Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 195

message: This guideline is very unclear to me. Does it imply that groups identifying themselves as "white nationalist" should be identified like that by us? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 03:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It does imply that. What would the alternative be? Hyacinth 08:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling them racists, white supremacists and neo-nazis, I suppose, something few groups self-identify as. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: unclear

message: I think this policy should be extended to include guidelines on how to treat pen names / stage names vs. real names, and whether or not abbrevations should be used in the title of a persons article. –DamslethTalk|Contributions 11:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pen names and abbrevations 

message: The following makes no sense to me:
:In some cases a general name or term may be more neutral or more accurate. For example: List of African-American composers is acceptable, but List of composers of African descent is more inclusive, and therefore more useful.
If one wants a list of African-American composers the first title is accurate and the second just isn't. I would also deprecate using anything so vague as "of Fooian descent". The text above is like saying, "List of French people" is accepatable, but "List of people" is more inclusive, and therefore more useful. In my opinion that just isn't true.
As the opening statement "In some cases a general name or term may be more neutral or more accurate" is so vague that I have little idea what the point of it is, given that the supporting example makes no sense, I'm going to take it out for now, but it anyone does know what it is supposed to mean and can give a better example, by all means put it back. Merchbow 20:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, the statement makes sense because of people like Manu Dibango, who is a notable composer of African descent that was born in Cameroon and thus not African-American. One of his noteworthy albums, Soul Makossa, which drew on traditional Makossa, can be said to have spawned disco and is still being sampled for pop songs 36 years after its relaease. I think that perhaps you assumed "composers of African descent" only referred to those born in the US, making the more specialized term, "African-American composers", more accurate. This assumption could have been compounded by the lack of non-Americans of African descent in List of composers by nationality. Even if we were completely restricted to Western European - style Classical Music, and we could not find a non-American composer of African descent, a list of composers of African descent could foreseeably grow to include non-Americans at any time in the next decade, so I see it as a valid list. :)--Thecurran (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement that makes no sense

message: Referring to people by the gender they choose is absurd.  This is not the case "for any other aspect of a person's identity", as the post below states.  If a white person decides that he is truly "black" on the inside, you would not suddenly start referring to him as a African-American person (or any other ethnic group for that matter).  A person's gender is a concrete, scientifically testable aspect of that person's body and is not open to debate, by him or her self (or anybody else for that matter).  If I decide that I am the reincarnation of Jesus Christ (the descriptor I choose for myself, in the language of the below post), the entire educated world is not going to start calling me by that name, but this seems to be the logic that some people apply to gender identity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.5.142 (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus is that you use the descriptor we choose for ourselves. Just as it is for any other aspect of a persons identity. --Hfarmer 08:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK thankyou for answering; I was just wondering if there was any previous discussion on this. --WikiSlasher 23:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would that be a "No, there is no previous discussion?" If not, where is it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a liberal Democrat and a supporter of gay rights, but even I find it absurd to use an inaccurate gender pronoun to describe someone simply because the person in question would like us to do so.  Let's say a man who said he was a woman wanted to play tennis against women at Wimbledon for potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Would we describe the ensuing controversy by saying "Wimbledon officials would not let her play in the women's draw because they said she was a man"?  This would make it sound like the Wimbledon officials were crazy!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.109.104 (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refer to transgender people by their "new gender" 

message: There is an RfC which is inextricably involved with WP:NCI going on here Talk:Barbarian/RfC_on_usage/. Any feedback is appreciated. - WeniWidiWiki 06:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barbarian 

message: I'm trying my hardest to stay civil here, this page has got to be the biggest violation of NPOV on wikipedia. It needs to be removed immediately. I request admin input, I don't want to get done for page blanking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayden5650 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 10 May 2007
:Which part of it do you consider to be a violation of WP:NPOV? If you want to make a major change please discuss it here and make sure to post on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) since hardly anyone pays attention to this page. --WikiSlasher 07:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete this Article

