Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dpbsmith (talk | contribs) at 12:40, 14 September 2004 (Per-page consistency, no overall proscription). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

See also:

Please note the current discussion on dashes has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dashes) as it was too long for this page.

Moved from article

  • Sexuality

Avoid homosexuality and thus heterosexuality, use alternatives such as gay/lesbian/bisexual/straight/same-sex/different-sex. Avoid the use of queer (or any term) as being most inclusive.

What is this about? homosexuality and heterosexuality are the proper medical/biological terms, the rest of the above are pop-culture/alt-culture jargon. I don't hear the word gay used any more often than fag, and both are POV. Homosexual and heterosexual are the precise, clinical terms, regardless of what is seen on "queer eye for the straight guy". Sam Spade 19:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that they're medical/biological terms, and thus carry the implication of being a pathology instead of an identity. Snowspinner 19:36, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: By "medical/biological terms" did you mean the medicine and biology of the last or next to last centuries or of this one? Consult, for instance, the American Psychological Association: http://www.apastyle.org/sexuality.html. Hyacinth 19:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ruling of the APA is pretty much solid when talking about this issue - I've put the passage back in, with an added citation of the APA guide. Snowspinner 20:02, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Did you bother to read that link? "Because no universal agreement exists on terminology, and because language and culture continually change, the ideas in this article should be considered helpful suggestions rather than rigid rules." And even if it were describing "rigid rules", who says the APA dictates wikipedia content? I find the APA to be generally wrong, and I'm a psyche major ;) Sam Spade 20:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I've consulted MLA, Chicago, and APA guidance on this - APA guidance is cited by MLA in terms of unbiased language, whereas Chicago remains silent on the usage. Regardless, there is clear precedent for using external styleguides to determine the style guide for Wikipedia. Unless you can find a current style guide that argues for heterosexual and homosexual as the preferred words, I think APA pretty much stands, and a poll is unnecessary. Snowspinner 20:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to the following quote from the article: "If you are faced with a fine point, please use other resources, such as The Chicago Manual of Style (from the University of Chicago Press) or Fowler's Modern English Usage (from the Oxford University Press)." The APA is one of the most-cited publication guides, with many disciplines requiring its usage. And the most recent APA Publication Manual does say not to use those terms. I think that's pretty much definitive. This is not an issue of disagreeing with the APA, but with accepted style for an academic discipline. If we don't use widely accepted style guides, what would we use? Snowspinner 20:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, straight is a disambiguation page that points to heterosexual. The problem with the neologisms goes beyond gay. Smerdis of Tlön 20:59, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be changed to straight (sexual orientation) or something along those lines. Snowspinner 21:00, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
If one has a problem with the APA one could also consult the The Guardian style guide the Newswatch Diversity Style Guide and I imagine other sources, and they would all suggest one should not use homosexual. Hyacinth 21:38, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I could not find anything in the Guardian style guide, except "gay: use as an adjective, eg "gay bishops", "gay people", rather than a noun ("gays") where possible, though "gays and lesbians" is OK." Personally, I am surprised to hear that "homosexual" carries more negative connotations than "gay", but I'm happy to follow the APA recommendation unless somebody points out a guide controdicting them. -- Jitse Niesen 10:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As a note, the quote referenced about guidelines, at least in the APA manual I have in front of me, applies to three guidelines earlier in the chapter than the section on sexual orientation. The sexual orientation section is part of the same larger section on biased language, but it is not one of the three guidelines marked - the APA is clear that the preferred usage is not homosexual or homosexuality. Based on Hyacinth's production of two further styleguides, I'm putting the section back in until some source indicating a reason for deletion is actually provided beyond one person's personal experience. Snowspinner 21:49, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

A physical act may certainly reasonably be described as "homosexual" (v. "gay") or "heterosexual" (v. "straight"). However, I'd really hesitate to use the word "homosexual" in terms of a person's identity. It's too strongly associated with a century or so of categorizing same-sex orientation as pathology. "Heterosexual" to describe a person seems less tinged, and "straight" too ambiguous -- drugs, honesty -- so I wouldn't hesitate to call a person "hetrosexual," so insofar as we need to use these words to refer to people, I'd actually opt for the (admittedly asymetric) "gay" and "heterosexual." -- Jmabel 01:26, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding historical figures before the word gay became common usage, although its appropriate to say "Elton John is gay", but Oscar Wilde was homosexual; its all about self-identification. 144.32.132.230 20:49, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree that it is probably more historically correct to call Wilde "homosexual" than "gay", but (1) self-identification is not exactly the issue: I don't think he ever used the term, and he was a married man with children and (2) what, then, do we call people from a period any earlier, when the term "homosexual" had not been invented, and where same-sex practices were not usually seen to constitute an identity? -- Jmabel 02:43, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think you refer to them as having had gay male experiences, as having preferred men, etc. i.e. you simply describe their behavior instead of ascribing an identity to them. Snowspinner 03:27, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

After all of this discussion, our MoS still says (without qualification on the historical issues, etc.), "Avoid using the words homosexuality and heterosexuality...", etc. I'm not very active in the Manual, I honestly don't feel like I should be editing it (I imagine all of these issues are very fraught), but I'd sure appreciate if someone would edit it to reflect some of the nuances in the conversation above. -- Jmabel 16:09, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Poll

I suggest a poll on this matter, one which specifically outlines style guidelines for the wikipedia sexuality project. Sam Spade 20:16, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I find a poll unnecessary. I added the sexuality section April 6th (at the latest, I can't figure out revision histories) and there were no objections until you decided to cut. Thus you are the only one who disputes the guideline, and you have provided only one reason with no references, sources, or documentation. However, you are right to point out that &;quot;no universal agreement exists on terminology, and...language and culture continually change." I suggest the guideline indicates that pluralism is necessary and beneficial as being more neutral. Hyacinth 22:56, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I do think a poll is necessary, but in the short term finding a better rewording will have to suffice. Something that makes it clear there is a diversity of opinion on the subject would do nicely. Sam Spade 23:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

There should be consensus on the manual of style. The section is question is far from having a consensus - it was controversial when itw as added, and it remains so today. In IRC, not one gay person there out of about a half dozen found "homosexual" offensive. I think the section should be removed, and I am going to do it unless someone gives me a good reason not to. →Raul654 16:56, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

No one responded so I've gone ahead and removed it. →Raul654 18:16, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

I think there may be some basic confusion over the -ity suffix form of the terms as was used in the article. It seems to me that homosexuality and heterosexuality are appropriate when discussing the concept in whole, while specifically referring to someone as a homosexual or heterosexual may be less preferred than using gay man, straight person, etc. Maybe it is just a question of rewording the section a little differently? func(talk) 20:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd say that deeming someone "gay" is generally taken to imply a lot more about them than saying that they are homosexual, as the terms are generally understood in the UK, at least. This might be a British/American thing, though...
James F. (talk) 21:23, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Spectacles/glasses

Under Usage and Spelling,

if possible and reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with Glasses.

