Agregue un enlace a las nuevas discusiones en la parte superior de la lista e indique de qué tipo de discusión se trata (solicitud de traslado, RfC, discusión abierta, discusión de eliminación, etc.). Siga los enlaces para participar, si está interesado. Mueva el tema a Concluido cuando se haya decidido y resuma la conclusión. Mantenga esta sección en la parte superior de la página.
Actual
(La mayoría de estos son antiguos/terminados/archivados, no actuales, ya que nadie se ha hecho cargo del mantenimiento de esta sección. ¿Se ofrece como voluntario?) (el más nuevo en la parte superior)
Ayuda:Tabla#Indentación de tablas : la página de ayuda entra en conflicto con MOS:DLIST y MOS:ACCESS por un punto técnico. No tengo objeción a solucionarlo y sugiero que simplemente lo hagamos de manera WP:BOLDly , pero el trabajo debe hacerse. (Agosto de 2023 – Enero de 2024)
Perdónenme por abordar uno de los temas con docenas de discusiones previas vinculadas en el encabezado, pero esto me ha estado molestando y parece lo suficientemente importante como para ser una fuente de constante confusión y discrepancia. En general, los artículos sobre figuras clásicas (o al menos ese es el alcance más útil que puedo determinar) con nombres grecolatinos que terminan en S como Arquímedes parecen divergir conscientemente de MOS:'S . Parece ser un problema real, ya que estos son algunos de los ejemplos más destacados de lo que la directriz antes mencionada pretende cubrir. Como parece bastante improbable que nos encontremos con una excepción bien definida para el MOS, ¿qué se supone que debemos hacer aquí? Remsense ‥ 论12:15, 14 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
El primero, perdón. Arquímedes contra Arquímedes . Remsense ‥ 论02:09, 16 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Por qué debería tener algo que ver con la fecha del tema? No cambiamos nuestro idioma al griego clásico para hablar de Arquímedes; ¿por qué deberíamos cambiarlo de otras maneras?
Pero ahora me pregunto sobre un tema diferente. Un posesivo 's' o 's', al menos de la manera en que yo lo diría, se expresa de forma sonora, más como una z. Así es como normalmente pronunciaría la s al final del nombre Arquímedes. Si fuera más estricto con la pronunciación griega (recordando esa escena de Bill y Ted) podría ser diferente. Pero por alguna razón, algunos otros nombres que terminan en vocal-s (incluidos Moisés y Jesús) terminan con una s sorda para mí. Si deletreo el posesivo "Moses'" y lo pronuncio "Mozəz", estoy sustituyendo la consonante final en lugar de simplemente eliminar una consonante repetida. Pero si lo deletreo "Moses's" y lo pronuncio "Mozəsəz", me parece más lógico porque sigo pronunciando tanto el nombre como el posesivo de la manera que esperaría.
Es decir, creo que el uso de s' vs s's podría basarse razonablemente en la pronunciación en lugar de en la ortografía o la cronología. — David Eppstein ( discusión ) 07:17 16 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
En esos contextos, parece que no se usa la S final, lo que se ha mencionado recientemente en el rayo de calor de Arquímedes como una razón por la que es convencional en este caso. No estoy de acuerdo en absoluto con eso, pero es un argumento que parece contradecirse directamente con el consenso existente, por lo que estoy un poco desconcertado.
Tampoco estoy de acuerdo con el argumento de la fonología, ya que seguramente es algo que varía según el acento y probablemente no se pueda distinguir claramente en muchos casos. Remsense ‥ 论07:21, 16 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hay dos cuestiones distintas. La gramática correcta exige eliminar la S sólo después de una terminación plural en S. Una terminación singular en S tiene una forma posesiva ' s'.
En realidad no, ya que citar o citar no es lo mismo que transcribir: somos totalmente capaces de divergir en estilo de nuestras fuentes (en muchos casos se espera que lo hagamos) porque obviamente no afecta el significado de las afirmaciones. Remsense ‥ 论09:16, 16 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
En general, se observa que Jesús y Moisés no usan el apóstrofe s para evitar el sonido ziz ziz: así que son Jesús y Moisés. (Tangente: supongamos que hay varias personas llamadas Jesús, que colectivamente poseen algo: sería el de los Jesús). Sin embargo, en general no se considera categóricamente incorrecto. Olvidé lo que dice MoS. Todo lo mejor: Rich Farmbrough 20:26, 28 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC).[ responder ]
Suena demasiado a Azazel . ¿MÁS QUE UNA COINCIDENCIA? E Eng 17:44, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]
No deberíamos volver a hacer excepciones en este sentido. Las principales guías de estilo, como la de Chicago (en la que se basa la mayor parte de MoS), han abandonado este tema, y las que sí lo hacen o solían hacer excepciones nunca ofrecieron excepciones consistentes, ni razones para ninguna que fueran consistentes entre guías de estilo, consistentes con principios dentro de la misma guía de estilo, o incluso consistentes con hechos lingüísticos y psicológicos reales, sino simplemente racionalizaciones confusas ofrecidas en defensa de "tradiciones" contradictorias. PD: La pronunciación oral real de algo como "Jesús" o "Jesús'", como prefieras, varía completamente según el dialecto y, a menudo, según otros factores (habituación dentro de una subcultura particular, como una comunidad de iglesia específica, etc.). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:18, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Voy a preguntar sin rodeos: "si empiezo a cambiar esto en artículos muy visibles, ¿cuánta resistencia recibiré?" No quiero molestar a la gente, pero también creo que la desconexión actual entre muchos artículos importantes y lo que dice claramente la política es un problema. Remsense ‥ 论02:27, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Columna de texto de un carácter
¿Tenemos una política que cubra el texto que se muestra en una columna estrecha como una serie de líneas de un carácter? Por ejemplo, consulte [1] — GhostInTheMachine háblame 13:13, 17 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy bastante seguro de que no. Si bien todo ese color y esas cosas en esa página en particular parecen inútiles, el texto "vertical" tiene sus usos: consulte la columna izquierda de WP:MOSNUM#Specific_units . E Eng 13:56, 17 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ambas versiones (la que está vinculada y la actual) son incorrectas. Simplemente use la fecha actual, con la clasificación de fecha correcta. Gonnym ( discusión ) 14:25 17 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Es una violación de las prácticas adecuadas de accesibilidad. Hace que cualquiera que use un lector de pantalla tenga que aguantar "jay ay en yoo ay ar wy", etc. Aparte de eso, no hay justificación para el estilo de mayúsculas o el uso de colores. Es como algo de 1998. Largoplazo ( discusión ) 14:31 17 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Felicitaciones a alguien por hacer el esfuerzo, pero no fue una buena idea. Todo lo mejor: Rich Farmbrough 20:28, 28 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC).[ responder ]
Formato de subtítulos
Propongo esta regla:
Sin embargo, si en un título aparece una oración completa, cada oración y cada fragmento de oración en ese título debe terminar con un punto.
Debería complementarse con esto:
En el caso de subtítulos de fragmentos de oraciones, si aparecen otros signos de puntuación, el subtítulo también debe terminar con un punto.
