or robotically — with little thought or consideration, with hundreds of edits that correct what they consider usage errors, but they should not. If an editor doesn't like sentences to end with prepositions (as one example), that is something that experts are divided about, it is not "settled law”. The language in a natural and evolutionary way, may eventually deal with this kind of issue. The English language should be allowed to evolve. Editors should not use engines and other tools to attempt to subvert and inhibit in a thoughtless way both English usage, and the language’s ability to evolve naturally. Editors may edit as they see fit, but not wholesale — with many consecutive edits — but with thought and consideration given for each edit that’s made.”

Iridescent gives one example, but there are others. And I’m more interested in whether Wikipedia can handle the larger or umbrella-principle sense of this — in a way that would be helpful to past and future examples. Griraffe is not the only one doing this. As Iridescent indicates, commenting on a talk page of someone who is making wholesale edits appears to get you nowhere. - Quarterpinion (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

If someone is bulk-editing disruptively, that's a policy violation. If they're just editing to replace something which isn't correct in all variants of English with a synonym that is—as is the case with "comprised of"—then that falls under

Iridescent

15:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent, I don’t consider the issue to be disruptive editing, or a violation of current policy. I think its a question of how Wikipedia uses the English language — thoughtfully or not — and do we allow the English language to evolve freely as it has for centuries. Can we edit thoughtlessly like robots on an assembly-line? Click, click, click? Yes, we can. Hundreds of edits can be made in a few minutes without much thought — by using devices on Wikipedia that were certainly not intended to contribute thoughtlessness, or to limit the language’s evolution. We can keep the language on a short leash, we can control it with the use of engines. We can do all that, and we do. But should we? I don’t think so. I don’t see this covered in

WP:COMMONALITY. It may call for a new policy, if not perhaps a guideline. Quarterpinion (talk

) 16:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:COMMONALITY isn't policy, and blanketly enforcing it, in opposition to local article consensus, could well be considered to be disruptive. -- DeFacto (talk

). 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's purpose isn't to be an expression of the full diversity of the English language; its purpose is to be informative. If there are some constructions which some readers (including me) but not all readers consider to be errors, leaving them in when there are universally accepted alternatives just distracts from the information being conveyed. Most professional publications with a large amount of text (newspapers, serious magazines, encyclopedias) don't allow free variation in language, either. They have style manuals, like this one, which make arbitrary choices about what language forms to use. If done well, this sort of consistency looks better on the page and is also easier to read. Professional publications, like Wikipedia, which do not have bylines, do not seek to sound as if they were written by a dozen or thousand different voices; they seek to sound like a single voice with a consistent and appropriate style. (Though Wikipedia is so big it does have noticeably different voices due to different national varieties of English.) One of the reasons to have editors at all is to harmonize the work of different authors. It's possible to enforce too much consistency and create monotony by eliminating too many grammatical variations, but this manual of style and this particular grammatical change being made aren't anywhere near that line. Elimination of perceived error lends credibility (if we can't get the grammar right, why expect us to get the facts right?) and in this case appears to have been done quite thoughtfully. Should we worry that people who make systematic adjustments to language forms in Wikipedia are influencing what people think of as correct English? I think Wikipedia does have an influence, but I actually think this sort of process is creating a new, better version of English — one that is more easily understood everywhere in the world. This isn't pushing language change by inventing new forms or using neologisms, it's picking the best parts of the already commonly accepted language, which is exactly what editors should be doing. -- Beland (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Elimination of "comprised of" and "comprising of" will certainly be a step in a good direction. It's hard to imagine why anyone would argue to keep such meaningless errorful constructs in an encyclopedia. Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• This topic could be its own issue. Right now it is only part of other conversations. If anyone wants to make this its own issue, then make a Wikipedia: page, try to collect links to various similar discussions which happened in the past, propose a guideline, then RfC to set the precedent. We will be at day 0 of the conversation until and unless someone does this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

If I may respond to a couple of the above comments. Dicklyon, I am not at all interested keeping or eliminating the particular constructs you mentioned. If an editor wants to edit those things, they should do so. My question is not really a “style question”, so I may be on the wrong page, sorry if I am, but people here are thoughtful about more than just style, and I appreciate it. Beland, I don’t think we disagree that a Manual of Style is a good thing. Though I may not go along when you suggest that Wikipedia seeks to sound like a single voice. If that were so, Wikipedia would not be what it is, and such a goal would probably have to be spelled out somewhere. Bluerasberry, I think your suggestion is a good one, it sounds like potentially the best WP method to deal with the kind of question I’m asking. Thanks, to all. - Quarterpinion (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This is already covered by the interplay of

@

AReaderOutThataway: Thank you very much, this answers a lot, and it makes sense. I am intrigued by your mention that "A year or so ago, we had two much bigger cases” — can you give some idea where to find those discussions? Thanks again. - Quarterpinion (talk

) 14:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't really recall the details. Archive 205 has a proposal to add MEATBOT-related wording to MoS, as a result of those incidents, so presumably they were not too long before that. The thread at the top of that page mentions MEATBOT, but doesn't seem to be one of the two cases that followed one shortly after the other. At least one of them ended up at ANI. I can't remember what the topics were, but there was drama because in both cases it was semi-automated change that wasn't really necessary to begin with, and which continued after objection to the changes. — 

AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c

22:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm sort of a newcomer here. I believe the MoS may be a goldmine in terms of capturing great wiki culture (wikipatterns?). As it happens, I'm pondering (corporate) article guidelines to mitigate articles going outdated, poorly structured or otherwise unappealing and unmanageable. I'll definitely peruse Wikipedia:Essays in a nutshell/Article writing but also miss any reference to it from here. I feel that somewhere, beside all the details already here, there is an abstract concept of what makes a great, timeless article - can we add it to the manual of style somehow? Also all guidance and inspiration is much appreciated, do share it! CarlJohanSveningsson (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by what it is that you're after. It seems to me that any article that's outdated, poorly structured or unmanageably verbose needs updating, restructuring or trimming, and that this will be obvious to most people, who, if they have the time, energy and inclination, will update, restructure or trim without being told that/how this is necessary. As for the abstract concept, how about Wikipedia:Principles? If you're after the abstract concept of good encyclopedic writing, I'd warn you off it: good writing comes from practice (plus intelligence, etc) rather than from reading and citing abstract concepts. And as you've written very little in en:WP since 2012, I'd urge you to get in a lot of writing practice before considering how to tell others how they should write. Apologies if I misunderstand your question. -- Hoary (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, slight misunderstanding, but I still very much appreciate your comment and thoughts! Will digest them a while...

Indeed I'm after something like the "concept of good encyclopedic writing", though perhaps even more general. Admittedly I'm asking from the standpoint of the corporate wikis I work with. Since Wikipedia has established certain wikipatterns (and I will read "Chapter 2. Your Wiki Isn’t (Necessarily) Wikipedia") but the concept I'm certain may be formulated isn't in this manual, beside posing my question I figured it may eventually be incorporated here.

Let's see, humoring me yet another moment, what I'm after... In Wikipedia, which article to create may be a smaller issue than in a corporate wiki where anything from meeting minutes to FAQs will mix. However, relating to another mode of knowledge capture, commit messages should "Use the imperative mood in the subject line" as well as "Use the body to explain what and why vs. how". More than may be expected, these subtle decisions influence the long-term usefulness of the message. An antipattern (in corporate wikis) would be authoring walkthroughs, which usually get outdated and confusing as soon as circumstances of any step within them change.