Problem: there seems to have been (as far as an historian can tell, looking in on the discussion) a fairly major conflagration on just that point, a few months back. So unless the point of the section was to demonstrate how not to choose a neutral term...? I suspect that whichever article is highlighted, problems will arise; but at the moment, it's a bit disconcerting to arrive at Spectacles, redirected from Glasses. Anyone able to think of another example? Wooster 22:12, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I prefer "eyeglasses". [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 23:23, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not really trying to make a debate over the specific spectacles/eyeglasses/glasses thing, but it would probably be more use to the MoS if it linked to a good example of neutral phrasing, rather than one where there was a major punch-up followed by the exact opposite of the example given. Wooster 12:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Current policy on Spelling not good enough

Is the current policy of using American or International spelling depending on the context good enough, now that we have categories? It is rather jarring to have an article in which International spelling is used throughout in a category spelt in American. ··gracefool |☺ 04:14, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How can we trust you if you can't even spell spelled right? Ortolan88 02:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Warning: "joke")
You shouldn't trust me anyway ;) Actually, spelt is correct spelling :P ··gracefool |☺ 04:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'll see your dictionary.reference.com and raise you the Oxford English Dictionary which says, preferred form first: spell, v.2 Pa. tense and pple. spelled, spelt. The real point is that Wikipedia has made a reasonable compromise between English and American spelling conventions, which is, use one consistently within an article, use one consistently as regards subject matter (English or American) and don't sweat the small stuff. (I would say that the historical trend in English is to shed complications, which would include spelling aeroplane as airplane, etc.) Ortolan88 05:50, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Down with prescriptionism. I guess I'm still used to paper, where mixing spelling that looks very unprofessional. I'll get used to it. ··gracefool |☺ 06:18, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What in the name of Noah Webster is "International spelling?" If you mean to imply that British English as used throughout the Commonwealth is the most "international" form of English, then you are sadly misinformed. English as spoken throughout Latin America, East Asia, and much of Africa and the Middle East—owing to missionaries, expatriate teachers, international business, and American-educated upper castes—exhibits a decidedly "American" flavor, and while British colonialism has resulted in the imposition your peculiar dialect on much of the world, this is by no means the universal status quo. Austin Hair 11:29, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
International English is the English that has not adopted Noah Webster's arbitrary changes to spelling. It is defined in the first paragraph of British English. It scarcely matters if it is 'international' amidst second-language speakers of English (although it really is; almost everyone from Europe spells in Commonwealth English, as do many others), it is the English language as written in the various countries whose first language is English. Of all English speaking countries, American spellings are favoured solely in the USA, so it cannot rightfully be called International English. What is termed as International English is not only the English of the Commonwealth of Nations, but also of other countries, such as Ireland.
Regardless of your attitude towards the name, 'International English' and derivatives such as 'International spelling of English' are quite commonly recognised (alternatives exist, such as World English or Global English). You do not help any to resolve the issue brought forth by Gracefool by quarrelling about the use of a specific term which you evidently understand. (Truth be told, neither am I.) —Sinuhe 12:26, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You mean the spelling reforms which were being widely implemented on both sides of the pond, before popular opinion deemed them "American?" (Even then, British speakers didn't see fit to revert the changes to words like "musick" and "magick," or normalizing Ys as long Is. But that's hardly the point.)
Contrary to popular belief, Europe does not constitute "the rest of the world"—Latin America alone has half a billion people whom many would argue are indeed significant. Even in Europe, and throughout the Commonwealth, British conventions are not universally observed; this is especially the case in the Eastern half of the continent and in the Caribbean and Africa. Neither is it true that "of all English speaking countries, American spellings are favoured solely in the USA," as demonstrated by nations like Nigeria and Jamaica.
Ireland, of course, was part of the United Kingdom until the 1920s, so to try to except it by pointing out that it's not a member of the Commonwealth (it left in 1949) is downright silly. More to the point, "International English" is not a term used by educated commentators, who favor the more accurate and entirely NPOV terms "American English" and "British English." These are the terms which have been used in Wikipedia since the project's inception.
Now, you are entirely correct in pointing out that I did not address gracefool's concerns; indeed, I don't have an answer, except to say that our "let's relax" policy has worked pretty well for us so far. Neither am I crusader on the part of AmE, however—I fully support the Let's Relax policy, and object merely to the use of such POV terminology. Austin Hair 14:32, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
An aside: Nigeria? Jamaica? I believe they use UK/Commonwealth spellings. Jamaica's currently run by the Labour Party. As for Nigeria, such 419 scam letters that I bother to read seem to be in -- well, a very strange variety of English, but with UK spellings. And, according to the Nigierian embassy in Washington, the country has ministries of "labour" and "defence". (If anyone knows, our Nigeria article certainly could use some facts and figures about how widespread the "official language" English is there: first-language speakers, lingua franca figs, etc.) –Hajor 17:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As with any language, there are distinct differences between formal and informal language. The type of language one would use on a government Web site and in names and titles in the political system is clearly formal, and "old-fashioned" spellings persist, just as they did in the US until well into the last century. Austin Hair 23:39, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
Of course Europe is a part of the rest of the world. The European Union's spelling is British. So it extends the scope of the English-speaking countries, and is therefore international in the way you originally defined it. Why wouldn't it constitute 'the rest of the world'?
I am not arguing for the use of the term 'International English' at all, merely pointing out that it is a term with a recognised meaning regardless of one's opinion of its justification or appropriateness, but the question – on a talk page, mind you – addressed a different issue. Are you implying that, having used the term 'International spelling', Gracefool is not educated?
By the way, to claim that 'American English' and 'British English' are entirely neutral expressions is not exactly correct: many might take offence to 'American English' describing solely US English (what about Canadian English and the English as spoken (non-natively) in the rest of the Americas?), or that 'British English' should be describing, say, Australian, Indian or South African English.
I think an easy solution would be to allow alternative text next to categorisation somehow. So while "Category:International organization" might be put on the bottom of European Union, somehow we could have it display as "International organisation", much like with normal links. Sadly, the software would require changing to achieve that, wouldn't it? —Sinuhe 15:28, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Europe does not comprise the entire world. There are locales on this planet which do not geographically reside on the continent of Europe. I cannot see how you could possibly construe my comments as implying that Europe is somehow otherworldly.
My beef, to reiterate succinctly, is that British English is no more "international" than American English. On the part of neutrality, the terms merely describe the origins of the dialects described; one may further subclassify by country, and even further by region. I am no less "human" than you simply because you were born elsewhere on the planet, and vice versa.
As for the problem of categorization, this may be one place alternate text is warranted. Unlike with dates, however, such a user preference would be an explicit statement of preferred dialect, with far-reaching implications. Which should be the default? What other (future) features would make use of this? Should we extend it to include alternate article titles? These are just a few of the questions which will need answering before such a feature is implemented. Austin Hair 23:39, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
There is a world of difference between saying that 'Europe is ALL of the rest of the world' and 'Europe is part of the rest of the world'. This is to say, American English is no more international than British English, because – upon scrutiny of the second-language speakers – British English is favoured amongst Europeans. This is merely a counter to your original statement which I thought meant to imply that American English is more 'international' because British English is only used in the Commonwealth of Nations (which could, indeed, be perceived as a single entity).
You said 'Contrary to popular belief, Europe does not constitute "the rest of the world"'. And I believe that it does as much so as South America, Asia, Oceania or Africa. I don't understand what you wish to achieve by the rest of the comment: at no time did I state that Europe is somehow more important than the rest of the world. If it appeared as though that was my intention, I apologise.
To get back to the problem, I don't think a preference could work. It would be too difficult to maintain two or more 'translations' of everything for conversion on-the-fly. Simply for the sake of consistency, articles written in British English should be able to state the alternative text to a category otherwise spelt in American English so that it would appear as appropriate in the article, and vice versa. This way neither brand is favoured any more than the other, and articles, as before the introduction of categories, can maintain consistency. —Sinuhe 08:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I certainly never meant to imply that American English was somehow more "international" than British English, but merely that British English isn't as ubiquitous as many of its speakers believe, and the use of such charged and chauvinistic terms should be avoided. As for my comments with regard to Europe, I never meant to downplay Europe's importance, either—by "Europe does not constitute 'the rest of the world'" I meant to say that Europe does not comprise the rest of the world; Europeans are known to overestimate their continent's importance at least as much as Americans do their country, as demonstrated by the terminology in question.
Now, to get back to the point under discussion before I unintentionally hijacked the thread, it's been clear from the start that translating the article text itself according to preference is absolutely impracticable—we would have to either pre-parse article text and store it in the database, nearly doubling the required storage space, or translate on the fly—something we don't have the resources for, by any means. Category titles, however, could more reasonably be handled per dialect preference, though I'm still not convinced doing so would be a good idea. Neither am I convinced that handling it on a per-article basis is the right answer, as you propose. Austin Hair 13:38, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
Handling category titles per dialect preference doesn't help much, as the category title will still conflict with the articles in it. ··gracefool |☺ 21:58, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A tricky one, given the (understandably) strong feelings on either side. I don't think categories can support a consistent spelling approach though. This would be especially difficult where an entry has multiple categories. In my own field, categories such as that of archaeological sites are so international and so tied in with national identity that it would be quite insulting to force our American colleagues to adopt non-Webster spellings (is that neutral enough?!) for their historic places simply because the main article is archaeology rather than archeology. I'd rather see things left as they are with well-meaning spelling 'corrections' being reverted. It all adds to a nice feeling of diversity and ?tolerance. adamsan 13:17, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)::Actually archaeology is a bad example as I notice somebody has recently blitzed the article and Americanified everything but the title. Ah well...adamsan 07:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess that perceived spelling mistakes by most visitors is the price you pay for multilinguialism. ··gracefool |☺ 03:58, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And the only way to fix that, my pretties, is to have a user option for which version of English he/she prefers, and wikipedia automatically switches every word's spelling based on the preference, unless the word is flagged with a tag that says not to change it (e.g., when specifically discussing "archaeology" vs "archeology"). It sure would end these endless time-after-time arguments about what's the right way to spell things and when--in most cases-- Now wouldn't THAT be a great way for our software developers to spend their time! (Oh please don't take this idea seriously...) Elf | Talk 00:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Actually, since all English Wikipedians aren't about to settle on one version of English, I suspect that increased tolerance for alternative dialects will be the price (eventually). —Michael Z. 15:53, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