message: I see some people deleting epithet "Mongoloid" from articles, without bothering to provide a substitute. In my opinion, we should replace presumably offensive epithets with the neutral ones rather than deleting any attempt at description altogether. Furthermore, if "Mongoloid" is indeed considered offensive in modern archaeological discourse, WP:NCI  should clearly say so. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongoloids 

message: Readers of this page may be interested in a discussion going on at Talk:Roma people, where it has been suggested that the article move to Gypsies. Some opposing the move have cited this policy as an argument for the current title. I'm just leaving a link here, in case anyone wants to weigh in on that matter. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roma people 

message: I originally asked this at WT:MOS as WP:ID redirects there, but they pointed me over here as the fuller expansion of that section.
I've got a rather complicated situation regarding the pronoun(s) to be used for a fictional character, for I would appreciate guidance on interpreting the first two bullets of WP:ID. The character in question is Akito Sohma from the manga Fruits Basket and its anime adaptation. (Please ignore the character article's current hideous quality, including a wretched inconsistency with pronouns: I'm preparing to clean it up -- thus my question.) In the manga, Akito is presented as male for the first half of the series, but turns out to be biologically female and raised to live as man; at the end of the series, as part of letting go other roles he/she has been living, Akito announces that she/he will henceforth live as a woman and is afterward always shown dressed in women's clothing. The anime adaptation covers the first third of the story and was generally faithful to the manga, but was made before the manga reveled Akito's biological sex and, in wrapping up the story early, shows Akito as unambiguously male. 
If I understand WP:ID correctly, when discussing the character as portrayed in the manga, Akito should be referred to with female pronouns. What about when discussing the character as portrayed in the anime (such as when describing the differences in adaptation)? What about when discussing the character generically, independent of format? And, possibly most importantly, is there any way to make distinctions clearly enough as to not confuse either readers and editors? (Especially in other articles where Akito is mentioned in passing without reason to explain pronouns.)
For full disclosure, the rule of thumb I've been following in editing other Fruits Basket articles is to use "he" except when discussing Akito after she declares she will live as a woman. Which goes against the word of the guideline, but seemed at the time to invite less confusion. My thanks for any insight others can give. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The rule of thumb seems far more sensible than this page; go with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A case of confusing pronouns 

message: If no one objects I would like to submit this page to Requests for comment on Style, reference, layout and projects. It's been in the works for four years now, let's see if we can't get it adopted as a guideline. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be a "Guideline" template at the top. Maybe it's already been adopted. How is that checked? Life.temp (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that "(identity)" be changed to "(labeling)". Life.temp (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think your recent edits to the page have been good and helpful but I think the page name should stay as it is. "Naming conventions (labeling)" seems redundant to me. I think "Naming conventions (identity)" works fine and is clearer than the alternative. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between naming properties of a peson (labeling) and naming a person (proper name). I think this article is about the former. Whether we call someone "White," "causcasian" or "cracker" is a question of how to "name" the person's property--labeling. It seems to me that "labeling" makes that distinction better than talking about "naming" someone's identity. People do often identify according to race or some notable property, but I think the guideline applies to any label, independent of the very subjective idea of identity. Regardless of all that interesting philosophy, I have no objection to submitting it for offical guideline status as it is.Life.temp (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Send This Up for Comment? 

message: As in Inuit and Native American? The middle-eastern Jews are also indigenous to the area as are the Arabs, Christian and Muslim.  "Palestinian" as in "indigenous Arabs" is a political edit.  It should not be in the indigenous section.  I wouldn't object to it as a naming convention if that is what they want to be called, but not under the indigenous label, no. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reverted it and explained why in my edit summary.  It was completly POV to suggest that as a convenion when the very article on Israeli Arabs (tilted Arab citizens of Israel) is not even titled that. Epson291 (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Indigenous Palestinians?