So, realizing trying to apply this "wikipattern" back to Wikipedia is strenuous, I am asking for principles of article authoring that will minimize maintenance and maximize their timelessness. Anyway, the references I've already received and found will give some insight, but there you have an elaboration of my general train of thought. Thanks again for your attention. CarlJohanSveningsson (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

We have lots of this material already, and

AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c

18:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think that lakh and crore are not understood by most of the English-speaking world, or at least not by most of the English-speaking world outside of India. For other ENGVAR things like spelling and word choice, there's not usually much intelligibility issue, so that's all fine. In this case, a stronger suggestion to not use lakh and crore, or at least to be sure to also show numbers that the rest of the world would understand, makes the most sense. But I haven't looked at the wording; that's just my opinion of a thought to approach it with. Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Even the most discouraging MOS pages I found allow the terms when "contextually important" as they often are (sources and other editors use the terms constantly). All MOS pages I looked at recommend linking first instances the terms for those who don't understand them. As I noted in a Talk:India thread some time ago, my print Encylopædia Britannica uses those terms without any explanation. IOW, if you're interested in India, you should understand those terms. What you're definitely not supposed to do is adopt the digit separators peculiar to the Indian system (99,99,99,999), which indicate lakhs and crores. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

To me, "contextually important" for crore means that the article is actually talking about the crore as an entity in its own right, probably in the context of number systems in general. This is a pretty standard exception for most kinds of proscriptions in the MOS; conversion from crores to millions is trivial and shouldn't depend on what was used in a source. What EB did is kind of irrelevant. People who happen upon an India-related article shouldn't be expected to know what crores and lakhs are. But the main point is that we have contradictory guidance in two places in the MOS. I don't know the whole history or what should have precedence, or all the various discussions that have happened up to this point. I started this thread to try to get this sorted out, and because some other people probably have a better handle on that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The recent RFC is here. --Izno (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Mnmh, yeah. Well, MOS, like all rules, is usually more supposed to codify common practice than didactically prescribe stuff. I guess common practice by Indian editors using Indian sources in articles pertaining to India is to use the Indian numbering system a lot (not always, I guess). So OK. If you're looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles, you're specifically looking for guidance on articles related to India. For those, it says you "may" (not "must" or even "should") use the Indian numbering system. That seems sensible.

But then, the main MOS says that this is discouraged in Wikipedia articles by

WP:INDIA

(and perhaps not even being aware of what the main MOS says, or anyway preferring WP:INDIA) wants to use the Indian numbering system, that also is entirely fine.

And

milliards

and crore and so forth. But then neither does it specify that the Indian numbering system is not included. And lists of examples are not considered to be intended to be exhaustive unless so stated, I think.

And that's the situation that we have now. I'm not seeing a huge problem. Unless there starts to be a conflict or something. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

This could be expressed better. It probably should say "this is discouraged in Wikipedia articles by

WP:ENGVAR, so do what you think best, and give others that same courtesy". Or something. But it's not worth the heavy lifting to enact this language, at least for me. Herostratus (talk

) 00:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

BTW, looking at the above-mentioned RfC, I see that my comment re the Encyclopædia Britannica was made there, not at Talk:India, in case someone actually went searching for it at the latter spot and couldn't find it. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I just ran across Mahanagar Gas which needs some cleanup relative to use of lakh. Is there an appropriate tag? MB 23:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Sometimes Wikipedia has ambiguity and mixed practices as its chosen norm, and this is one of those cases. I think the mixed use is fine and that articles on Indian topics are better for using the standard terms in the source literature and culture. If anyone proposed another guideline discussion on the topic then I would participate. Blue Rasberry (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Per
  AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c
  15:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• ENGVAR is one thing (and believe it or not, I once published (1999) a hefty AE-BE dictinary), but the language of Wikipedia as I understand it, is supposed to be fairly easily understood by most readers whether native English users or not. We are not supposed to be confronting them with guessing games that force them to leave the page unnecessarily to look up what is meant. This is the English Wikipedia and AFAIK, it's not the 'Indian Wikipedia in English' - yet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Kudpung. The use of crore, lakh and the "peculiar" comma-separations impedes access for the majority of our readers and adds nothing except in articles specifically concerning those units and formats. - Sitush (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Has there been a resolution on WP of the Native American name controversy? There are some editors who use, or insist on using, the word Indian. This word is considered pejorative or racist by some. It is also inexact in an internationally available site or publication, as it refers to persons of the sub continent. The article

I have changed the word Indian to Native American and "Indian" only to have the change reverted by an editor, different pages. I have tried to bring the issue to discussion on talk pages, but either no response, or an angry response. Is a consensus possible? It would eliminate edit warring and cool things down. The US Government has opted for the term Native American. Should not WP follow the lead of the government?Oldperson (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@

AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c

@

AReaderOutThataway:Thanks so very much for your clear and succinct response.It took some research but I think that I have done the job. See the template Talk:Native American name controversy I hope that does it. There shouldn't be a controversy on WP, as it is a source for the public at large and especially. School children, what they see here they carry with them, be it myth, fact, propagana or AGF disinformation.Oldperson (talk

) 21:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Indian" is not racist if, for instance, it is the name of an established organization run by Native Americans (and there is zero doubt they are actually Native Americans. For more on this, see the work in progress essay: User:Vizjim/The "Indian princess great-grandmother" principle), or if it's part of the self-identification of someone who is clearly Native American. Obviously, if someone is intending it as a perjorative, don't use it. But there is zero need to go around changing it in pages unless it was clearly intended as part of a slur or attack. However, "Red Indian", like Redskin, is a pejorative and should not be used. "Amerindian" or "Amerind", while primarily found in literature from the 1970s, is no longer used and seen to be... kind of annoying.
• Use people's actual Nation/Tribe - this is best. The usual formula used in the Native press is Name of person (Nation). For example:
  Chuck Hoskin, Jr. (Cherokee Nation
  ).
• Native American or Native is probably the most common nowadays, especially among younger people, running neck and neck with,
• Indigenous, though Indigenous is not specific to the Americas. It can be coupled with a more specific term such as "Indigenous Australian" or "Indigenous Canadian". But on it's own it's too broad if you're only referring to Native Americans in the United States and/or
• ☼ 21:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)::@CorbieVreccan:Thank you. Exactly what I was looking for. Issue resolved on my partOldperson (talk
  ) 19:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally concur on using the actual nation/tribe name, and Native American or Indigenous [Where ever]ian otherwise. "Indian" (racist or not) is ambiguous. FNIM is a Canadianism no one else recognizes, though it might be okay on second+ use, in an article about Canadians, after being given in full form (e.g., "...
    AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c
    20:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• I can not remember where I read it (so I can’t say it was an RS) but one source used the term “initial immigrants”. Certainly not common enough for us to use it... but thought provoking. Blueboar (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Vlueboar Initial immigrants is factually accurate, however (as far as we have origin knowledge about our species), every occupant of every part of the globe can be described as I.I. Australian aborigines are I.I, the Ainu of Japan are II, and the various peoples of China are I.I. Teutonic tribes, British Celts, the Basque. To call Native Americans I.I is disquieting, the migration, at least in North America, occurred about the time of the ice age. There is a serious question though about the origins of South American natives (especially from DNA analysis). Given it serious consideration even Native American is misleading, as ambiguos as Indian. Essentially I am a native American, but America is a large continent, North,South and Meso.I don't think that we have yet devised an accurate, unambiguos, non insulting, non pejorative term acceptable to all. Much the same as Black or African American. I know some who react negatively to being referred to as African American, and rightfully so, they aren't from Africa. In fact I have no use at all for hyphenated anything. Am I English-American, German-American, Scotch Irish-American, Irish-American, those are all my ancestral roots, and then there is the"one drop" rule, by which people of color are often stigmatized, and discriminated against. The real question is what underlies the psyche of our species that we so need to categorize, label, disenfranchize, marginalize and discriminate against those that aren't like us.. and that is an across the board critique.Oldperson (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

There is

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 215#e.g. --Izno (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Surely Navboxes and particularly the template {{Navboxes}} for subgrouping and hiding sub navboxes, all fail the Don't Hide guideline en masse? -- 109.79.169.24 (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Navboxes are not generally considered part of the article-proper. --Izno (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

OK. I'm trying to figure out why the rules that apply elsewhere don't seem to apply to Navboxes (which are usually pointless hidden bloat). -- 109.79.169.24 (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MOS:CONSISTENCY. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -DePiep (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Similar:

WP:US

WP:PLURALS -- Archive 211 -DePiep (talk

) 16:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The Navy itself seems to be not entirely consistent. The home page of https://www.navy.mil/ currently has several instances of both forms, including a mailing address with "US Navy". The https://www.army.mil/ site seems to be more consistent.