Notes for editors that are visible to non-editors

Some articles contain notes for editors that are visible to non-editors. Most of them are statements of the obvious. They often are merely invites to edits. For example:


Others are more subtle but still a matter for editors only. For example:


This sort of thing is so common that I think a mention in the manual is needed. Does anyone else dislike it? Bobblewik  (talk) 15:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I dislike it too and try to remove any instances I find. Some mention of the hidden comments method might be good here. Rmhermen 22:19, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
I agree that it looks very unprofessional. However if an article is missing crucial aspects I'd rather the reader were made aware of that than think he/she had read a comprehensive assessment of the subject. Is there a curly bracket thing that can be added to the top of partial articles along the lines of Template:Inchoate or something? adamsan 22:41, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
AFAIK the only existing equivalent is {{listdev}}, which produces ··gracefool |☺ 14:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


One thing i'm aware of is {{sectstub}} to mark sections as stubs. In general notes to editors should be hidden comments, imo. —siroχo 02:44, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization of celestial bodies

There's no consistency in Wikipedia in the use of capitalization for sun, earth, and moon.

University of Minnesota says:

Do not capitalize the words sun and moon.
Do not capitalize the word earth unless it is used without the definite article in connection with the names of other planets.
The earth rotates on its axis.
Mercury is the planet closest to the sun, followed by Venus and Earth.

Webster says:

Do not, however, capitalize earth, moon, sun, except when those names appear in a context in which other (capitalized) celestial bodies are mentioned. "I like it here on earth," but "It is further from Earth to Mars than it is from Mercury to the Sun.

The United States Government Printing Office Style Manual 2000 says:

Capitalize the names of the celestial bodies Sun and Moon, as well as the planets Earth, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.
but the moons of Jupiter

My personal style has always been closer to the USGPO. I feel that when used as a proper noun in an astronomical context, a celestial body should be capitalized.