Esa no es la oración del artículo; elimine la palabra o . La propuesta suena razonable a primera vista, pero podría necesitar una justificación sólida. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Nombre de usuario:Chatul ( discusión ) 19:39, 23 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Entonces, si un título incluye una coma o un guión inofensivos, ¿debe terminar con un punto? No creo que eso suponga una mejora. Nuestra regla actual es simple y coherente y no veo una buena razón para un cambio de ese tipo. Gawaon ( discusión ) 08:39 26 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Una forma segura de molestar a los lectores y editores sería marcar con puntos los títulos que no son oraciones, como si fueran oraciones. Eso sería muy extraño y daría lugar a reversiones de inserciones de puntos o a expansiones de títulos en oraciones importantes, que luego se revertirían, y la interrupción continuaría hasta que se revirtiera el cambio de MOS. NebY ( discusión ) 15:20 26 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo con "no creo que eso sea una mejora" y "sería muy extraño de hecho", y con el potencial de WP:BIKESHEDDING y WP:DRAMA en una gran cantidad de páginas (la mayoría con ilustraciones, en realidad). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:05, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Propuesta de astronomía MoS
Hemos elaborado una propuesta de artículo de MoS para el tema de astronomía, que se encuentra aquí: MOS:ASTRO . ¿Existe un proceso de aprobación que se deba seguir para que se incluya en la plantilla {{ Style }} ? Es decir, que se agregue a 'Por área temática' en 'Ciencia'. Solo quiero entender los pasos. Gracias. Praemonitus ( discusión ) 17:32 24 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hmmm... Abarca algunas cuestiones que no son realmente cuestiones de estilo . Tal vez debería titularse WP:ASTRO y no MOS:ASTRO. Blueboar ( discusión ) 20:28 27 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ah, vale. Bueno, supongo que es más bien una guía. Gracias. Praemonitus ( discusión ) 02:04 28 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Pregunta rápida... ¿Esto lo presenta un Wikiproyecto? Supongo que hay más de cuatro personas en el proyecto y que esta es actualmente la norma para este tipo de páginas. Moxy 🍁 02:34, 28 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo único que pedí fue el procedimiento. Es en relación con WP:AST . Gracias. Praemonitus ( discusión ) 04:51 28 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Es relativamente poco controvertido que WikiProjects desarrolle sugerencias para el contenido de los artículos y las etiquete como ensayos, y no requiere una convocatoria de propuestas formal ni un consenso de toda la enciclopedia; para un ejemplo reciente, véase Wikipedia:Números/Directrices de WikiProject . Hacer que algo sea una directriz vinculante para toda la enciclopedia es algo mucho más importante y probablemente requeriría la aceptación de un grupo mucho más amplio de editores a través de una convocatoria de propuestas formal anunciada en la Village Pump, etc. Si lo van a llamar Manual de estilo, debería limitarse puramente al estilo y no al contenido o las referencias, y debería formularse más como reglas de formato claras que como sugerencias vagas del tipo "debería considerar este tipo de fuente para este tipo de contenido". Además, tiendo a pensar que sugerencias como "La precisión de la imagen debería ser confirmada por un experto en astronomía" van mucho más allá de las normas habituales de Wikipedia, donde nos basamos en la verificabilidad a través de las fuentes en lugar de las credenciales y la experiencia personal. - David Eppstein ( discusión ) 06:09, 28 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
@Praemonitus : No deberías referirte a algo como esto como una "guía" a menos que y hasta que haya pasado por el proceso WP:PROPOSAL (generalmente en WP:VPPOL en estos días). Esto generalmente implica una revisión significativa después de la contribución de la comunidad, porque la política de WP:Writing es difícil . Algo como esto es (actualmente) un ensayo WP:PROJPAGE , y debería etiquetarse como tal, con o si gran parte de él no es un asunto de estilo, entonces . Y debería estar en Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Style advice ya que no es parte del MoS. Si un proceso de propuesta fuera exitoso, se movería a WP:Manual of Style/Astronomy y tomaría atajos como MOS:ASTRO. Por favor, no crees atajos "MOS:..." de manera preventiva a cosas que no son parte de las pautas de MoS; esto solo confunde a las personas y lleva a conflictos (especialmente a las personas que afirman que una página de cuatro autores sin aceptación de la comunidad tiene la fuerza de una guía cuando no la tiene). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:01, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]{{WikiProject style advice}}{{WikiProject advice}}
Gracias por tu aporte, SMcCandlish. Praemonitus ( discusión ) 02:28 26 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Parabellum de 9 × 19 mm
¿Debería limitarse esto? Saludos cordiales: Rich Farmbrough 20:12, 28 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC).[ responder ]
Al parecer, se registró como marca comercial (no como RS, pero véase aquí), lo que sería una buena razón para ponerle un límite. Los ngramas indican un uso mixto, pero no lo suficiente como para justificar el uso de minúsculas, aunque probablemente esté pasando a ser una marca de minúsculas. Cinderella157 ( discusión ) 00:50 29 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Intentaré aportar algo, por falta de aportaciones, basándome en una lectura superficial de los cartuchos del pasado:
Si la popularidad de "Parabellum" es equivalente a la de las minúsculas, entonces tal vez se pueda argumentar lo mismo de "Winchester" o incluso de "NATO" (o "Nato" o "nato", según he visto en foros). ¿Tiene sentido? (Yo diría que la única razón por la que "Winchester" siempre se escribe con mayúscula es que ya es un nombre propio en inglés, y entonces ver "Nato" podría ser más una forma de evitar los escándalos online). Se podría afirmar mejor que se trata de algo así como una marca comercial genérica si el término genérico "parabellum" se aplicara a cartuchos distintos del cartucho de pistola 9x19mm original específico (o los otros cartuchos Parabellum específicos) (y no simplemente a cartuchos idénticos/compatibles de distintos fabricantes). SamuelRiv ( discusión ) 23:11 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si se trata de una marca comercial (y no se ha declarado legalmente, en varias jurisdicciones pertinentes importantes, que se ha convertido en genérica, como "asprin"), entonces se escribe con mayúscula, según MOS:TM , al menos cuando se utiliza para el tema de la marca comercial. El término "marca comercial genérica" en realidad tiene un significado legal específico y se utiliza de forma incorrecta con frecuencia; no significa "a veces utilizado por personas al azar como sustituto de una clase de productos en lugar de uno famoso específico, o utilizado metafóricamente y, a veces, con la ortografía cambiada"; "Kool-Aid" y "Band-Aid" no son marcas comerciales genéricas, sin importar con qué frecuencia alguien pueda escribir "No beba el Koolaid" o "Esa solución sería solo una curita". El argumento de SamuelRiv es razonable respecto de que "parabellum" a veces se usa para productos de posventa, para significar básicamente "compatible con Parabellum" o "equivalente a Parabellum" o, de manera menos halagadora, "imitación de Parabellum", pero ese uso es probablemente demasiado impreciso y tiene un punto de vista de marketing como para que WP lo use en primer lugar. En cuanto a "Nato", ese estilo fue creado por algunos editores de noticias con un extraño estilo "simplificador" de siempre escribir acrónimos pronunciados como palabras (en lugar de deletrearlos) como si fueran palabras y no acrónimos/inicialismos (usan "MI5" y "FBI", pero "Unicef" y "Nasa", y también usan ridículamente "SIDA" en referencia a la enfermedad, a pesar de que no es un nombre propio y otras enfermedades no se escriben con mayúscula; no escriben "Tuberculosis" o "Mieloma"). No es sorprendente que este estilo tonto, confuso e inconsistente se haya extendido a foros y redes sociales, que esencialmente no tienen normas de estilo más allá de sentidos idiosincrásicos de conveniencia, pero no está relacionado con la pregunta "Parabellum", ni con el estilo WP (nosotros usamos "SIDA" y "UNICEF", según MOS:ACRO ). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:50, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
El cuadro de inserción debajo de la ventana de edición
En la sección Símbolos matemáticos comunes , sugerimos utilizar el cuadro de inserción debajo de la ventana de edición , la caja de herramientas de edición debajo de la ventana de edición , en la sección "Matemáticas y lógica" de la caja de herramientas de edición y en la sección "Insertar" de la caja de herramientas de edición , que muchos editores ya no tienen, o no suelen tener. Suponiendo que todavía esté presente para suficientes editores como para que valga la pena mencionarlo, ¿podemos matizarlo brevemente para no dejar a muchos editores perdidos y confundidos? NebY ( discusión ) 19:54 7 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ NebY : Este es el gadget "charinsert", que está habilitado de forma predeterminada para todos los usuarios y todos los aspectos, y si las personas ya no lo tienen, han ido a Preferencias → Gadgets y han desactivado la opción " (D) CharInsert: agrega una barra de herramientas debajo de la ventana de edición para insertar rápidamente marcado wiki y caracteres especiales ( ¿problemas? )". -- Red rose64 🌹 ( discusión ) 21:02, 7 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tengo ese gadget habilitado. NebY ( discusión ) 21:22 7 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Qué pasa con los usuarios de la aplicación móvil? Supongo que este dispositivo no está disponible para ellos. ¿Tienen algún equivalente? Parece que este texto debería probablemente ajustarse para tener en cuenta las diferentes experiencias de los usuarios. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:52, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tema sobre artículos relacionados con el amazigh.