There is also inconsistent usage of "US Marine" (five instances including one of "US Marine Corps", plus several of the citations) vs. "U.S. Marine" (two instances including one of "U.S. Marine Corps", plus one reference). The https://www.marines.mil website and Twitter account] seem to use "U.S." consistently.

Here there is mixed usage in the same sentence: "The U.S. Department of Defense reports that US forces suffered 148 battle-related deaths".

What about "the U.S. 3rd Armored Division also fought..."?

--IamNotU (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"Proper names" are not immune to our style guidelines in the general case, and in this specific case, I'd say certainly not. Consistency is preferable. --Izno (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

MOS:US is clear about in-article consitency (not WikiProject-wide though). When lack of consensus, a first article version periods or not could be decisive. -DePiep (talk

) 14:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

DePiep, thanks, but the question isn't about which variant to use overall, but whether, in the case of an established use of "US", there is any guideline to favor spelling a proper noun, such as "U.S. Marine Corps", the way they spell it themselves, even if it's not consistent with the rest of an article's established usage. --IamNotU (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Got that, nothing to add. -DePiep (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both for the feedback, I edited the article for consistent spelling of "US", including "US Navy", etc. --IamNotU (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Greetings! When introducing a direct quotation within a phrase, in addition to the quotation marks, should the quotation be italicized or not? For example, which one is correct?

1. Obama said that the "threat from climate change is serious".
2. Obama said that the "threat from climate change is serious".

I am sorry I couldn't come up with a better example, and yes I am fully aware that one should try to paraphrase first etc. But just as a simplistic example, in case of a direct quotation, should it be italicized or not?

Thank you very much in advance! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• No. Quotation marks already indicate the material is a quotation. Doremo (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• MOS:ITALQUOTE. --Izno (talk
  ) 20:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

An RfC at this Help page for the citation template is about a single footnoting template, Citation Style 1's "cite web."

Yet the wording of the close says "names of websites in citations/references should be italicized," without making clear that this consensus is only for the use of this template.

We're not required to use this template — Help:Citation Style 1 even says, "The use of CS1 or of templates is not compulsory; per WP:CITESTYLE: Wikipedia does not have a single house style." Yet because the wording of the close is overly broad, I'm hearing editors mistakenly say that it now is compulsory and official house style to italicize things not normally italicized in mainstream footnoting, such as the names of companies and institutions (as opposed to newspapers and magazines, which are always italicized).

I could have sworn we had a page for reviewing RfC closes. I'd like to address the overly broad language of this close, since this RfC on a technical page about the programming of a single template is being taken as mandating something that significantly affects all of Wikipedia — imposing a single house style without any discussion on a more wide-ranging Manual of Style page. Can someone direct me to the RfC review page, if it still exists, or otherwise point me in the right direction to have the wording of this RfC close reviewed? --Tenebrae (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!--Tenebrae (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Over on 2I/Borisov there is a bit of concern that the "I" in that name when used in prose looks like a lower-case "L" in more default sans-serif fonts. It is tried to establist that "2I" stands, effectively, as "second interstellar", but its not a proper abbreviation, just the naming scheme of the IAU. As this is not a proper word, there's lack of context to know what letter that is actually mean to be.

Is there a way to handle this case to make sure the causal reader is not confused here between the upper-case "I" and lower-case "l"? Maybe using "code" or "pre" tags? --Masem (t) 18:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Heck, I thought that was a 1. --Khajidha (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it could say in the lead "pronounced 'two eye Borisov'" to make it clear, if that's how it's prononunced. SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The similarity, or identity, of glyphs for capital I (eye), lower case l (ell), and numeral 1 (one) is common in many sans serif typefaces. In some sans serif typefaces, capital I (eye) is thicker than lower case l (ell); in some, lower case l (ell) is slightly taller than capital I (eye). These subtle distinctions don't help until a reader discovers them. This ambiguity is one of the good reasons for avoiding sans serif typefaces altogether. On ancient low resolution monitors, serifs displayed poorly, so sans serif typefaces with thick strokes became common in computing.—Finell 22:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention | (vertical bar). This is one reason why using sans-serif for mathematical formulae is a bad idea. Usually for English prose the ambiguity doesn't matter so much but here it does. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at MOSNUM#What to use instead of the ordinal indicator?, regarding non-English use of ordinals. --Izno (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I got into an argument with Ke an at ther talk page. They created a number of articles on post-WWI Lithanian guerilla groups. They were actually copypasted copyright-protected text from this website, and wherever I found it, I revision-deleted the edits. The argument, however, was about on whether it is ok to write (battle in which 10 fighters) "perished" (see thwe website). It looks to me that this is POV, and the correct formulation is "killed". Ke an does not agree. None of us is a native English speaker. Opinions are appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd vote for "died" or (probably more accurately in the case of a battle) "were killed". "Perished" comes close to

talk

) 21:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I was in a discussion here where most of the participants were of the opinion that even "deceased" was not acceptable, so I'd imagine "perished" would get the same response. Primergrey (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think "perished" has different connotations than "died", it is just a more convoluted and old-fashioned way of saying the same thing. "Died" is simpler and therefore preferable. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

But does one say - "died in a battle"? I think "perish in a battle" is more abstract than "killed in the battle", since one can die in a war/battle by not being killed - for example one can drown by crossing the river during the battle. What about the war and battle context? -- Ke an (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, one does.Doremo (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, many do. Killed / died/ perished is a stylistic choice and also a matter of emphasis.—Finell 23:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

"Perish" is a normal verb used in English to describing dying in a violent or sudden way. I don't think we should be limiting the range of vocabulary available for Wikipedia editors to use in describing events in articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

There are lots of good reasons to avoid certain words. We have an entire

talk

) 10:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

But the WTA are generally loaded terms, or otherwise biased, POVvy or used to imply or infer another meaning. This word literally means to die in a violent or sudden way. Why would we ban a word meaning that in the context where that is the precise definition required and replace it with a word meaning something more general, or a phrase saying the same thing? 16:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand, but in the context of an encyclopaedia, the clearest, most direct, least connotation-loaded word (note how other editors feel the word is "poetic") is usually the best. I'm not proposing an outright ban, just saying it has no advantage for our purposes - just as I make a habit of replacing "utilised" with "used".