The Sun is a main sequence star, with a spectral class of G2. (astronomical context)
It was a lovely day and the sun was warm. (non-scientific context)
The Moon orbits the Earth. (proper nouns)
Phobos is one of the two moons of Mars. (moon as a conventional noun)

Finding no rule in the style guide, however, I thought I'd submit the matter for discussion. Satori 18:44, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

This style seems best (to me, that is ;-)) - though how on Earth we are to decide whether certain phrases are really referring to the celestial object (like that last phrase) beats me...
James F. (talk) 01:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Satori. In James F.'s example -- a good choice of a borderline case -- I'd consider either form acceptable. JamesMLane 11:43, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I would say that in James F.'s example, it should definitely be earth. Gadykozma 13:05, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Looks good, makes sense. ··gracefool |☺ 19:48, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think that the USGPO is how most people would describe their usage. The Minnesota usage is just plain wrong: there are times when Sun *must* be capitalised. The USGPO usage seems most sensible. I wonder if any British authorities say differently... Wooster 19:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Protest to universal addition of metric measurements to US topic articles

I would like to protest the mechanical, universal addition of metric measurements to all US topic articles that is now occurring. I would like to see what the consensus is, and if there is support for my position. Please see my more complete entry at Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Protest to universal addition of metric measurements to US topic articles. Thank you. --

Gary D 00:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm OK with additions, as long as the English system is also used. But the tables in entries on U.S. states are all metric, which I think is inappropriate to the topic.

Maurreen 11 Sep 2004

Capitalization of computer terms

The computer industry includes lots of seemingly-gratuitous capitalization. See Fibre Channel and Operating System, for example. Clearly Fibre Channel, being a proper noun (it's a specific protocol), can be capitalized just like Brooklyn Bridge, and it is ALWAYS capitalized in industry publications. But Operating System (and Host Bus Adapter and Storage Area Network) are not proper nouns. In fact, it seems that the only reason they are ever capitalized is because there are commonly-used abbreviations for them (OS, HBA, and SAN respectively) which are always (annoyingly) spelled out. But hey, if that's the standard then that's the standard. So I believe that we at Wiki should capitalize them. Otherwise, we're just swimming upstream. Opinions?--SFoskett 19:26, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I observe standard English grammar. Though I sometimes feel like a salmon Salmon swimming upstream. Mackerm 19:49, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Use standard English. All industries overcapitalize in publications whose audience is members of that industry. Outside that industry and in publications who have a general audience (such as an encyclopedia) those same terms are not capitalized. That is what we should continue to do. --mav 20:41, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That being said, words like Internet and Web (for World Wide Web) are proper nouns, and should be capitalized accordingly. Wikipedia style also prescribes capitalization of compound words derived from proper nouns, but words like webmaster generally go uncapitalized per the predominant professional style guides. Something to bear in mind. Austin Hair 22:27, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Just to split the hair even finer - according to my boss - "internet" (with a lowercase i) can refer to pretty much any TCP/IP network, whereas "Internet" (with a capital I) refers to the Internet-at-large. →Raul654 01:39, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Well, AIUI, the term "internet" is a contraction of "international [computer] network", so any WAN for sufficiently large values of "W" would be so, yes. But most people, when refering to an internet, will in fact be refering to a part of the Internet (there being relatively few black internets, I'd imagine).
James F. (talk) 01:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I believe the term was based on interconnected network rather than international. I've heard a distinction similar to the one Raul points out, but that the small "i" internet is for a network based on other than the TCP/IP. See [1] for a variety of definitions. [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 02:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually, web is now a noun, not a proper noun - at least, according to increasing numbers of magazines etc (eg. Wired). I'm confident that within ten years or so, almost everyone will use a small "w". ··gracefool |☺ 12:58, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There's no "actually" about it, in fact; both views are perfectly legitimate, though my support is behind the convention used by most style guides and the inventor of the Web himself. (And just to fuel this week's other major style war, I'll point out that he calls WWW an "acronym.") Austin Hair 19:55, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

So what's the decision? I guess we're still discussing, but eventually we will have to reach concensus on this and add it to the manual of style. Another area with Seemingly Gratuitous Capitalization is the automotive industry, where terms like Variable Valve Timing and Dual Overhead Cam are often capitalized, even when they are used in a general sense instead of proper nouns. Actually, these are good examples, too, since both ARE proper nouns sometimes - Toyota has a specific technology calles "VVT" and Ford made an engine named the "DOHC".

So how about this:

Capitalization of Industry Jargon - Industry-specific terms that have commonly-used initialisms but are not proper nouns are often over-capitalized within their industries. Examples include Wide Area Network (WAN) and Variable Valve Timing (VVT). Wikipedia will use standard English grammar rules and will not capitalize words that are not proper nouns. Keep in mind, though, that some jargon, like Fibre Channel and Variable Intake Control System are proper nouns and should remain capitalized wherever they are used.
Looks good. ··gracefool |☺ 04:59, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Capitalisation of 'I' in Internet and 'W' on World Wide Web

Not sure if we might need a bot if we choose to go the way of Wired Magazine and The Guardian. Have a look at this BBC story then our article Internet. Personally I'm all for de-capitalisation. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 02:33, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

The fact that "Wired" made a style choice (and in its justification doesn't even recognize that the reason Internet is capitalized is because it's a proper noun) needn't dictate our style choice. Newspapers, magazines, and websites often make peculiar style choices: as Wikipedia aspires to be an encyclopedia, not a news purveyor, our style choices should reflect prevailing styles used in publishing books, not newspapers. As yet, such style guides uniformly recommend Internet. Not until they change should we. - Nunh-huh 02:42, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment posted by anonymous user 195.158.6.178:

"It's ugly. Internet and WWW are not proper nouns. The internet, and the world wide web should not be capitalized. It's distracting and unnecessary."

[NB: This user also scattered vandalism throughout this page, which I rolled back. It was only later I realised he or she had also made a valid comment, and restored the edit. Sorry for any inconvenience - Mark 05:40, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