He estado encontrando problemas continuos con User:Skitash , si bien respeto parte del trabajo que han hecho en ciertas páginas, parecen tener un sesgo significativo cuando se trata de artículos relacionados con el grupo étnico amazigh/bereber. El primer problema involucra múltiples páginas específicas de la historia bereber, como Maghrawa y Banu Ifran . Cuando agregué la etiqueta de idioma en el encabezado por WP:LEADLANG para Tamazight/bereber, mis ediciones fueron revertidas por User Me aseguré de mantener el idioma extranjero, lo que ni siquiera debería hacerse, WP:FORLANG , en árabe, aunque no estaba citado. User:Skitash justificó su reversión de la inclusión del idioma tamazight citando Wikipedia:No original research , a pesar del hecho de que la palabra "Banu Ifran" fue citada dos veces para su traducción al tamazigh. La razón dada fue que el sistema de escritura (Neo-Tifinagh) "no se usaba en ese entonces". Sin embargo, se permitió que el texto árabe no citado permaneciera. Necesito una aclaración: ¿Tenemos prohibido agregar el idioma principal solo porque el sistema de escritura era diferente en ese momento, mientras que mantenemos el texto árabe no citado a pesar de que cae bajo WP:FORLANG ? ¿O ambos deberían eliminarse por completo? Me comunico con ustedes porque preferiría evitar una guerra de ediciones.
El segundo problema se refiere a Wikipedia:Punto de vista neutral y Wikipedia:Manual de estilo . En la página de bereberismo , el usuario introdujo un lenguaje que parecía tendencioso, afirmando que el movimiento está estrechamente vinculado al racismo antiárabe . Esto se presentó de una manera que le dio un peso indebido, apareciendo dos veces en la página, una dentro del texto más grande y otra en la primera sección sobre Argelia, sin citar adecuadamente la parte superior. Eliminé la parte superior, aunque creo que ambas violan completamente Wikipedia:Punto de vista neutral , pero eliminé la superior porque no solo viola eso sino también Wikipedia:Sin investigación original , Wikipedia:Verificabilidad pero fue revertida por él. Quiero entender mejor la situación, si cometí un error al eliminarlo o si las ediciones de Skitash fueron realmente problemáticas.
El tercer problema se relaciona con Karima Gouit y páginas más amplias sobre los bereberes . Mi interpretación de Wikipedia:LEADLANG , en particular para los grupos étnicos con su propia lengua y escritura, apoya la inclusión del neotifinagh en lugar del tamazight. Sin embargo, el texto árabe se utiliza dos veces en estas páginas, mientras que la forma latinizada del amazigh aparece solo una vez y el neotifinagh está completamente ausente. Necesito confirmación: ¿está permitido añadir el neotifinagh, incluso si se cita? ¿Y qué pasa con el uso del árabe, que no es la lengua étnica de estos grupos étnicos? Volviendo al tema de Karima Gouit, ella es una cantante amazigh, como lo indican sus perfiles públicos fuera de su página de Wikipedia que está completamente desactualizada, canciones, entrevistas y su último papel como actriz. También es una famosa activista de la causa amazigh. Skitash revirtió la adición de su nombre en tamazight, a pesar de permitir que se mantuviera la versión árabe. Esto se suma al debate más amplio sobre si incluir su ascendencia bereber, que otros dos editores argumentaron en contra de citar Wikipedia:La etnicidad no es lo suficientemente notable para la sección de introducción, sugiriendo que solo debería incluirse en el cuerpo con las citas adecuadas. A pesar de estas discusiones en la página de discusión, Skitash ha mostrado poco interés en seguir conversando incluso cuando él fue quien estuvo detrás de la eliminación de las ediciones, y el diálogo ahora es en gran parte entre yo y otros dos editores que inicialmente no fueron parte de la revisión. Pero a medida que avanzaba, decidió eliminar la página y, al intentar colocar cada cita "antigua" que ni siquiera estuviera relacionada con el tema como "mal citada", desde entonces he escalado el asunto al tablón de anuncios de disputas, pero Skitash respondió presentando un informe en mi contra en Wikipedia:Investigaciones de títeres/YassinRi repentinamente con causa cuestionable, mientras que también tiene otra disputa con otro editor relacionada con la inclusión de bereberes en sus propios temas. lo cual está fuera del alcance de esta pregunta, disculpas pero solo quería señalar esto... Para la página de Karima Gouit, ¿debería incluirse o no la traducción de su nombre en su idioma nativo? Y en términos de tratar con Skitash, ¿hay una forma más efectiva de comunicarse con ellos directamente, en lugar de involucrar constantemente a terceros en disputas sobre temas relacionados con los bereberes, ya que él claramente se opone a ello? TahaKahi ( discusión ) 13:31 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si bien mencionas algunos problemas de estilo específicos, tengo la sensación de que se trata principalmente de una disputa de contenido. Me pregunto si podrías reducir esto a aquellos problemas en los que realmente necesitas ayuda para interpretar el MOS y plantear los demás problemas en algún otro foro; consulta Wikipedia:Resolución de disputas para obtener ayuda para encontrarlas. -- Trovatore ( discusión ) 18:08, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo he mencionado en la resolución de disputas, se encontró con que estaba bloqueado porque la persona que sigue intentando bloquear Wikipedia: LEADLANG decidió eliminarlo como mencioné antes en lugar de tener una conversación y tratar de llegar a una resolución, esto se extendió a él ignorando a otra persona, que presentó una resolución de disputa sobre él por el mismo tema, su disgusto de que cualquier cosa relacionada con los bereberes/amazighs se incluya en los temas relacionados con los bereberes/amazighs, aquí: Wikipedia:Tablón de anuncios de resolución de disputas #Discusión de Argelia , en cambio, la misma persona lo llevó aún más lejos y decidió ignorarlo, como se ve en su respuesta a la alerta realizada en su página cuando lo eliminó: [2].