"Perish" does have a different shade of meaning from "die", but I consider that an acceptable loss of information. I also wonder how much that distinction really exists today - I didn't know today that there was a difference, and I write for a living.

talk

) 16:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't consider it part of a normal, neutral register, when used of people dying. It's just a bit too literary, poetic, and liable to sound affected. For occasional use only. William Avery (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

May be habit-forming. EEng 11:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Personally "perish" might not be my first choice of word, but I think it is a valid synonym to be used for variety in an article. isaacl (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I perhaps should have noted that "perish" is suitable as a later choice of words when the death was violent, sudden, or otherwise unexpected, or from a gradual emaciation (as per the dictionary meanings). isaacl (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with William Avery that it's the sort of word one would use for artistic variation in prose, and is probably a little too affected for use in an encyclopedia. It's not really a euphemism, but it's still along the lines of being a word one uses to avoid using the plain, straightforward word "die". oknazevad (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yup. Died or were killed. "Perished" comes in the same category as "passed away" or (when referring to soldiers) "fell". It's just not encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I am fully in agreement with DeFacto ""Perish" is a normal verb used in English to describing dying in a violent or sudden way. I don't think we should be limiting the range of vocabulary available for Wikipedia editors to use in describing events in articles." --Khajidha (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's better to use "died" ("drowned", "died of hunger", "died of old age") or "were killed" ("were murdered" in certain cases). Encyclopedic text should be as simple as possible and devoid of literary flourishes. For example, we wouldn't write "a tragedy befell his nation", we would write "his country experienced a catastrophe". Similarly, we shouldn't use "perished", "fell", "were slain", "were martyred", etc. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Gone to see their maker, struck down, bought the farm, went to a better place, met his maker, lost his life, snuffed out, pushing up the daisies, terminated with extreme prejudice. A serious note: martyred is special; it's a technical term (of sorts) and does have its place EEng 11:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

You are right. martyred does have its place on Wikipedia as a term used in Christianity and Islam to refer to people giving up their life for their religious beliefs. I referred to its more recent usage in certain Islamic countries and India as a general term to describe battlefield casualties (see [7]), which would not be acceptable on Wikipedia. Also, how could you forget "kicked the bucket"? — UnladenSwallow (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with the use of "martyred" in Wikipedia's voice. I think we need to use careful phrasing with this word to emphasize that we are not saying that so-and-so is a martyr or was martyred, but that that is what their faith community says. --Khajidha (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes we have to be careful. I'm just pointing out that martyr is not a mere synonym like the other terms, and that it does have its place. EEng 03:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

"Perished" is not the same sort of word as your other examples. In fact, I don't even see "were slain" as being in the same class as the other two. --Khajidha (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is saying they're not valid English words, but in modern English both terms would be seen as rather "poetic", which is not really encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

If I were going to use perish at all, which is pretty unlikely, I think it would be only for deaths in accidents like fires, shipwrecks, earthquakes etc, not deaths caused by man, whether in battle or murders etc. And only for multiple deaths. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Pursuant to a request by the closer:

There is a request for comment to definitively determine how widely the RFC Italics of websites in citations and references – request for comment should be applied. Please contribute.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I was surprised to find many articles using the form "

I've never come across "III Reich" in English texts. I would suggest just editing it to "Third Reich" whenever you encounter it. --Khajidha (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a somewhat old-fashioned way of indicating ordinals. I had a neighbor, an old man from Eastern Europe, who annotated quarterly payment checks "I Q 2019", "II Q 2019" etc. Not something we should be using in articles. EEng 16:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not an English style to use Roman numerals for ordinals. It is used in some Romance languages, but not English. oknazevad (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, obviously it is for regnal numbers and other things, but always I think after the main term, never before. Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The only other example that springs to mind is books of the Bible, e.g. I and II Corinthians. Anyway, while I was sleeping... it looks like an editor has changed all the instances of "III Reich" to "Nazi Germany", which I suppose is acceptable. I too had never seen the form "III Reich" in English texts before. Having said that, I've learned there are a few recent books that use that form in their title, although as the authors have French, Spanish, and Polish(?) names, these may be translations. Muzilon (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"III Reich" never seen it in use anywhere. Third Reich is what we should use.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

There's a dispute concerning the display of the name of elements/isotopes in {{

Simple question, which of these is correct:

• The Testaments by Margaret Atwood and Girl, Woman, Other by Bernardine Evaristo jointly win the Booker Prize for Fiction
• The Testaments by Margaret Atwood and Girl, Woman, Other, by Bernardine Evaristo jointly win the Booker Prize for Fiction

This issue has arisen in the current

The first one is appropriate; the second one contains the opening comma of a paired comma pair but is missing the second comma. The coordinated subject and title-internal commas are irrelevant; it is equivalent to the (incorrect) "Lara, by Bernardine Evaristo was ...". Doremo (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by a "title-internal comma"? The MOS page makes no mention of such a concept. But now that you mention it, the presence of a necessary comma at the end of the second title might actually necessitate further commas elsewhere too. Perhaps

• The Testaments, by Margaret Atwood, and Girl, Woman, Other, by Bernardine Evaristo, jointly win the Booker Prize for Fiction

is the only way to do it...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The title Girl, Woman, Other contains two (irrelevant) title-internal commas. The phrase "by Bernardine Evaristo" should have either paired commas both left and right ("Girl, Woman, Other, by Bernardine Evaristo, is ...") or no commas ("Girl, Woman, Other by Bernardine Evaristo is ..."). Having only the left of the paired commas is equivalent to having an opening parenthesis or an opening dash while lacking the second one; that is: "Girl, Woman, Other (by Bernardine Evaristo is ..." or "Girl, Woman, Other—by Bernardine Evaristo is ...". Doremo (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

As for the full example, one could support either paired commas for both on the basis of them being reduced nonrestrictive clauses: "The Testaments, by Margaret Atwood, and Girl, Woman, Other, by Bernardine Evaristo, jointly win ..." (i.e., < "The Testaments, which was written by Margaret Atwood, and Girl, Woman, Other, which was written by Bernardine Evaristo, jointly win ..."), or no commas for aesthetic reasons, to reduce comma clutter: "The Testaments by Margaret Atwood and Girl, Woman, Other by Bernardine Evaristo jointly win ..." Doremo (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• The first is correct. The commas inside the title are part of the title string and have no bearing on the sentence structure, which is "Foo by Bar and Baz by Quux jointly win the Xyzzy", requiring no syntactic commas. Conceive of content within a title string as similar in this regard to content within brackets, or within a dash-delimited parenthetical, or hidden inside a footnote, if that helps your thinking about it and parsing it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  Aside: The "Foo, by Bar, and Baz, by Quux, jointly won the Xyzzy" style is obsolescent in a construction this simple and involving basic attribution; it's a style that went out around the 1920s when entertainment-related reportage increased markedly. It would still be used in more complex cases and relationships, and the styles can be mixed. Example, and note the lack of a comma before the simple attribution with "at" but presence of a comma before introducing a more complex relationship after "then"): "The Dilithium Blast Test Laboratory at the University of Elbonia, then under the direction of lab director Phnord Blutto, was closed for 8 months in 2025 for repairs after an uncontrolled explosion that killed three researchers." The comma is also often added for emphasis, irony, or other attention-seeking; an example closer to the OP's music focus: "Back in a Flash, by Vanilla Ice, won a 2021 Best American Roots Performance Grammy; the acoustic album was his first studio release since 2011, and a major departure from his previous rap and hip-hop styles."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Can we add a note to avoid including actors' names in film plots? Since February 2017,

Seems reasonable. The point of the main MoS page is to summarize the gist of the entire MoS, with particular focus on frequently recurrent issues, and this one seems to be frequently recurrent. But don't say "film plots" exactly, since this applies to TV, Web-based "TV", video games, one-off plays, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to use the term cisgender in the article of someone who objects to that term, e.g. to say that they advocate for the rights of cisgender women? Should we avoid it because they don't like it? Should we use it because it's the accepted terminology? Vashti (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Why not just say that they advocate for the rights of women? Is the issue that the person in question does not include trans women in their conception of women? If so, then simply say so. --Khajidha (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

PS - you could (in addition to the ideas above) also state that she objects to the usage of the term "cisgender". --Khajidha (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've never understood this whole sis gender thing. Brothers are male and sisters are female. What's the problem? EEng 17:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely support that the transgender women should be talked about as contrasting with cisgender women, not with real women or biological women. Georgia guy (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there a Venn diagram or something explaining all this? EEng 17:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: try gender identity or cisgender. Let me know if you want the short "twitter version" of it. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

EEng, I've just spent the last 20 minutes trying to put this into a set theory expression and now I'm confused. SITH (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@StraussInTheHouse and EEng: Programming language would likely be easier.