Coincidentally(?), this topic had just come up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Capitalization of computer terms. World Wide Web is certainly a proper noun phrase, unless you can demonstrate that another one exists and goes generically by that name; the same goes for Internet in all cases where you're referring to the Internet. You needn't take my word for it, of course, though you should that of Tim Berners-Lee and the Chicago Manual of Style. Austin Hair 05:29, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Don't you mean "This Topic"? You are talking about a particular topic, right? anthony (see warning) 12:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No. The word "topic" was not coined to describe this discussion thread, and is not a proper noun. You yourself even quoted my use of the adjective this—an unequivocal indication, in the absence of an article, that the noun in question is a generic one. Austin Hair 00:10, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
The word "internet" was not coined to describe any particular internet, either. It's a descriptive term, just like telephone network (or even telephone itself). anthony (see warning) 16:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So is the "Atmosphere" a proper noun that should be capitalized as well? I'm neutral on this issue, for now, but if given enough evidence that using lowercase is widely accepted as the standard I'd be willing to accept that standard. anthony (see warning) 12:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's a distinction between the Internet and an internet (see note on Internet). Using a capital for the Internet is very unambiguous - and is consistent with general usage. So I believe actually, that the Internet is a proper noun, while "internet" is not. The World Wide Web is a more academic question, as usually WWW is used (which being an acronym, should use capitals). Interestingly, WWW an unusual acronym in that it is longer to say out loud than World Wide Web. zoney ▓█▒ talk 12:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
But if you read the article, it mentions that the same distinction can be made in other cases, such as the Atmosphere vs. an atmosphere, but this is nearly universally ignored. With World Wide Web it's much more clear, as this is more obviously a name, not a description. But then, with Web, it's less clear again. The Internet is more of a description, similar to the Telephone Network, which I would assume is usually not capitalized even when referring to the specific one encompassing most of the globe. Another factor is that the knowledge of which internet is being talked about is really based on context. It is in many ways similar to saying "Let's go to the ocean" (not "the Ocean"), even though you know you're really about a specific ocean. anthony (see warning) 13:05, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Atmosphere in the specific sense, is not being used as a proper noun. It's not much more than the difference between "the" and "an". It's not really a relevant example to the discussion (not remotely similar to the difference between earth and the Earth, an internet and the Internet) and probably shouldn't have been included. The example sentence is simply leaving out the "taken for granted" word of "Earth's" (the Earth's atmosphere exerts a pressure). In this case, the Internet is a specific network. Someone could come up with an alternate internet and call it Globelink. To talk about "the internet" is just incorrect - our article on the Internet is quite right to point out the difference immediately with a dab. zoney ▓█▒ talk 13:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't see the distinction. Saying "the Internet" just leaves out the taken for granted phrase "that most of the world is connected to." Or should I be saying "that most of the World is connected to?" Internet is a description more than a name, it just happens to be a description of something which most of the world currently uses only one of. Going back to my other example which is probably more applicable, should we be calling it the Telephone Network? anthony (see warning) 13:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying about the different between earth and the Earth. According to this source, you should only capitalise earth and sun and moon when used in a list of celestial objects or part of another name. [2] But it's not clear to me whether you're arguing for or against this distinction. Earth, Sun, and Moon, are proper nouns, right? anthony (see warning) 13:29, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If one is to believe standard histories of the web, internet, as a contraction of interconnected networks, refers generically to any network of interconnected networks. By this version, the big "I" Internet is a specific instance of such interconnected networks (which has grown to such an extent as to have virtually eliminated alternatives). However, I'm not aware that small "i" internet was ever commonly used to refer to any actual alternative networking system. It seems that it is used primarily to make a pedantic, mostly theoretical, distinction, and it may well be that the distinction is purely pedantic and not based in actual (or at least in common) usage. Despite this possibility, I have no problem with treating the Internet like a proper noun since that is currently the most common usage, even though the purported rationale may not have much bearing on reality. [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 13:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Planets other than Earth (capitalized, in this context—the enumeration of other planets is implicit) have atmospheres. I'm surprised at you, Anthony—this distinction is one usually learned no later than the fifth grade, and I know for a fact that you're a native speaker. Austin Hair 00:10, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
This is a strawman. I know that other planets have atmospheres. That was my point. anthony (see warning) 13:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Both the Microsoft Manual of Style for Technical Publications and the Chicago Manual of Style give Internet and World Wide Web. Why is this debate even happening? 145.36.24.29 14:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I should point out, the distinction may not be apparent to any non-techies (and even to some techies), but as a qualified Computer Engineer I can tell you that to talk about "the internet" is just wrong! The parent poster is right - this debate should not be happening. The only reason that it is, is due to the idiotic "style" decisions of two media companies. Permit me to say "GRRRRRrrr" (I'm fed up being nice - it's a stupid pointless debate). zoney ▓█▒ talk 15:53, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough - I'm happy to go with the prevailing style manuals. I strongly suspect that decapitalisation will creep in regardless of the rights or wrongs, just through overwhelming common usage of lower case. But I withdraw my I'm all for decapitalisation in light of the arguments above. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 17:33, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
I didn't know they let "qualified Computer Engineers" determine what is right and wrong capitalization. Captialization rules in English are quite arbitrary, and in this situation there isn't a clear right or wrong. All we can go on is common usage, imposing strict rules on the matter is not any more appropriate than imposing a rule that colour is the wrong way to spell color. anthony (see warning) 13:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm pointing out that the ensuing ambiguity, is from that point of view, appalling - something perhaps not obvious to those judging merely on terms of "style". I will however, refrain from further Grrs, it was a momentary lapse. zoney ▓█▒ talk 16:52, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It still looks pants. The Worst Style Decision in the World will haunt Us in The Future, I just know it. Still, The Population of this website seem to want it, so I guess we have to go with The Majority Opinion. Oh Well. 213.206.33.82 12:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They should be capitalized, because I like seeing them that way. This may well be a transition that's in the process of happening, or it may not be, but I would like to wait until authoritative print sources such as the American Heritage Dictionary decide it has actually happened. Wired is trying to be cool and ahead of the trend. They hope to be tastemakers. The print version of Wired (does it still exist?) had very weird typography and layout, too, which some saw as cool, but was not widely followed by mainstream periodicals. (The alternating use of what I can only call "inverse video" in their page numbers, for example). There's no logical reason for capitalizing anything. This is all a matter of prevailing taste, style, and custom. Print encyclopedias tend to be present a dignified, conservative typographic personality and so should Wikipedia. Which should be capitalized, even though it can easily be understood without it. I will now lose all claim to credibility by noting that I still spell Hallowe'en with an apostrophe, and used to put a dieresis over the second "o" in coöperate, and hyphenating it (co-operate) if I was using a device that lacked a dieresis. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I mostly agree with these comments (except for liking seeing it that way). Right now there is no real standard in this area, so mass decapitalization would be inappropriate. anthony (see warning) 16:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then we should do what we do with US and UK English, consitent within each article, but tollerate diversity within The Encyclopedia. 195.158.9.78 10:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This makes sense – how can people debate this when some articles use "colour" and others say "color"? For me, the capitalization is the correct way of doing it (and should be in a -pedia) but the common person writes them without the capitals and, tbh, few know the associated grammatical rules. "Internet" has left the jargon compsci world and has been adopted into popular culture – try referring to anything as an internet without people thinking of the Internet. This is the explanation that should be given in the main Internet article. violet/riga (t) 10:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just a note—The Economist decapitalized the “internet” long before Wired. Personally I'm inclined to follow The Economist blindly down any dark path it charts. T-bomb 02:15, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are many internets in the world which are not connected to the Internet - and only one Internet. Sentences such as "the internet of intelligence agency <foo> is not connected to the internet", while eventually parseable (albeit allowing of confusion), looks downright ugly if "the Internet" is not a proper noun.
When the people who created internets and the Internet created the terminology (see Internet and Talk:Internet), we very carefully thought all this through, and it's the way it is for a good reason. The BBC guy had it exactly right. The economist, wired et al can take a hike. Noel 00:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So do you really want to say 'my private telephone network is not connected to The Telephone Network that covers most of the rest of The World'? Moooo! 01:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To quote my boss, David Mills - "internet (with a lowercase i) can refer to pretty much any network, whereas Internet (with a capital I) refers to the one and only vast, public Internet" →Raul654 01:49, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
But is there any actual evidence that small "i" internet was ever commonly used to refer to "pretty much any network" (or even to any real network) other than in making a pedantic or theoretical point? [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 01:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Easily proven -- google for the term "corporate internet" (which generally refers to internal company networks, not the Internet-at-large). It brings 119,000 hits. →Raul654 02:16, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm, I really don't mean to make such a big deal out of this, but I'm not convinced. If you look at the Google results for the search you suggest, as far as I can tell all of the references are about corporate marketing and presence on the internet rather than the internal use of internet (which I had always heard as intranet as opposed to internet). [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 02:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Raul's fond of repeating arguments he doesn't fully comprehend (and dropping names, for that matter). In this sense, an "internet" is the layer of interconnected services bound into a single virtual entity, rather than the transport layer itself (cf. WAN). Corporate intranets (networks with no scope outside the company in question) can also be internets under this definition—which isn't commonly understood in the context of today's technical jargon—but the terms aren't mutually interchangable. Austin Hair 07:34, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Consistent spelling