Entiendo que este asunto puede no llegar a una conclusión bajo MOS, pero me gustaría aclarar un punto: ¿Podemos establecer una decisión con respecto a la inclusión de las lenguas bereberes (tamazight), que se hablan ampliamente en el norte de África, especialmente en Argelia y Marruecos, para temas relacionados con su historia y cultura? Para figuras históricas como Kahina o Kusaila , que son claramente bereberes y no árabes o incluso musulmanes, ¿deberían tener tamazight y su forma neoescritura o latinizada incluida en sus introducciones de Wikipedia, por Wikipedia:LEADLANG ? ¿Esto se aplicaría a figuras históricas, reinos, activistas amazigh y temas relacionados? Una decisión clara sobre esto ayudaría a prevenir más guerras de edición. Por lo que he visto, otras versiones de idiomas de Wikipedia incluyen tamazight por Wikipedia:LEADLANG , pero este problema persiste solo en la versión en inglés. Está siendo constantemente cuestionado por dos personas con un razonamiento vago, como mencioné anteriormente. TahaKahi ( discusión ) 18:37, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Lo que otros proyectos hagan o no hagan no viene al caso. Si tienes una pregunta específica sobre una edición específica, utiliza la página de discusión del artículo y expón tu caso allí. Ir de foro en foro, lanzar calumnias y tergiversar las fuentes para promover un punto de vista (como hiciste tú) no es aceptable. M.Bitton ( discusión ) 18:44 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
I will refer to read what I said at the start of my reply which details how this didn't work, as for why this exist, its because I was referred to make one from the dispute resolution from 2 day ago. And also i would refer to your behavior in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#c-M.Bitton-20241009175700-TahaKahi-20241009175000TahaKahi (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that this has already landed at the AN, I don't think there's anything to be done here. Gawaon (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The administrator noticeboard of our topic is chaotic at the moment, as many people are involved. It seems that a resolution may not be reached, as the discussion has shifted away from the main topic to something else. I don't know the exact path to take here? I was told to see the issue with Dispute resolution, then MOS and with AN i moved back and forth. TahaKahi (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not resolved there, it certainly won't be resolved here. This page is for discussions about improvements to the MOS, and your issue seems largely unrelated to that. You'll have to resolve it either at the talk pages of the articles in question or at the AN. Good luck. Gawaon (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TahaKahi: I would add that these pages seem comparatively obscure, so resolution at the talk page of one or another of them seems unlikely, especially if it's just you and someone else arguing back and forth and reverting each other, but not coming to agreement on sources. The first issue you mentioned sounds like a source reliability dispute, and is something for WP:RSN. The second seems like a matter for WP:NPOVN. The third: Well, Karima Gouit is a red link, so I'm not entirely sure what this is about. As a general matter, it is normal and expected for an ethnic group's name for itself (or some topic that pertains especially to that group) in its own language(s) and script(s) to be represented in the lead, within reason (though sometimes in a footnote). Tamazight is a language family (or sometimes used more narrowly for a subfamily); Neo-Tifinagh is a modern standardized script (though not universally adopted) for writing those languages. If the multiple Tamazight languages are going to produce multiple distinct renditions of a name in N-T, then that will be excessive and it should all go in a footnote, especially if non-Neo versions in historical Tifinagh are also included (discouraged; that's better for an "Etymology" or "History" section). As for Arabic, it is the dominant language/script in much of the pertinent region, so is also often going to be reasonable to represent in Berber-related topics, at least broad/general ones; but if a footnote is used, then Arabic should also go in the footnote.
I'm only getting your side of the story, but it seems that you might be meeting anti-Neo-Tifinagh or anti-Tamazight (or even anti-Berber) PoV pushing, which is likely a matter for WP:NPOVN again. If there's a really clear WP:NOR problem happening that is distinctly NOR more than NPOV or V/RS, then that particular matter might be better brought up at WP:NORN. I would advise trying to resolve one issue at a time, not starting 2 or 3 noticeboard threads. But anyway, virtually none of this is really an MoS matter, except trivially and incidentally. My quick trawl through various articles related to the Berber people and languages shows a great deal of PoV-laden and otherwise unencyclopedic language, so a more focused cleanup effort needs to be engineered, perhaps through asking for help at any of these noticeboards in the course of trying to resolve issues thereby, and by asking for help at any of the pertinent wikiprojects listed in the wikiproject banner shell at the top of Talk:Berbers (Berbers, Ethnic groups, Africa and pertinent national taskforces/workgroups thereof, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, and Algeria; if it's a language-specific matter, maybe also Linguistics, and Languages; maybe also Guild of Copyeditors, though they are swamped). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Examples to clarify MOS:AFFIXDASH vs MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES (especially re: combining forms)
Good morning,
In editing an article, I discovered an issue I realised isn't very clear from the existing examples given in MOS:AFFIXDASH and MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES, and this recalled an earlier debate I'm still unsure about.
The multi-compound in question was "Afro-Peruvian-American" on the page Afro–Latin Americans. Now, this could probably just be rendered "Afro-Peruvian American" to avoid the issue altogether, but I thought it best to find out what's actually right and to get a clarifying example or two on here if we can, to settle future debates.
Over at Afro–Puerto Ricans, I was told the en dash is correct in that title page, even though "Afro-" is a combining word rather than a non-standalone prefix. This was a little confusing, because MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES gives a similar example where this isn't the case specifically because of a combining form:
"Wrong: Franco–British rivalry; Franco- is a combining form, not an independent word, so use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry."
Obviously, "British rivalry" isn't an open compound, so I recognise this example may not be wholly applicable, but it seems to me that the article is calling out combining forms as different to standard affixes. If true, the combining form might essentially make "Afro-Puerto Rican" a single thing, meaning you would only use the en dash if you added a prefix to that (such as for "anti–Afro-Puerto Rican"). (Merriam-Webster suggests they're slightly different things too: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/spelling-using-compound-words-guide/prefixed-suffixed-and-combining-form-compounds.)
The argument given against that view was essentially that MOS:AFFIXDASH always applies, even for combining forms, and thus because "Latin America" is an open compound, the "Afro-" should be joined with an en dash. I'm still not wholly sure if that's right, simply because all the examples under MOS:AFFIXDASH use prefixes and suffixes which are non-standalone (i.e., non-combining forms), and the section doesn't seem to comment specifically on combining forms. And "Afro-" like "Franco-" seems to me to be subtly different to a prefix like "trans-", "pre-" or "post-".
So, in short: if "Afro-Latin Americans" and "Afro-Puerto Ricans" are correct, then can we mention that MOS:AFFIXDASH doesn't apply to combining forms? And if they're wrong, and we should use "Afro–Latin Americans" and "Afro–Puerto Ricans", can we get some examples at MOS:AFFIXDASH that use combining words too? That would neatly clarify the situation without too much extra verbiage.
And finally, given the answer to the above, should I also change "Afro-Peruvian-American" to "Afro-Peruvian–American" or "Afro-Peruvian American" (or even "Afro–Peruvian-American"/"Afro–Peruvian American")?