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

int main() {
string SexAssignment = "";
string GenderIdentity = "";
string SexAssignment = "";
bool Cisgender = ;

cout << "What genital structure did the person as a newborn appear to have?";
cin >> Genitals;
SexAssignment = (Genitals=="PENIS") ? "MALE" : "FEMALE";

cout << "What is the gender identity of the person?"
cin >> GenderIdentity;
if (GenderIdentity == "Man" && SexAssignment == "MALE") {
Cisgender = true;
}
else if (GenderIdentity == "Woman" && SexAssignment == "FEMALE") {
Cisgender = true;
}
else {
Cisgender = false;
}

if (Cisgender == true) { cout << "This person is cisgender"; }
else { cout << "This person is transgender" }

return 0;
}

EvergreenFir (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we need a language supporting multivalued/fuzzy logic. EEng 20:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with you there, but the point is that the person in question did not "advocate for cisgender women", but explicitly opposed the rights of transgender women. --Khajidha (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

So say that. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. This discussion boils down to "should we blow a hole in

WP:Use common sense and WP:Don't be a fanatic.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  17:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• How do reliable sources describe this person’s activism? We should follow the sources, an neither insert nor omit based on our own opinions. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Use what sources use. Additionally, there is nothing wrong with the term "cisgender" and its use should not really be a problem. If, in this case, it is inaccurate, then that is an issue. If the person in question just says something akin to "I support women, and transgender women aren't women, so I don't think cisgender is necessary", well that's their personal opinion and not reflective of the nomenclature. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this would be easier to answer if we knew the exact sentence being argued over and what the source for that sentence says. --Khajidha (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The article is Magdalen Berns and the question in context is the lede sentence that now reads "women's rights on the basis of sex" - which is anti-trans in-language in itself. It's a curious case where, because she has just died, there are a lot of glowing obituaries, a few past casual mentions, and no other sources at all. The sentence was changed to "cisgender women's rights" in this diff; it was changed back in this diff. This is the source; it says "she repeatedly clashed with LGBT and women’s groups over her determined defence of women’s sex-based rights and the rights of lesbians to assert their sexuality in the face of relentless demands to redefine sex as gender." Vashti (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest something like: "Magdalen Berns (6 May 1983 – 13 September 2019)[2][3] was a British software developer and YouTuber. Berns, a lesbian radical feminist, came to prominence as a result of a series of YouTube vlogs focusing on lesbian politics and free speech. Her views were criticised by many due to her positions on the basis of sex and the gender identity debate, with some describing them as anti-trans." --Khajidha (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"Women's rights on the basis of sex" is standard legal language. See On the Basis of Sex. -Pine457 (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

However, naked in the lede like that, it's obscure - it has in-group meaning to y'all that it does not have to the rest of us. Vashti (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It has the same meaning to anyone who is aware of

sex and gender distinction in modern English usage. -Pine457 (talk

) 20:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

No. "Sex not gender" is a key tenet of the anti-trans community, "women's sex-based rights" is a key phrase, and so "on the basis of sex" is acting as a

dogwhistle here. Vashti (talk

) 20:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a bullhorn, not a dogwhistle. These are attempts to communicate very clearly exactly what we're talking about: the idea that certain laws were written to protect females. Whether law in the future will hold that a sex-based or gender-identity-based definition shall prevail, or even sometimes one and sometimes the other, is an unsettled question. If you think the article would benefit from a link to

sex and gender distinction, go ahead and include it. -Pine457 (talk

) 20:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

What makes it a dogwhistle in particular is that it's used to make your prejudice against trans people tacitly understood, and to appeal to that prejudice in others. It's as entirely unsuitable in Wikipedia's voice as something like "race realism" would be. Vashti (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have no prejudice against trans people. The question of whether women's rights shall refer to a sex-based definition or a gender-identity-based definition is not settled law, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. As The Guardian put it, Women’s oppression by men has a physical basis, and to deny the relevance of biology when considering sexual inequality is a mistake and This is a complex issue that society needs to consider thoughtfully. It's not a reason to hurl insults at each other.

If you believe that the article would benefit from a link to

sex and gender distinction, go ahead and include it, but this isn't secret prejudicial language. It is relatively simple academic language, with a standard usage since the 1960s. -Pine457 (talk

) 21:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not an insult, but a statement of fact; take "your" as a plural if you like. It remains the case that this language is a dogwhistle for your community, as I'm not the first to have noticed. That said, I'll defer to the judgement of others on this. Vashti (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not a "statement of fact" that people who believe in sex-based rights are prejudiced against trans people. Many trans people, for example, believe that transwomen should not be competing in women's sports. These are complex issues not easily reduced to "you're either for us or against us" reasoning. Once again, the phrasing is intended a bullhorn. There's nothing secret about its meaning, it's very simple, the idea is that some rights and protections are based on sex. Ask a bystander what "sex-based rights" would mean and I'll bet they can explain it. -Pine457 (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I have absolutely zero interest in debating trans rights with you. We're here to build an encyclopaedia, and don't need to get outside the issue of language - which the mention of prejudice was there to explain. Vashti (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not debating what the rights should be. I'm pointing out that your claim, that believing in sex-based rights equates to prejudice against trans people, is a non sequitur. -Pine457 (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not the belief in sex-based rights that equates to prejudice, but membership in the anti-trans community to which Magdalen belonged, and to which that dogwhistle belongs, and from which canvassed IP accounts and new editors have flocked. Vashti (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

"and from which canvassed IP accounts and new editors have flocked." And your evidence of this conspiracy is ....? Please spare us the unsubstantiated harebrained suspicions. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 15:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

That's circular reasoning: they're prejudiced because they're prejudiced. For comparison, some US liberals express prejudice against people in rural areas (and some vice versa), but being a liberal is not itself evidence of such prejudice. While I would agree that certain individuals express prejudicial viewpoints, involvement in gender-critical feminism is not sufficient to ascribe prejudice to someone who does not express prejudice. Most of us believe that adults should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies, and that people should not be required to conform to sex stereotypes to be afforded the same legal protections as those who do conform. I think this article in the New Yorker is a fair treatment of the issues: What Is a Woman? The dispute between radical feminism and transgenderism. -Pine457 (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• It should be used based on the sources. I don't think "cisgender" is inherently offensive or insulting or anything, but in a specific context it can have implications that would need to be properly cited (by having a source that uses the word) - saying that eg. someone advocates for the rights of cisgender women implies that they don't advocate for the rights of other women, which we'd obviously need a source for. --Aquillion (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we'll have trouble finding sources to the effect that Magdalen didn't advocate for the rights of trans women. A source that says she advocated for cis women's rights will be harder, since the sources are one-sided. Vashti (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

If sources are “one sided”, then so be it... we can not go beyond what sources say. Doing so would violate our WP:No original research policy. Blueboar (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. It's unfortunate in this case. Vashti (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose any proposals as
  unnecessary
  : here goes...