Do we really have a rule to be consistent within an article on color vs. colour? Personally I just always write "color" but always leave "colour" when it's there. There have been a few times that I "fix" what I thought were misspellings but got reverted and then realized it was just an alternate spelling. I think the key here is tolerance. This isn't an issue worth mass-changing anything over, and it's not an issue to get into a revert war over. It probably does make sense to be consistent within an article for this one, though, as it could get quite confusing otherwise. anthony (see warning) 12:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if it is a policy or not, but inconsistent spelling withing an article looks really amateurish. I go by the following rules, which I may have read something similar to in a style guide:
  1. Context - if it's about a U.S. subject, I use U.S. spelling; UK subjects get UK spelling.
  2. Precedence - I try to find out which was the first spelling used, and adjust all spelling to that dialect. So, if 'color' was used and then 'flavour' was added later, I will change it to 'flavor'.
  3. British - being British, I use British spelling if there is no precedent.
PhilHibbs 09:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As an American, I adhere to American English conventions for spelling (except where the dominant form of the article is British), capitalization (everywhere, per our in-house styleguide), and punctuation (except where prescribed otherwise by the MoS). The Let's Relax policy is a good one, and it seems to have worked well enough for us so far, with the notable exception of some crusading Brits. Austin Hair 00:19, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Of course one oughtn't to forget the crusading Americans, upon which one stumbles more often than the other way round I should think. Several of the articles which I began in British English have been knowingly Americanised (and then, of course, reverted). —Sinuhe 19:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
While I've yet to see proven occurences of knowing Americanization, it is true that the dominant spelling convention of an article sometimes shifts during the editing process, eventually leading to a (justified) blanket normalization in the American form; it is also true that certain well-meaning but ignorant editors have been known to make some poorly informed "corrections" from time to time. These changes, however, are almost always made in good faith; only the Brits are blatant in their espousal of "proper" or "international" English. Austin Hair 20:53, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
Pardon me, but I've seen plenty of instances of my fellow Americans urgently insisting that en:Wikipedia spelling should follow American practices, for a variety of reasons, including the dominance of U.S. webpages, the location of Wikipedia servers, and even the idea that America has somehow become the de facto ruler of the world. I wish I could believe that these people are always being sardonic, but I think many really believe these are reasons to impose American spellings on the English-speaking world. I think the current en:Wikipedia policies encouraging cooperation and tolerance are much more rational than either extreme view and their eagerly editing adherents. — Jeff Q 03:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Compare closely and you'll see that this doesn't contradict my statement in any way. Austin Hair 04:31, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

As a fair compromise, Wikipedia should mandate Canadian-English spellings everywhere! —Michael Z. 19:19, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC) (joking)

Agreed, so long as it is understood that not every sentence must start with eh. Also, I will revert all edits that try to slip in parkade. func(talk) 04:01, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling for the "rule". Rmhermen 19:40, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Percent

Is there any convention about whether to use "%" or "percent"? Maurreen 11 Sep 2004

Hi, Maurreen. :) I have seen both usages occur with about equal frequency. func(talk) 07:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

... and it's "per cent" or even "per cent" in British English. Life's so fun.
James F. (talk) 08:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I seemed to remember this being codified in the MoS, but apparently I was mistaken. Conventional usage, in both AmE and BrE, is to use "%" when enumerating using Arabic numerals ("25%") and to spell out the word or phrase ("percent" or "per cent," according to dialect) along with (usu. shorter) spelled-out numbers ("five percent"). As for when to use which form, you're on your own, but as a general rule it's best to use Arabic numerals for percentages equal to or greater than ten. Austin Hair 00:38, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Also spell it out if it begins the sentence. Rmhermen 01:03, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, good point, and also if it stands alone. Austin Hair 05:41, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
Here are some suggestions from a brief search of online style guides:
  • use digits with the symbol (' 5 % ' rather than ' five % ')
  • use decimal forms rather than fractions. e.g. ' 5.25 % ' rather than ' 5¼ % '
  • The Economist style guide says "Use the sign % instead of per cent. But write percentage, not %age (though in most contexts proportion or share is preferable)." The symbol form is international and is therefore particularly appropriate for an online encyclopedia. The symbol is easier than the word form for people who do not have english as their first language, and requires less effort for those who are kind enough to translate articles into other languages.
  • Treat the '%' symbol just as if it were any other unit symbol e.g. precede it with a space. For example:
Length 43 m 25 m 59 m
Height 61 m 96 m 53 m
Load 22 % 85 % 49 %
Current 12 W 56 W 43 W
Yield 62 % 77 % 52 %
Bobblewik  (talk) 09:13, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Associated Press style is to use figures even if the percentage is less than 10 and to spell out "percent." I think that's easier to read in body copy (in contrast to tabular matter).

The main reason I brought this up was because of the city listings. In the sections on demographics, I was distracted from the actual words by all the percentage signs. Maybe we could go with using the symbol, but encouragement for text that needs more than perhaps a few symbols to be put into a list or table.