I hope this makes sense! (I care a little bit too much about punctuation, it seems.) Lewisguile (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on this? I archived my other (settled) query so this one is more visible. Lewisguile (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lewisguile: "Afro–Puerto Ricans" with an en dash is wrong; the quite specific rule is that combining forms (typically prefixes) take a hyphen. This particular case is going to be potentially confusing to someone somewhere, regardless what kind of horizontal puctuator is used, because the prefix is being attached to a two-word proper name that, being a proper name, does not take internal hyphenation. "Franco-Austrian" doesn't have that problem, but "Russo-Sri Lankan" would, and it would be better the rephrase when practical, e.g. in "Russia–Sri Lanka trade relations" or "trade relations between Russia and Sri Lanka". For "Afro-Puerto Ricans", an alternative like "Puerto Ricans of African descent" might be awkward sometimes but preferable in others. Just because some such terms are conventional, as in "Afro-Cuban" and "Afro-Brazilian", doesn't mean that every possible construction of this sort is mandatory to use. (And "Afro-American" has fallen into explicit disuse.) PS: On the last question, it would be "Afro-Peruvian-American" as an adjective ("an Afro-Peruvian-American singer"), but "Afro-Peruvian American" as a noun phrase. An en dash is not used at all in such a construction, even a shorter one. No one is "Japanese–British". Such a string indicates a relationship (be it collaborative or conflicting) between Japan and Britain as nations, cultures, geographic regions, or governments. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was my belief, too, but when I raised it over at the page now named Afro–Puerto Ricans, I faced vigorous disagreement. I have updated the examples and the guidance text here. Please let me know what you think?
Similarly, this means we probably need to rename the pages which were recently changed to have an en-dash, including Afro–Latin Americans and a few others? But if others are happy with my recent tweaks to the MOS:AFFIXDASH section, then I should be able to request a move on those with a link back here now it's clearer. Lewisguile (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the person is an American of African and Peruvian heritage, rather than someone with all three contemporary nationalities. MapReader (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. All three heritages together would presumably be "African–Peruvian–American", since they're all equal? Probably also a good example to include. Lewisguile (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I don't really get the logic behind the new rule now added to the MOS. If "ex–prime minister" is correct, why is "Afro–Puerto Rican" wrong? The text talks about "Combining forms" but what's that and why is "Afro-" more combining than "ex-"? Right now I would have no idea how to distinguish a combining prefix from a non-combining one (if there's such a thing, which I doubt). Gawaon (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Chicago Manual of Style, a combining form + open compound gets an en dash.
the word something ... is a combining form that connects to other words with a hyphen, as in "twenty-something years old." When joined to the open compound "two hundred," it gets an en dash in Chicago style
I boxed up two hundred–something widgets. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I find the carve-out added to MOS for combining forms needless. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, you don't agree with the change and I can't agree with it either simply because I don't understand it. So we have no consensus here and I'll revert the change until consensus is reached. Gawaon (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Chicago MOS is using "combining form" in a manner that isn't consistent with how we've used it earlier under MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. As per the examples under Dual Nationalities, the difference is that "Franco-" (as explained above) is a combining form of "France", just as "Afro-" is. "Ex-" isn't a combining form. The specific overrides the general, so you don't split the combining form with an en dash.
Combining forms like "Afro-", "Franco-" and "Russo-" are fundamentally different to affixes like "ex-", "post-", "pre-", etc. I'm not sure how to best explain because it seems self-evident to me, but I'll try. The former can be rendered as standalone words which don't need hanging hyphens, whereas the latter usually can't because they're just modifiers; their purpose is to modify but not really to exist on their own. (Yes, in colloquial usage we might say "my ex[-partner]", "I'm pro[-this] or "I'm anti[-that]", but we're always implying another word there that those affixes modify. "France" doesn't have to do that.)
"Ex–prime minister" is different because "ex-" isn't a combining form and "prime minister" is a compound with a space. "Puerto Rican" is a compound with a space but "Afro-" is a combining form. Hence, the specific rule overrides the general rule. Lewisguile (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your explanation is a bit confused. Neither "Afro", "Franco" nor "post" (in that sense), "pre" can be used in their own. They are all only usable as prefix. But I suppose what you meant is that "Afro-", "Franco-" and "Russo-" are "combining forms" of words that can be used on their own (African, French, and Russian). Granted that, where exactly in CMOS does it say that these combining forms always take a hyphen instead of an en dash? If they have such a rule, I wasn't able to find it. Gawaon (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. For "Franco-British", it calls combining forms out as exceptions. As for the rest: yes, that's what I was trying to say! Thanks for clarifying. Lewisguile (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, "Franco-British rivalry" takes a hyphen because both parts are just one word. "Franco–British" is just as incorrect as "ex–wife" would be. But if "ex–prime minister" is correct, why should "Afro–Latin American" be wrong? It still doesn't make sense to me, and I think unless there is precedent in major style guides (preferably several of them) we should not add this complication and leave MOS:AFFIXDASH as it is. Gawaon (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Franco–British rivalry" isn't called out as incorrect because they're both one word; it's called out as incorrect specifically because of the combining form. I.e., the combing form is an exception.
Prime minister doesn't include a combining form, so "ex–prime minister" is fine. Lewisguile (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See below for my reply. Gawaon (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very surprised with SMcCandlish's comment that says "Afro–Puerto Ricans" is incorrect, but I don't see a clear consensus at this point. It looks like Gawaon and Hyphenation Expert are not agreeing with that, and Hyphenation Expert said the CMOS supports an en dash (although I haven't found exactly where – can someone provide an exact quote?). I note that SMcCandlish didn't comment in the RM at Talk:Afro–Puerto Ricans#Requested move 7 August 2024. So far, I don't see an indication of a consensus to overturn that. (I'm also surprised with the Lewisguile assertion that "ex-" is not a combining form.) — BarrelProof (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding CMOS, I haven't been able to find anything there that would carve out an exception for "combining forms" to be treated differently from other prefixes (that is, they suggest treating "Afro-" exactly as "pre-" for all I know). I was unable to find any rule to the contrary and my request for a reference has gone unanswered so far. Regarding the reference to MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES, that's a total red herring, since that section simply does not discuss the use of affixes with open compounds (compounds that themselves include a space). Gawaon (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you and Hyphenation Expert are both saying "Afro-" is the same as "pre-" (or "ex-"), suggesting "Afro–Puerto Ricans", "pre–World War II" and "ex–prime minister". And Hyphenation Expert is saying the CMOS agrees. But this seems to differ from SMcCandlish's view. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no consensus on what the right answer is, that at least suggests we need clarity.
I'm not opposed to leaving Afro–Puerto Rican as it is (in my mind, we already discussed that and there wasn't support for a hyphen instead of an en dash), but I'd rather the examples in MOS make it clear what should happen here so we don't run into the same problem further down the line.