P1) We're building an encyclopedia.

P2) An encyclopedia describes subjects using the terminology used by

reliable sources

.

__________

C1) If a critical mass of reliable sources describe something as "cisgender women's activism" then we describe it as that.

C2) If a critical mass of reliable sources describe something as "women's activism" then we describe it as that.

Avoid instruction creep. This debate doesn't need to happen. SITH (talk)

10:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

And if there's no critical mass of reliable sources? Vashti (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Then look for more sources. Given that this person died recently, you may need to WAIT until more sources are written. Blueboar (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Again this does not seem an MOS question as much as a verification one. If someone did not use a word we cannot say they did.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Don't put words in people's mouths, even dead ones. If a biographical subject never used the term "cisgender" to describe her/himself -- neither can Wikipedia. If a biographical subject objected to the word "cisgender" being applied to her/him -- Wikipedia cannot rewrite history and create the idea that she/he did. Whatever terminology may be employed by sources, the subject's personal truth should be noted in the article.
  (On a personal note ... the use of "cisgender" to describe biological males and females is politically correct dogma. Not everyone "in the life" bows to the PC jackboot.) Pyxis Solitary (yak) 14:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. We certainly can't claim that they said something they didn't, but if reliable sources describe someone as anti-trans then we should say so, even if they insist that they are "real woman positive" or some such twaddle. A subject doesn't have to agree with a negative characterization for it to be included; it merely has to be adequately sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

David is correct. Wikipedia primarily follows what reliable secondary sources (sources that are independent of the subject) say about our subjects... not what the subjects say about themselves (although that can be mentioned in passing), and we definitely do not insert our own opinions. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

If reliable sources say someone's anti-trans we can include that, but that's a different matter than using the controversial neologism of cisgender to describe an individual who rejects the term. The former may be relevant, even if disputed, to understand someone's views. The latter is not. -Pine457 (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I concur with David Eppstein here. And Merriam-Webster attests cisgender in its current meaning as dating back to at least 1994, so it is not a neologism.

talk

) 18:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh you children... for some of us, anything coined after 1960 is a neologism. Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. Everything after the 1960s is PC rubbish and newfangled shenanigans. We should capitalize Internet and use two spaces after full stops. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

We're unlikely to find anything about her that uses the term. She presented herself as a women's rights advocate but defined women to exclude trans women (at least as regards certain rights and protections). Her critics focused on this exclusion. So, she could not really be described as "pro-cisgender" in any meaningful sense. --Khajidha (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

That wording, "She presented herself as a women's rights advocate but defined women to exclude trans women", looks clear and jargon-free to me. Can we find sufficient sources to support it? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

 Works for me EvergreenFir (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

"Presented herself" sounds like a POV synthesis unless sources support it. Vashti (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought my previous attempt was better?: "Magdalen Berns (6 May 1983 – 13 September 2019)[2][3] was a British software developer and YouTuber. Berns, a lesbian radical feminist, came to prominence as a result of a series of YouTube vlogs focusing on lesbian politics and free speech. Her views were criticised by many due to her positions on the basis of sex and the gender identity debate, with some describing them as anti-trans." --Khajidha (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

"Her positions...with some describing them as anti-trans" is both vague (what were those positions) and opinion-based (it is centered around whether other people thought about her positions as positive or negative rather than what those positions actually were). "...defined women to exclude trans women", in contrast, both explicitly and specifically states her positions and avoids expressing an opinion over the validity or political correctness of those positions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I think either way the article would need to mention that she was seen as anti-trans. I don't see much indication that she was deeply involved in feminist advocacy beyond anti-trans and anti-sex worker advocacy. The only mention I've been able to find of her in a high-quality source is this Snopes article, which describes her as a youtuber who is characterized as holding anti-trans views. I don't see much indication that she was known for her advocacy for women in general. Nblund ^talk 20:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I would go with "She presented herself as a women's rights advocate but defined women to exclude trans women".Slatersteven (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

How her activism is described should have nothing to do with her personal preferences on terminology. Just describe it neutrally in accordance with the sources. If "cisgender" is the most accurate word to use, use it. Kaldari (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

General discussion of the term cisgender

This discussion has nothing to do with describing a subject as anti-trans. This discussion is about applying the term "cisgender" in the description of a subject when that subject rejected the label "cisgender" and refused to apply it to her/himself, or anyone else.
C-i-s-g-e-n-d-e-r.
"twaddle" in Wikipedia is when editors go off-track discussing something else instead of the topic. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 08:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is the sentence under debate? Much will depend on that. And opposition to the label "cisgender" is often correlated with anti-trans positions, so the situation is not as clear cut as you are trying to make it.--Khajidha (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I refer you to the reason for this discussion:
"Is it appropriate to use the term cisgender in the article of someone who objects to that term, e.g. to say that they advocate for the rights of cisgender women? Should we avoid it because they don't like it? Should we use it because it's the accepted terminology?"
What is complicated about this? Pyxis Solitary (yak) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The question you cite is not about describing Magdalen as cis, but her activism as being in favour of cis women. That's why editors are presenting alternatives that don't use the word "cisgender", such as "she advocated for women's rights but defined women to exclude trans women". It's not "twaddle". I agree that opposition to the word "cisgender" goes hand-in-hand with anti-trans positions. Vashti (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"the word "cisgender" goes hand-in-hand with anti-trans positions". This is a myopic generalization. Someone who repudiates the label "cisgender" is not automatically anti-transgender.
Let me put it this way: I, the real life person behind the name Pyxis Solitary, reject the term cisgender. I have refused to use it since the day, over 20 years ago, that I found out what it meant. I don't endorse it in conversations and I will correct anyone who refers to me as a cisgender woman. I have a close friend who is a trans man. I participate in a group that includes transsexual women. Now ... am I anti-trans? Pyxis Solitary (yak) 10:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

On this, it's probably instructive to cite Feminist Wiki. Feminist Wiki is actually an anti-trans wiki; it was created by anti-trans activist Penny White and advertised at reddit on anti-trans sub /r/GenderCritical. Here's an organising article for it which describes its intent in detail and states "Let me tell you that [trans rights activists]s and advocates of the sex industry (aka rape industry) have already shown themselves to be very afraid of the FeministWiki. Why? Because it offers cold hard truth in a no fucks given tone (without getting ranty) with citations to back it up, and does so boldly under the highly generic name FeministWiki.".

In the lede of their cisgender page, they state "Since feminists oppose the gender essentialist notion of an inborn, inherent and essential feminine identity, and define gender as a patriarchal tool of sex-based oppression rather than a personally felt identity, they consequently disagree with the concept of a "cisgender person" as defined on the basis of gender identity." That seems pretty coherent: anti-trans feminists oppose gender identity, therefore they oppose the idea of cisgender people and the term. Vashti (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

You haven't shown that there's anything anti-trans about that wiki. But even for the sake of argument, your logic is fallacious: "anti-trans people reject this term, therefore rejecting this term is an anti-trans action" is affirming the consequent. -Pine457 (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's Feminist Wiki's page on "transgender ideology". It's an anti-trans wiki. Are you really trying to use formal logic to argue that there isn't an overwhelming correlation between these two positions? Vashti (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any bigotry against trans people on that page, can you point out what you're referring to? And I am following up on this: Pyxis said 'Someone who repudiates the label "cisgender" is not automatically anti-transgender.' You responded and appeared to be disputing Pyxis' claim. You appear to be disputing it by affirming the consequent. If not, what is your argument? The vast majority of people in the world do not accept this label for themselves, regardless of how they think about trans people. -Pine457 (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss user conduct, and any argument based upon it is (as far as I am concerned) invalid and without merit. So let me make this clear, if the argument is "if you oppose the use if Cisgender you are A HOMOPHOBE!" I oppose its use, period.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

That's absolutely not what I'm arguing. But it seems like there are

WP:UNDUE issues with allowing the viewpoint of a small group of activists to veto the use of words, when they aren't applied to a subject. For reference, the supposedly mainstream arguments above are not even mentioned at Cisgender. Vashti (talk

) 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It is only a small minority of people who use the word "cisgender" in the first place. Most people have no use for it. It is an obscure neologism, which the usage history at the cisgender page attests to. While you can point to it first appearing in academic literature in the 90s, most people still haven't heard of it, most of those who have only heard of it this decade, and fewer still actually use the word. (And many who learned of it this decade learned it in the context of a slur, from the "Die Cis Scum" phrase.)