Maurreen 13:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The following text has been brought over from the Village pump because I think it is a debate worth having here:

££££££££££££££££££££££££££ Start of copied text ££££££££££££££££££££££££££

Why does clicking on red links bring you to the edit page? --Sgeo | Talk 01:05, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Because red links go to pages that don't exist (except when the database is confused). -- Cyrius|✎ 01:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Woudn't it be better though to send the user to something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adslkjfuwr? -Sgeo | Talk 01:13, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
Or even better, make it a user preference --Sgeo | Talk 01:14, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
I think that you [or anyone] wil get used to the red pretty quickly. Don't worry about it and it won't bother you. Carptrash 01:37, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Which leads me to another question: what is the current consensus on red links, anyway? It seems like when I first got here red links for potential article subjects were encouraged as placeholders and a way to draw people into editing and creating articles. More recently I've seen lots of articles "cleaned up" of red links, even when this creates some inconsistency in what is linked and what isn't (such as when some albums but not others by a given group have articles). Of course if an article is created later the implication is that all these articles are now lacking links and have to be located and updated. Jgm 01:46, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think red links make articles harder to read. I also think it has a negative effect on the reader impression of Wikipedia, just as the text "more detail to be added here" makes the encyclopedia look worse. Well-intentioned editors may believe that other people should write particular articles, but it does not mean that they will. Even if they do, the title may differ. Some people assert that they encourage article writing. It is difficult to find out whether there is any significant net benefit. Having the number of persistent red links that we do seems a high price to pay. Bobblewik  (talk) 23:29, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some guidelines: Links to non-existent articles should only be added when the articles in question are supposed to be written. For example, you should not link a person's name unless that person is notable enough to deserve an encyclopedia article. Avoid links on things like individual works (books, albums, etc.) unless you are absolutely certain that the work deserves a separate article of its own, and the main article is already well-developed. Also avoid links on minor fictional characters and in general try to synthesize fiction articles as much as reasonably possible.--Eloquence*

See Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums. There is not really much consensus on the specific issue of albums, but common practice indicates that major bands get an article per album (rule of thumb: if people who don't like the genre, much less the band, have often heard of them, each album can have an article; particularly major bands who non-afficionados are probably unfamiliar with can also have an article per album). Ultimately, each issue is separate -- no single guideline can work in all subjects at all times. I recommend abundant linking if you are not sure -- after all, if you do not know whether or not a term needs an article or not, it probably needs, if nothing else, a redirect, and a red link makes that more likely. I suppose the only real answer is to do whatever floats your boat until you have become well-enough versed in Wikipedia to decide based on whatever criteria seems most useful; as long as you don't start any edit wars or anything, disagreements can usually be amicably resolved.
I am probably at the other end of the scale to you then. I recommend that a link should not be created unless an article exists. Links to non-existent articles are not helpful to readers, and may make the experience worse. Could we at least have a guideline that within a single article, the number of links to non-existant articles should not usually exceed 5% of the links on the page? Bobblewik  (talk) 20:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of a concise rule on the subject... Tuf-Kat 07:35, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Surely a red link means that an article is nonexistent as yet and is intended to encourage an editor to create it? A perfectly praiseworthy aim, I would have thought. Dieter Simon 23:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It is a praiseworthy aim. Having an aim is one thing, it is quite another to assume it has been achieved.
  • What is the effect on readability of having too many links (non-existent and live)?
  • What is the effect on the impression of the encyclopedia of having 'under construction' artefacts.?
  • Are there limits to our willingness to expose all our readers to the unfulfilled ambitions of past editors?
  • Are there any guide lines that a current editor can use to remove a link created by a previous editor?
  • How many non-existent links are on Wikipedia?
  • What is the proportion of non-existent links to live links?
  • How long does it take for a non-existent link to become live?
  • What is the proportion of non-existent links that do not become live within 6 months (or any other time period) of creation?
  • How many articles are created because somebody saw a non-existent link?
  • What is the opportunity cost i.e. if an article is created as a result, is it merely diverting editor effort from other useful work?
  • Is 95 % of links in a prose article should be live a reasonable guideline to put in the Manual of style.
  • Am I the only one that questions the issue?

Perhaps we should take this debate to the Manual of style talk page Bobblewik  (talk) 10:59, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

££££££££££££££££££££££££££ End of copied text ££££££££££££££££££££££££££

I think the suggestion to make it a user preference is good, but I don't know whether that's feasible.

Maurreen 13:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but isn't the existence of red links part of the whole wiki-philosophy? I don't want to come across as some kind of crusty old sod, but questions like this tend to incline me to outbursts like "if you don't like red links, go somewhere else where they don't have them". Maybe you'd prefer one of the Wikipedia mirrors where you can't edit the text? --Phil | Talk 14:31, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

A red link bothers me only when I'm sure no one will ever create the article and it probably shouldn't exist anyway. Some people seem to reflexively link just about any proper noun. On the other hand, I don't agree with a numerical guideline. It would be too restrictive in fields where we're weak, but would allow some garbage links for articles in fields that are well covered. JamesMLane 14:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Phil here. Wikipedia IS a substantially unfinished work in progress. I've been noticing quite a few things being suggested around here lately which are coming from a desire to be more than we are. We're big, but there are large fields in which our coverage is incredibly threadbare.
IMO, red links are hugely encouraging to write articles. I suspect a good many editors write their first article because of a red link -- "What, Wikipedia doesn't have an article on THAT yet?" -- and it's great inspiration for when one is at a loss for what to write about. I note some of those complaining about red links are those who rarely start an article from scratch, preferring to work on existing articles; this may be influencing the opinion. —Morven 04:56, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
Morven, a specific example from the John Kerry article -- in Kerry's first campaign for Congress, in 1972, one of his opponents in the primary was a state legislator. Kerry beat him in the primary but lost the general election. So this opponent was a Massachusetts state legislator 30-some years ago and never advanced to the U.S. Congress. He's a red link now, but I don't see much chance he'll ever have an article. That's the kind of red link I'm not inclined to favor. On the other hand, if a subject showing up as a red link would make people gasp at the absence of an article, then I agree completely -- red-link it to inspire/prod someone. JamesMLane 05:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gender-neutral pronouns

Moved from the Village pump.