So if my suggestions above weren't helpful (and the text has been reverted, so I assume they weren't), can we agree some text that is helpful and which affirms the status quo? E.g.:
Afro–Puerto Rican
Wrong: Afro-Puerto Rican
My concern isn't to be nitpicky or difficult here. I just really think we need clear and unambiguous guidance so that when I see something like "Afro-Peruvian American", I know whether I'm using an en dash, hyphen, etc. Lewisguile (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, adding "Afro–Puerto Rican" as another example to MOS:AFFIXDASH would be fine with me. "Afro-Peruvian American" seems a different case, however, since I suppose it means "American of Afro-Peruvian" descent? So in that case, "Afro-" refers only to "Peruvian" rather than to "Peruvian American", hence the hyphen is correct. (In contrast, an Afro–Puerto Rican is not a Rican of Afro-Puerto descent, as the use of a hyphen would suggest.) Gawaon (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this depends on whether the combination of Afro, Peruvian and American is an adjective or a noun. I think a person could be "an Afro-Peruvian-American scientist", but a group of people who are Americans of Afro-Peruvian descent would be "Afro-Peruvian Americans". — BarrelProof (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relatedly, I recently ran into an editor who refused to believe that "Korean-American" (in adjectival form) could be a case of MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES, insisting instead that because there was no country named Korea that the "Korean-" part of this must be an ethnicity rather than a nationality. Which was incorrect, as in this case "Korean-" was intended as a shorthand for South Korean, which perhaps should have been spelled out more explicitly. But in cases like this where one of the nations has a space in the name, should we still hyphenate it as "South Korean-American" or do we need to spell it out, for instance as "South Korean and American"? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both "South Korean–American" with an en dash en and "South Korean and American" are surely fine. But don't spell it as "South Korean-American" since that would suggest that "South" modifies "Korean-American" rather than just "Korean". Gawaon (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The examples in the quotations that use colons are incorrect
None of the examples for using colons before quotations are complete sentences, a requirement for colons according to the Manual of Style given just before the examples and every other major style guide (CMS, APA, MLA). See the APA guidelines for example (https://apastyle.apa.org/learn/faqs/colon-use). For a less authoritative but more comprehensive description, see https://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/quotation_(speech)_marks_colon_or_comma.htm.
Colons are used when a main clause has ended in order to indicate that the thought is not finished. When the thought is not finished, they're not used, because it's clear that more will follow. You would never write "Mary Shelly wrote: Frankenstein" and similarly you do not write "Mary Shelly wrote: 'nothing is so painful to the human mind as a great and sudden change.'". If colons were simply to indicate that more is coming, then: they: would: be: everywhere. UsernamesEndedYearsAgo (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rules are not as strict as you make them to be. Grammar-Monster writes: "(Rule 2) You can use a colon if the quotation is an independent clause ... (You could also use a comma here.)" That applies to your Mary Shelly example too. While I agree that a comma is more common in such cases, the use of a colon is not exactly wrong. They strictly advise a comma only in situations where neither the introduction nor the quotation is an independent clause, and in cases where the quotation is followed by something like "he said" – fair enough, I'd say. Gawaon (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other more authoritative style guides do: not permit: that. It does: not make: sense to put colons after verbs when the clause is: not complete. Colons indicate: the end of a clause, so having: them in the middle of clauses is: confusing and hard to read. 140.141.192.46 (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you replaced each of your colons with a comma, it would be equally wrong and confusing. And anyway, we don't strictly follow any external style guide, authoritative or not. We have made our own style guide, and it's right here. Gawaon (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm a new user to Wikipedia and would like some clarification on an inconsistency I've noticed.
For articles on countries, cities, regions, & other such places, it's typical that the first section after the introductory paragraphs is dedicated to the meaning & origins of the place's name. However, the title of this section varies from article to article. As three major examples, the article for England labels its first section as "Toponomy", the article for Scotland labels it as "Etymology", and the article for Ireland labels it as "Name".
Valid arguments can be made in favor of all 3 styles. Toponymy is the most specific & accurate term; Etymology is consistent with articles on non-location subjects; Name is the simplest option.
Should a specific term be favored? Which one should it be and why? Or is it up to individual editors' discretion? GenderBiohazard (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. GenderBiohazard (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amusingly, it reads: "Toponymy: This section may also be called Etymology or Name." So, full circle. "Names" also occurs, for places with more than one; I've also seen "Naming" in a few cases. Sometimes this information is not in a section devoted to it at all but is part of the lead, or is integrated chronologically into the "History" section. I'm skeptical that the average reader knows what "toponymy" means, though they'd figure it out quickly enough from the content in the section. "Etymology" would only really apply if the content in the section really did dwell on etymology. At, e.g., "New York" this probably wouldn't be applicable, since the origins of the word new and the name York are unlikely to be involved. "Name[s]" is simple and universally understood, but it might seem informal. This seems to me one of those "leave it to consensus at each article" matters. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles has an RfC
I'd like to hear from people who don't know much about Korea or Korean history, but are familiar with Wikipedia style as a whole. This is a pretty major topic that would affect thousands of articles.
The topic is on what romanization system to use for Korean history articles. seefooddiet (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The" in section headings
I was advised around a decade ago that "The" is not good practice to begin a section heading. This still makes sense to me, but right now I cannot find it anywhere in MOS:HEADINGS, therefore I'm unable to point other editors to anything when making changes like this. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's where it says "Section headings should generally follow the guidance for article titles" which then says "Do not use articles (a, an, or the) as the first word". Does that make our MoS more simple or more complex. At least it's a little shorter that way. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to have it pointed out. I just needed to look a bit closer. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But... but... The heading of this very section begins with "The". EEng 17:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should have been "Can we haz the in section headings?" Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After you see it, you could write up "The The The - the early years experience". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Up for north?
What do we think of the colloquial practice of equating cardinal directions with conventional depictions on a map? Examples would include "down south", "up north" or even "going down to London". This last is particularly confusing as there's another convention (I think rail-based) that always says "up to London"! I would argue that such language should be avoided here; it adds no meaning and introduces a potential for confusion. It may also be too colloquial for encyclopedic purposes. What do others think? John (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from direct quotations and titles of works, I would say that such usages are not encyclopedic phrasing. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm a bit surprised that the MoS doesn't already have advice regarding colloquialisms? Is it time for MOS:COLLOQUIALISM? DonIago (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that goes without saying. In an encyclopedia, use encyclopedic language. Gawaon (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, MOS:TONE mentions colloquialisms, so I think this falls under that umbrella. DonIago (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and there are orders of magnitude too many colloquialisms that wouldn't be appropriate in an encyclopedia for us to address random ones like this individually. We address very few of them in specifics, and only when they are endemically habitual in casual writing and thus produce a lot of cleanup to do (e.g. MOS:CONTRACTIONS, MOS:YOU). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Perhaps the most..."
I'm seeing a lot of articles using this sort of wording and I don't like it! To take just one random example, "Prague was perhaps the most important center for Cubism outside Paris before the start of World War I." (Czech Cubism), the 'perhaps' seems weaselly and/or POV. It also reads like an editorial rather than an encylopedia entry.
I think either "Prague was an important center for cubism", or "Prague was the most important center for cubism", or "so-and-so called Prague 'The most important center for cubism'" (whichever the sources support) would be infinitely better in most cases of 'Perhaps the most|best|biggest|' etc.
However, I can see a LOT of articles using this sort of construct, I wanted to just start a discussion here to see if it's being left alone for a good reason, or if I'm right that this is an example of WP:WEASEL before I embark on modifying loads of articles to fix something that only I have a problem with!