I think the most common objection, among the few who have cause to think about the word at all, is summarized by John Boyne writing in The Irish Times here: And while I wholeheartedly support the rights of trans men and women and consider them courageous pioneers, it will probably make some unhappy to know that I reject the word “cis”, the term given by transgender people to their nontransgender brethren. I don’t consider myself a cis man; I consider myself a man. For while I will happily employ any term that a person feels best defines them, whether that be transgender, non-binary or gender fluid to name but a few, I reject the notion that someone can force an unwanted term onto another.

Shall I try to get that noted in the

The New Statesman was removed earlier this year. -Pine457 (talk

) 17:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Since I don't edit at cisgender, it isn't my business what you do there. If you can substantiate your critique, then it should be in the article. Vashti (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Cisgender is a term that exists and is used widely enough by professional sources to be "legitimate". Whether or not a user personally likes it or not is not at issue. I don't like the word "moist", but I would never suggest Wikipedia not use it. There appears to be a lot of misrepresentation of arguments and intent. If folks want to sincerely discuss the term itself, then do so. But honestly that does not appear to be happening here. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it can be used, but it is sufficiently

WP:TECHNICAL that, when clearer ways of expressing the same idea are available, it might be preferable to use them instead. —David Eppstein (talk

) 17:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Certainly. IMO, articles broadly related to gender studies (including feminist BLPs) would generally be an appropriate place to use them. I would not, however, suggest we use it on Bill Gates' BLP. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

You want to use a controversial term which many people have only been exposed to as a slur, on BLPs, specifically only on the BLPs of people who are most likely to object to it? You can't think of a better option? -Pine457 (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:FRINGE viewpoints in any academic or professional circles. I'll also point out that feminist BLPs would also be the most likely be of people who use the term. EvergreenFir (talk)

19:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say it was always a slur, but it is sometimes, and that's how a lot of people learned about it. Paula Blank in The Atlantic writes 'It's clear that some gay men and lesbians see "cisgender" as a slur, a way of labeling them as elitists or conformists after all (i.e., as not "queer" enough).' This is not an uncontroversial term to apply to people who don't apply it to themselves.

Merriam-Webster was mentioned above. Their definition is 'of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth'. That means we need to know that an individual conceptualizes him- or herself as having a gender identity, and we need to know what that self-defined identity is, before we could

synthesize that information and declare them to be cisgender, even if the term was not controversial. The only option that I see as being in accordance with Wikipedia policy would be to reserve the term only for people who self-identify as such. -Pine457 (talk

) 19:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

But we're not talking about labeling Berns as cisgender. We're talking about using the term in her BLP (well, recently living which is covered by

WP:BLP). EvergreenFir (talk)

19:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The plain meaning of the proposal applies the label to her, though. If we say she's "a woman who advocated for the rights of cisgender women" then we're saying she's a cisgender woman. No reasonable person would interpret that phrase any other way. -Pine457 (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm unreasonable, but I definitely don't follow the logic there. Does someone have to be a member of a group to advocate for it? Nblund ^talk 20:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If you think the above phrase has another reasonable interpretation, please explain what it is. If she were "a trans women who advocated for the rights of cisgender women" then it would be clear she's not being included in that group. But she's not trans. -Pine457 (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

She could be a woman, whose sex assigned-at-birth is not documented in reliable sources, who advocated for the rights of cisgender women. That is, in fact, exactly what she is. I'm not quite sure what the objection is here. Nblund ^talk 20:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

So you're proposing that until we see her birth certificate, she might in fact be a transwoman and we should write the article to reflect this likelihood, despite having no evidence of it. That seems like a reasonable guideline to follow for biographies. Should we add "this person's sex assigned at birth is not documented in reliable sources" to each article's lead, or should it go in the first paragraph after the table of contents? -Pine457 (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

What? I believe you yourself argued that it would require

WP:OR to call her cisgender. I agree. We can't do that. What we can do is call her a woman - which doesn't imply anything about her assigned sex. We don't need to state that this is unknown, because that's true of virtually every BLP. Nblund ^talk

21:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

We can call her a woman. My point is that 'if we say she's "a woman who advocated for the rights of cisgender women" then we're saying she's a cisgender woman. No reasonable person would interpret that phrase any other way.' I asked you to provide another reasonable interpretation, and you came up with "she could be a woman, whose sex assigned-at-birth is not documented in reliable sources". My point in linking to reasonable person is that we're writing for an audience who are not gender studies or queer studies academics or students, not activists, and not ideologues. An average person does not read "a woman" and mentally note that it should be interpreted as "a woman whose sex assigned-at-birth is not documented in reliable sources." An average person will read "a woman" and interpret it as meaning she is not unusual in that respect. Therefore, if she is not unusual in that respect, and she "advocated for the rights of cisgender women," then we're saying she's a member of that same class, that she is a cisgender woman. Only someone who is immersed in gender studies jargon (no disrespect intended, I am likewise immersed) would be likely to analyze it differently. -Pine457 (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I too must be one of these unreasonable people. It seems, at best, disingenuous to suggest that advocacy for women (cis and/or trans) can be used to infer the gender identity of the advocate. We are in no way saying "she's a cisgender woman" and it's a bit ridiculous to insist we are. Frankly I'd just as soon argue that, as a radical feminist, she may be genderless as many radical feminists espouse gender abolitionist views. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as someone likewise jargon-immersed, you are not the audience we are writing for. The reasonable person also will not consider the possibility that she might have self-identified as genderless, which is even less salient than the possibility that she's trans. These suggestions all fail to consider what the phrase would most likely mean to an ordinary reader. The reason why saying she's "a woman who advocated for the rights of cisgender women" means she's a cisgender woman is because there's no other interpretation that's salient for the average reader. -Pine457 (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The average person likely assumes that is the case for anyone who is not specifically designated as trans. Why does that matter? Your objection was that we can't call her "cisgender", but we aren't doing that, and it isn't any more implicit here than it is in every other blp. I think you're really just sort of objecting to the term in general here. Nblund ^talk 22:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The average person doesn't assume anyone is cisgender, because the average person doesn't use that word or concept. It becomes implicit when you use the word, that's priming. We are calling her cisgender if we use a phrase which has no other likely interpretation to the average reader. I have no objection to using the word on biographies of people who use it to describe themselves. -Pine457 (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yep. And "priming" the reader is not allowed under

WP:SYNTH – trying to lead the reader around by the nose, manipulating article language to imply things not actually found in the sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  17:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It is time to stop... this is a content dispute and not a matter of style. the original question was “can we say she is X”... the answer is: If sources call her X, yes... if sources do not call her X, then no. It really is that simple. Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually my original question was "can we call her activism X"; I've never considered that it would be appropriate to describe Magdalen as X without an overwhelming weight of reliable sources. Vashti (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