User:Vapier is going around changing instances of "he or she" to "he" with edit summaries of the gender neutral form in English is "he". This is something that is somewhat controversial, so I was surprised to find nothing in the Manual of Style discussing this. Is there anywhere where what we do in this case has been discussed? —Morven 04:39, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to make a prediction that not enough people would agree with Vapier's changes for consensus within the WP community, so she or he shouldn't be doing it. func(talk) 04:46, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I am OK with either "he" or "he or she" -- but I reserve the right to chop off the fingers of anyone using singular-they or (shudder) sie/hir ;) →Raul654 05:00, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
I agree about the sie/hir pronouns. They're still neologisms. But I don't think the singular they is so bad, myself (see comment below). Yet another option: what do you think of s/he? I think it's a little on the informal side, but wouldn't really care too much if I saw it in articles. • Benc • 05:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's "he" or, if you want to be PC about it, "they". Simple enough. :-)
James F. (talk) 05:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me, though there will be some dissenting voices. According to prescriptivists, they is not a singular pronoun. (However, I'm a descriptivist at heart.) The average English speaker uses they as their singular gender-neutral pronoun of choice. (Sorry, bad joke. But you see my point — that sentence parsed just fine despite the their, didn't it?) • Benc • 05:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think singular they is just fine and probably the best option because "he" offends so many people, although I'm fine with "he" myself. I don't like "he or she" or sie; the former is sloppy and sounds repetative when used, and the latter isn't common enough —siroχo
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with singular they. I don't consider it PC as it has been used for centuries (since the 14th century in fact, I refer you to [3]). People often say that English has no gender neutral pronouns but singular they does the job just fine. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


The best alternative is often to avoid the problem by recasting the sentence, usually by making the subject plural, so then it is gramatically correct to use "they." I think "he" is OK, but I don't know if it's worthy of going on a hunt to change.
"He or she" usuallly sounds clunky; most people wouldn't talk like that in conversation. "They" is inconsistent with the formality called for by the discouragement of contractions.
Maurreen 06:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As has already been pointed out by Trilobite,'they' is the long-standing option of choice and has nothing to do with PC. 18th century prescriptivists attempted to ban it but failed, fortunately. What no earth has 'they' got to do with contractions? Filiocht 07:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Gee, if "they" is acceptable, can I go back to have my elementary school grades corrected? Sorry folks, I suffered to learn the difference between singular and plural, and now it's your turn. Mackerm 08:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Have a look here: [4] seems your teachers cheated you. Filiocht 09:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I strongly favour 'they', because it is gender neutral. :ChrisG 08:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Whether or not your teachers were wrong is irrelevent. (Some of us learnt proper grammar, as part of Latin. :-P)
James F. (talk) 09:18, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a religious issue over which there'll never be complete agreement. File it alongside split infinitives, dangling participles and other arcana. The important thing is that whatever is written is easy to read and comprehend. On that basis I have absolutely no problem with the singular they. But anyway, since no amount of argument on either side will resolve this, perhaps we should just proceed to the vote... -- Avaragado 10:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. I see four voting options:

  • they
  • he or she
  • she or he
  • s/he

Anyone got more they want to add? Filiocht 10:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Article creator uses their own preference, subsequent editors maintain consistency on per-page basis. See long comment below. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I strongly prefer singular they, but I doubt we can reach a consensus on this that would justify specifying this in the Manual of Style. I could be wrong here, and will be interested to see how it turns out. An alternative would be to explicitly allow more than one style, as we already do with British or American spellings. This could (shock horror) even include variants that don't appear in the four above. Andrewa 12:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As the problem derives from a user who is not allowing more than one style (see above), it may well be that the outcome will to specify in the Manual of Style that variants are acceptable and should not be edited out. If you can think of more variants, please add to the list. As indicated, it is not intended to be complete, just the four I could think of (equal shock, equal horror). Filiocht 12:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think the best practice is the same as what we do now for British/American usage. The creator of an article uses whatever they please, and subsequent editors should keep individual articles clear and consistent without trying to favor one usage over other.
It was true in 1960 that "the gender neutral form is he". It is not true in 2004. What is true in 2004 is that there is no consensus on this point among authorities, as witness the Usage Note from AHD4 below. This note strongly questions whether he is linguistically gender-neutral, and gives a particular case in in which a clear majority chose something other than his but could not agree on what should be used!
AHD4 concludes that "The writer who chooses to use generic he and its inflected forms in the face of the strong trend away from that usage may be viewed as deliberately calling attention to traditional gender roles or may simply appear to be insensitive."
Making systematic wholesale changes in articles that are clear and understandable as written is pushing a POV, in particular a cultural point of view about English usage and is uncalled for.
Here's the full AHD4 usage note: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Traditionally the pronouns he, him, and his have been used as generic or gender-neutral singular pronouns, as in A novelist should write about what he knows best and No one seems to take any pride in his work anymore. Since the early 20th century, however, this usage has come under increasing criticism for reflecting and perpetuating gender stereotyping. •Defenders of the traditional usage have argued that the masculine pronouns he, his, and him can be used generically to refer to men and women. This analysis of the generic use of he is linguistically doubtful. If he were truly a gender-neutral form, we would expect that it could be used to refer to the members of any group containing both men and women. But in fact the English masculine form is an odd choice when it refers to a female member of such a group. There is something plainly disconcerting about sentences such as Each of the stars of As Good As It Gets [i.e., Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt] won an Academy Award for his performance. In this case, the use of his forces the reader to envision a single male who stands as the representative member of the group, a picture that is at odds with the image that comes to mind when we picture the stars of As Good As It Gets. Thus he is not really a gender-neutral pronoun; rather, it refers to a male who is to be taken as the representative member of the group referred to by its antecedent. The traditional usage, then, is not simply a grammatical convention; it also suggests a particular pattern of thought. •It is clear that many people now routinely construct their remarks to avoid generic he, usually using one of two strategies: changing to the plural, so they is used (which is often the easiest solution) or using compound and coordinate forms such as he/she or he or she (which can be cumbersome in sustained use). In some cases, the generic pronoun can simply be dropped or changed to an article with no change in meaning. The sentence A writer who draws on personal experience for material should not be surprised if reviewers seize on that fact is complete as it stands and requires no pronoun before the word material. The sentence Every student handed in his assignment is just as clear when written Every student handed in the assignment. •Not surprisingly, the opinion of the Usage Panel in such matters is mixed. While 37 percent actually prefer the generic his in the sentence A taxpayer who fails to disclose the source of &rule3m; income can be prosecuted under the new law, 46 percent prefer a coordinate form like his or her; 7 percent felt that no pronoun was needed in the sentence; 2 percent preferred an article, usually the; and another 2 percent overturned tradition by advocating the use of generic her, a strategy that brings the politics of language to the reader's notice. Thus a clear majority of the Panel prefers something other than his. The writer who chooses to use generic he and its inflected forms in the face of the strong trend away from that usage may be viewed as deliberately calling attention to traditional gender roles or may simply appear to be insensitive. See Usage Notes at each, every, neither, one, she, they.
—American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=5876563"