It certainly has the potential to be used in a weaselly way, but like other such formulations, it is fine if the statement accurately reflects the source. If a source states that Prague is arguably the most important centre for cubism outside Paris, that is the nuance the article should reflect. There is ambiguity in the world, and good sources reflect that. In many cases the wording might be better replaced with something else, but I think it would have to be evaluated case by case.--Trystan (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this would be better honed down to a specific claim like "Prague was widely regarded as second only to Paris as a center for Cubism"<source>. It's the "perhaps" that jars; like the topic above, MOS:TONE would seem to recommend against language like this. Yes, we should reflect the uncertainty that exists within and between sources, but I don't think this is what "perhaps" does. John (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot. Simple searches show 2,198 articles using "perhaps the best" and 658 "possibly the best", but "perhaps the most" with 9,890 articles is possibly the worst. NebY (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with this point. Certainty may be achievable in chemistry, but it just isn't in the humanities, & it absolutely necessary that we indicate this to our readers where appropriate. Unfortunately some editors don't get this. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely entitled to your opinion, but please don't misrepresent mine. There is no certainty in any complex field, not in the sciences (see uncertainty principle), not in history (see historiography), not in politics, art or anything else. But as an encyclopedia, we reflect this uncertainty best when we quantify the uncertainty and attribute it to the best sources, not when we use a lazy form of words to wave a hand at something being uncertain. Everything is. John (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't commenting on you at all, but whatever. Don't tell me, tell the herds of editors who pounce on any expression of uncertainty. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I apologise. My background is in Chemistry and I've worked on a lot of chem stuff over the years here. So I wrongly thought that was directed at me. Here's to expressing the uncertainty as clearly as possible, but preferably without flabby phrases like the one under discussion. On the same ground I find qualifiers like "about", "approximately" and "some" are way overused here. Pretty much all measurements are uncertain. John (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - I didn't know that (or had forgotten), so a bit of a fluke there! You can't get far in my areas of art history and ancient history without a lot of qualifiers, especially if you are trying to write general articles. Johnbod (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Qualifiers are absolutely fine, I think 'Perhaps the most..' specifically sounds like us pontificating in wiki-voice, rather than explaining why there is uncertainty, or who thinks there is uncertainty, but 'perhaps' isn't the issue here exactly, You could find/replace it with "One of the most" and you'd have the same problem. I'm realising thanks to this discussion that it's something that requires thought and research to resolve on an article-by-article basis, to identify the source of the uncertainty and be more explicit about it, it's maybe not a style question at all, more one of sourcing and verifiability. JeffUK 08:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is a fair point that "Perhaps the most..." sorts of statements should be quotes from authorities. BD2412 T 01:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with that as a blanket policy is that it would tend to give more weight to less careful sources. A source that says Prague was the most important centre for cubism after Paris could be cited in wikivoice, while if the same source added "perhaps", just to acknowledge there is some room for debate from the prevailing view, the statement could only be quoted.--Trystan (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that we would still want a statement like "Prague was the most important centre for cubism after Paris" in a quote. BD2412 T 14:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could we not have some guideline that unsourced and unsupported "perhaps the most" statements may possibly be inappropriate? I see statements such as
Out of all the Andean countries, Bolivia remains perhaps the most culturally linked to the indigenous peoples. - Music of Bolivia
Of the several stories about the ghosts of former presidents of the United States revisiting the White House, Lincoln's ghost is perhaps the most common and popular. ... Perhaps the most famous incident was in 1942 when Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands .... Lincoln's ghost
their casual invitation to Willie [Maley] to also come along was perhaps the most important in Celtic's history. Tom Maley
Such statements are often verbal fillers, as also with "perhaps the best known"[3], a little stronger and more stylish than "for example" and yes, comparatively innocuous - but unsubstantiated and possibly indicating that the writer's personal knowledge is focused on that particular instance. NebY (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the alternative, though? Just "the best known" is essentially impossible to prove (and even if some sources say so, others might disagree) and just not mentioning this fact at all would in many cases be a real loss, I'd say. Gawaon (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Gawaon and NebY that this is filler, adds no meaning, and is inherently impossible to prove. I think I would argue that this is therefore a phrase that should never appear in Wikipedia's voice but only in an attributed quote. John (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said or meant, rather on the contrary ("just not mentioning this fact at all would in many cases be a real loss" – emphasis added). Let's remember that outside of narrow fields like maths, strict proof is rarely possible anyway, and we go for what reliable sources say, not for what's proven. If several RS call something "the best known", while other's don't mention this fact, summarizing this as "perhaps the best known" seems a reasonable choice. One could also say "a well-known" and that's probably what I would do, but still I wouldn't say that the alternative must always be avoided and eliminated on sight. Gawaon (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I know. You said that such claims are unprovable and NebY said they were verbal filler. I agree with both those statements and hence don't think it's a very encyclopedic phrase. I'm not suggesting we just don't mention it or remove it on sight either; I proposed a better form of words right at the start. I think in general value judgments (such as this) absolutely have to be attributed. This is why I don't think in this form it should be appearing in Wikipedia's voice. John (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are glossing over the fact that not saying something in Wikipedia's voice is different from not saying something at all. If you want to say that "Lincoln's ghost is perhaps the most common and popular", well, according to whom? We can't say it at all if no reliable source actually thinks this is true, and if one does, then we can quote the language it uses to say this. BD2412 T 22:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to entirely agree with this: "It certainly has the potential to be used in a weaselly way, but like other such formulations, it is fine if the statement accurately reflects the source[s]." In particular, there is rarely unanimity or near-unanimity across multiple RS on matters that are a judgment call, yet a large enough preponderance of them may agree on an assessment that leaving it out would result in an incomplete/misleading article, yet also WP is not in a position to declare a subjective matter of public consensus to be an objective fact. That is, this sort of wording is a way by which WP can indicate to the reader that a bunch of sources agree on this point, but some minority do not, and it's not a matter of cold hard fact (like whether the earth is round or flat, or many other science questions). Our readers already understand this. All that said, there is conceivably a better way to phrase it than the specific strings at issue here like "Perhaps the most", and "is perhaps one of the best-known", and the like. I would suggest coming up with something you are convinced is better and trying it out at a number of randomly selected articles and seeing whether it sticks. PS: If one wanted to have a more in-depth review of this sort of language and whether we should have advice specifically addressing it, WT:MOSWTW is probably a better venue than the main MoS talk page. MOS:WTW is basically where MoS and NPoV+NOR most strongly intersect. That entire guideline is about terms and phrases to avoid (sometimes or always), and why, and what to do instead. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a lot of what you say, and on the best next steps. Your science example proves my point rather than yours though; the Earth is neither perfectly spherical nor flat. Aside from the mountains and the oceans, it bulges significantly at the Equator. Few complex subjects can fairly be described without some uncertainty. The use of "perhaps" seems like a WP:TONE concern, as in my opinion a serious encyclopedia should report the nature and degree of the uncertainty, rather than just trivially stating that it exists. I'm not saying words like this should never be used, more that a more precise form of words is better. It's like "a number of"; better to state the actual number if it's known, or just say "some". As you say, a candidate for WTW. John (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:PRONOUNS cleanup
To solve several problems at once, I propose the following:
1) Add this text to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Pronouns (MOS:PRONOUNS), which at present confusingly lacks anything on third-person ones, despite disputation about them coming up more often than with regard to any other:
Third-person pronouns
Refer to a person with pronouns (and other gendered words) that reflect their most recent self-identification in recent reliable sources. Singular they/them/their are appropriate in reference to anyone who uses them, as replacements for neopronouns, and in generic reference to persons of unknown gender. (For considerably more detail, see WP:Manual of Style/Biography § Gender identity.)