What you actually asked is:
"Is it appropriate to use the term cisgender in the article of someone who objects to that term," (1)
"e.g. to say that they advocate for the rights of cisgender women?" (2)
"Should we avoid it because they don't like it?" (3)
"Should we use it because it's the accepted terminology?" (4)
Which raises the question: where are the reliable sources that, in their narrative about the biography subject, describe her activism as "for the rights of cisgender women"? Pyxis Solitary (yak) 03:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Can we drop this now its getting tendentious (from both sides).Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, and I just got here (to this thread, I mean). I agree with the sentiments above that we need no new (or changed) rules.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC) 17:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Is this re-opening somewhere else?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I might post it somewhere else, but to be honest, I am not particularly motivated to deal with this issue at this time. I am pretty much soured on how I was treated here. It is possible to disagree with where an RfC is posted or to disagree with how the RfC is worded without firing up your flamethrower and being an asshole, but (with some notable exceptions) that's not what happened here. Feel free to post an RfC yourself and try to get a resolution, but I would suggest doing so on a page that is less toxic than this one has become. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

In the text using the "quote" template, I used double quotes to enclose a phrase. This was changed by another editor to single quotes. Should the rule still apply if no double quotes are present? Jmar67 (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

No; the indentation of the block quotation takes the place of double-quotes around the quotation, so quotation marks within it would be double (then nest to single if the quotation contains another quotation).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought so as well. Jmar67 (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey List editors.

I've been editing List of caves over the years and it's in fairly good shape right now, but it still has a lot of redlinks with citations. I instantly delete any redlink or blacklink (is that a term?) that isn't cited. However, in the case of caves, most of these redlinks will never get an article, at least not any time soon (talking many years here). Is it possible to create an individual policy for a list article that strictly prohibits redlinks of any kind, sourced or not? Leitmotiv (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd have thought the questions of whether it's cited and whether it's a redlink are reasonably independent of each other. We have articles on subjects that are not notable, and we lack articles on subjects that are notable. In general I'd have thought it best to verify that the entity really doesn't exist before removing it, even if it's a redlink and there is no citation. The

WP:V requirement is only to remove material "likely to be challenged" not to have a blanket policy of removing any uncited material.  — Amakuru (talk

) 20:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

In a lot of cases requiring list entries to be blue serves as a filter to keep the lists from getting out of hand by restricting them only to list members notable enough for their own articles, a higher requirement than verifiability. For instance in lists of alumni of universities, it would in many cases be easy to fill the lists with the names of all graduates, regardless of notability, sourced to newspaper listings or commencement programs, but I think it's clear that would be a bad idea. On the other hand if the number of list elements is limited naturally in some other way, it may be reasonable to allow entries that are sourced but not bluelinked. Even in such cases, I think redlinks should be limited to topics for which notability is likely even though the article hasn't yet been written, and that other sourced entries should be left unlinked. But I don't have a strong opinion whether the list of caves is of the former type (something that would grow unwieldy if you listed all verifiable caves) or the latter type (one where sourced but unlinked entries should be allowed). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: List of caves is absolutely of the former type. It has the potential to get very unwieldy as many caves are trivially mentioned in articles on the internet (to say nothing of the trivial mentions in spelunking literature). I'm wondering if this is also a matter of aesthetics too. One could add tens of thousands of characters of cited redlinks, but I don't feel that would really improve the article. To be quite frank, abundant redlinks are an eyesore and it looks shoddy. I think if you're navigating Wikipedia's articles, you're typically not interested in link articles citations. But that's just my opinion. Hmmm... maybe I could propose a move as another option: List of caves to List of caves with articles. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I would do. Make a separate article at, e.g., List of caves in Madagascar, and redirect all the redlinks there. Include the unlinked names with their sources on the target list, with whatever other information we may have about them (coordinates, adjacent settlement, etc.). bd2412 T 21:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to just remove all the redlinks, either boldly or after discussing it at the list talk page. It's what happened a while back at List of people by Erdős number (one I edit regularly that would also grow unwieldy with redlinks — one might argue that it is already unwieldy just with the bluelinks) and it seemed to go smoothly enough for it. It does require continued vigilance reverting attempts to add new ones, but at least that way the inclusion criterion is easy to explain. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree the relinking and citation matters are severable. The entry might be appropriate in a list (depending on its stated inclusion criteria – see

WP:N standards; the criteria for mention/listing is much lower that for creation of a stand-alone article).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  06:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. Section link those that are mentioned in other articles (leaving the citations in place) and unlink those not mentioned anywhere else in Wikipedia. Leave red links where there is a reasonable chance of an article being inspired by the red link. This would apply if there is some indication of notability, for example via the citation. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

According to this edit, "US" is preferred over "U.S." (in this case, in a stand-alone context; two edits prior, this was changed from "United States" to simply "US"). Is this statement correct? This does not seem to be reflected in the

The guideline is actually pretty clear. The salient points:

1. 'While, in principle, either US or U.S. may be used (with internal consistency) to abbreviate "United States" in any given article, the use or non-use of periods (full points) should also be consistent with other country abbreviations in the same article (thus the US, UK, and USSR, not the U.S., UK, and USSR).' This is – pretty obviously if you think about it for a moment – a clear preference for US over U.S., because the number of articles that mention other countries' initialisms is enormous and growing, and any given article without one and using U.S. could get a UK or other mention at any time from any editor, necessitating a shift to US. Ergo, use of U.S. on Wikipedia (outside of quotations, titles of works, and other literal strings) is statisically doomed in the long run. This is probably related to why use of U.S. has been declining even in American publications: other publishers' style guides also object to such inconsistencies within the same piece of writing. Other reasons are lack of any need for the extra punctuation (slightly inefficient writing and small waste of space) outside of an ALL-CAPS headline (a style that itself is in sharp decline); general disfavoring of dots in acronyms and initialisms at all; decline both of regionally idiosyncratic typographic traditionalism and of general American exceptionalism, in a global reading market; and interference with consistent and complete search results.
2. 'When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, US or U.S. may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective'. Many Wikipedia uses of "US" or "U.S." are actually poor style (according both to MoS and to major off-site American style guides like Chicago) and should be changed to "United States" or "American", depending on the sentence.

Regarding 'I've mostly seen "U.S." being used in such contexts': That's because much of such text dates to the 2000s, before MOS:US changed to expect in-article consistency with other country abbreviations. The presence of "U.S. ... UK", etc., in old articles breeds more cases of it in new ones through the monkey-see-monkey-do effect. Plus, writing habits die hard; many American editors over a certain age were taught in grammar school to use "U.S." and have an irrational "One True Way" attitude about it; they typically don't actually read MoS anyway. Remember that it's not required to know any of our guidelines or policies to edit here; one is just expected to absorb them over time, to not interfere with other editors bringing content into compliance with them in the interim, and to stop doing something in contravention of them if other editors point one to the applicable rule(s). The acronym (in either orthography) is so common that it will take another decade or more to make it consistent on WP.

It's a good example of why not to make willy-nilly changes to MoS, nor to try to reverse well-discussed changes that have already been made a long time ago. It can result in mountain-moving levels of

WP:BATTLEGROUND problem.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  19:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

My ears are burning. --Izno (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@

✉

) 12:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

MoS doesn't really "mandate" things. People just go along with it, or here and there they don't, and then others who do will come along and clean it up later. In 5 or 10 years, maybe consider changing the section again to just discourage use of "U.S." except for specific special contexts (e.g. within the title of a published work or in the legal name of a corporation), if by then articles mix-and-matching "UK" and "U.S." styles get fixed. It could happen sooner if someone wanted to focus on it, but it's sounds like amazingly boring editing work, even for GNOME stuff. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)