Ships (military or private) may be referred to either by neuter pronouns (it, its) or feminine pronouns (she, her). Both usages are acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and exclusively employ only one style.[a] As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another without clear and substantial reason.[b] Try to avoid close, successive uses of the same referent for a ship by carefully using a number of referents in rotation; for example, it or she, the ship, and the ship's name. The she/her optional style does not apply to other vessel/vehicle types, such as trains.[c]
[...]
Notes
[...]
^As usual, direct quotations should not be altered in such a regard, and have no effect on determination of consistency within Wikipedia-authored content.
Ships may be referred to by either feminine pronouns (she, her) or neuter pronouns (it, its). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and exclusively employ only one style. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another without clear and substantial reason.[a]
Ships may be referred to either using feminine pronouns (she, her) or neuter pronouns (it, its). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so.
Try to avoid close, successive uses of the same referent for a ship by carefully using a number of referents in rotation; for example, it/she, the ship, and the ship's name.
and replaced with the same cross-reference as above:
4) Shortcuts that presently go to either of the old ship subsections will be re-targeted to the new one in the main MoS page.
What this will solve:
It is very confusing that the main MoS page has a section for pronouns but contains nothing about the two most frequent pronoun-related subjects of conflict on Wikipedia.
It is unhelpful to have advice that is fairly frequently sought (and repeatedly contentious) buried on obscure pages.
One of these is a naming conventions page, and has nothing to do with article content; the ship pronoun question never arises in article titles, so this does not belong in an NC page at all.
The military-related concern ends up being exactly duplicative of that with regard to merchant and other private-sector ships, so it is not intrinsically a military style matter at all.
It is unwise to have initially duplicate language in two different guidelines, as it will inevitably WP:POLICYFORK over time and cause a conflict. The language in the two subsections has already drifted apart some.
The purpose of the main MoS page is (aside from having some unique, usually overarching rules that are not found in any of the topical drill-down pages) to summarize the key points of all the MoS pages. With regard to pronouns, these two points certainly qualify.
Make a few bits of the wording slightly clearer. E.g., that the ships thing is both military and private-sector.
Point to the consensus record against expanding she/her beyond ships.
Clarify that singular-they is also used generically; MOS:GENDERID skips that because it isn't pertinent to gender-related editing disputations, but I think we all know by now that this particular usage of singular-they is the one with a pedigree all the way back to Middle English. There still exist various agitators against singular-they, so any antics they might get up to on a wikilawyering basis need to be accounted for. Provide them no loophole to game.
For ships, subtly suggest a preference for it over she by listing the former first. This will be in agreement with the vast majority of actual practice, both in our material and in modern RS material.
Fix shortcuts so people arrive at the MoS material about it, not at cross-references to the MoS material about it.
Please do not response to this cleanup proposal with suggestions to add new or remove old restrictions with regard to any sort of pronoun usage. This is not what this thread is about.
The "Try to avoid close, successive uses of the same referent ..." material might be compressable without losing the gist of it. I chose not to, here, since this is in part a merge proposal and those are complicated when major textual changes are introduced.
Further compression could be achieved by not having the first-paragraph summary of MOS:GENDERID on pronouns, but only a bare cross-reference sentence like "For third-person pronouns and their relation to human gender, see WP:Manual of Style/Biography § Gender identity."
PS: For those interested in the tediously long history of disputation over she/her and ships, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she"); this might be missing some that happened at other pages, like in article talk. I don't know of a comprehensive archive of debates regarding pronouns and social gender, but someone may have compiled one by now. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a content manager in real life, it drives me nuts to see the same material duplicated across several pages. Support condensing to just the MoS page as suggested. Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, support. If it is possible to clarify that this section of the style guide refers to ships that float on water, and not airships, spaceships or other vehicles, I think that would be useful. John (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of legal knowledge I acquired such a grip / That they took me into the partnership. / And that junior partnership, I ween, / Was the only ship that I ever had seen. [4] EEng 17:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that sort of ship so suited he / That now he is the ruler of the Queen's Navee. --Trovatore (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]
If you mention suiting again I'll report you for legal threats. EEng 19:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suit yourself. --Trovatore (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Suture self. EEng 20:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of my favorite dad jokes involves that pun. A doctor cuts her finger in the OR. Another doctor says "Let me sew that closed for you" ... you can figure out the rest. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@John: That would actually be a substantive change, and I'm skeptical there is a clear consensus for it. Most of our terminology with regard to spaceships, airships, and hovercraft (maybe something else I'm forgetting) are derived directly from those pertinent to float-on-water ships, because they are closely analogous in most relevant respects. That's not the case with trains and tanks and trucks/lorries and skateboards and bicycles and etc. The train RfC hints in the vague direction of "don't do it for spacecraft either", but did not clearly reach a result that specific, so for now it's an open question. That is, the jury seems to still be out on the exact definition of "ship" for this particular purpose.
Y espero (dados los 20 años de historia) que todo el asunto vuelva a surgir dentro de un año. Si lo hace, probablemente debería hacerse como una convocatoria de propuestas de la VPPOL, para atraer un mayor número de aportaciones de la comunidad, en lugar de sólo el mismo puñado de habituales del Ministerio de Ciencia y gente de proyectos wiki de embarcaciones e historia militar. [Aparte: a veces me pregunto por qué esto no ha surgido también en otros temas con una práctica histórica de "ella", especialmente países, como en "Irlanda y sus ondulantes colinas verdes". Nadie parece querer luchar por imponer ese estilo, y me alegro de ello.] Pero por ahora, sólo quiero fusionar y limpiar el material de directrices redundante y mal ubicado tal como está actualmente. Como mínimo, proporcionará un lugar único y obvio para el material que se disputa perennemente pero sin resolver, en lugar de tenerlo disperso en lugares confusos. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:03, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Leí en algún lugar por aquí recientemente que a los barcos japoneses se los llama con el verbo he/his. ¿Estamos diciendo simplemente que no hagan eso en inglés, WP, o simplemente estamos ignorando una posible complicación? Yo estaría a favor de decir explícitamente que no lo hagan. Dicklyon ( discusión ) 01:54 26 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Supongo que es algo que se debe investigar más, pero esa es otra propuesta de cambio sustancial y está fuera del alcance de este hilo de fusión/limpieza. Es algo que se debe abordar en una propuesta de revisión posterior, después de que tengamos más detalles/fuentes sobre la cuestión. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:22, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
No hay problema. Lo apoyo en cualquier caso. Dicklyon ( discusión ) 03:01 26 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
En inglés, a los barcos se los suele llamar "she" (ella). Se trata de un uso y una tradición muy antiguos. ¿Está codificado en el uso militar o es simplemente tradicional? Randy Kryn ( discusión ) 02:51 26 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
De cualquier manera, el punto es que algunos argumentarán fuertemente a favor de "ella", y otros argumentarán fuertemente en contra, y eso no es parte de lo que podemos resolver en esta reorganización de limpieza. Lo mismo que me dijo sobre usar "él" para los barcos japoneses; mejor no lo menciono ahora. Dicklyon ( discusión ) 03:03 26 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