message: Suppose there is a religious group whose members identify as Christians but are not universally recognised as such. If an article is to reference them, what should determine if they can be described as Christians? Should this be considered an exception to "When naming or writing an article about specific groups or their members always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use"? In either case, it may be useful to make the preference explicit in the guideline, as I've seen a few disagreements over it. Ilkali (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the reasons why "When naming or writing an article about specific groups or their members always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use" is oversimplified. It applies in some way to all the classifications here. But this page has sat unedited for six months, except for an anon, objecting to it. Does anyone still propose it, or should we accept that this has not obtained consensus? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership of religious groups 

message: I am having a debate over at Media Matters for America. They self describe as "progressive", but almost universally, the,mainstream media refers to them as a liberal organization.  The article is scrubbed of all mention of the liberal label and I cannot add the category "liberal organizations in the United States."  There is no category for progressive organizations, but there is a category "progressivism which I have included.  So, can we included additional descriptions in categorization and description if neutral third party sources continually describe them as such. I understood the category policy to include all categories that fit the subject.  To me this includes both progressive and liberal labels.  Bytebear (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self Identification as euphemism and mainstream usage of non-euphemistic term 

message: A subsection of the general guidelines reads:
Almost always use terms as adjectives rather than nouns, thus, black people, not blacks, gay people, not gays, person with albinism, not albino, and so on.  Note that there may be exceptions to this rule: for example, some prefer the term "transgenders" to the term "transgendered people", "Jews" is the standard plural.
The guideline recommends using adjectives instead of nouns, but the phrase person with albinism does not contain any adjectives. Moreover, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Euphemisms recommends against the people with [noun X] style, and suggests using [adjective form of X] people instead. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Albinistic person and person with albinism are interchangeable, and have been consistently used in our articles on human albinism.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  People with albinism versus albino people 

message: A recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.
Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy.  The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles.  Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition? 

message: Please see "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Merge draft WP:Naming conventions (identity) to MOS:IDENTITY?", a proposal to merge this to the WP:Manual of Style in one way or another, since this is a draft style guideline with almost nothing in it that pertains specifically to article titles (i.e., it is not a naming convention).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged discussion opened 

message: If "Two-spirit is preferred over berdache" is meant to imply that Native Americans/First Nations persons who are LGBT should be referred to as "two-spirit" in Wikipedia's own voice, that is never going to get consensus. It's a WP:NPOV problem and will frequently also be WP:OR. We have no idea whether a particular subject might prefer that in most cases. The underlying supposition – that all indigenous peoples of North America are the same culture with the same traditions, beliefs, perceptions, terms, and preferences – is ridiculous nonsense. It's also an NPOV problem for an entirely different reason: promotion of specific religio-spiritual ideas.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two-spirit 

message: This entry:
* 
is problematic for at two reasons:
# There is no point including a list of offensive epithets; we would not use these words in WP articles anyway (other than in quotations, e.g. in an article about a hate-speech case or whatever), and their presence here is just going to be a useless irritant to most people who see them.
# It isn't permissible for a guideline to just contradict a policy like WP:COMMONNAME, so this draft can never become a guideline with this wording in it.  Some other approach is going to have to be taken here.
The entire provision isn't needed unless someone can identify multiple cases where the most common name in reliable sources is a term that RS generally identify as offensive.  , because a) most of the sources would have to be using it and b) most of the sources would have to simultaneously agree it was offensive, ergo c) most of the sources would have to be intentionally being offensive just to be assholes, which would d) make them suspect as reliable sources to begin with (namely, the "reputable publisher" criterion would be dubious).  It's poor content in other ways, e.g. "Even though people may use these terms themselves" doesn't mean what its author thinks it means.  "Note that" is almost never meaningful to include; literally 99+% of cases of its use can be deleted.
We could maybe retain a "stub" of this line item, as something like:
* 
and just leave it at that. The rest of that stuff is just WP:CREEP and/or WP:SOAPBOX.  The original's last clause, in particular, is the opposite of WP consensus; we routinely apply exonyms in article titles and in running prose (e.g. Navajo not Diné), and identify the endonym(s) in the lead section (unless the endonym is overtaking the endonym; thus "Eskimo" is finally out).  It is not WP's job to dictate names and usage, but to follow them, as determined by reliable sources on the topic and on general English-language usage.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointlessly offensive and anti-policy entry 

message: SMcCandlish I really don't want to get into an argument with you, but I'd like to point out that several times during this discussion you have said what you personally would prefer:
are at least two. While of course you are free to do this, I don't think these kinds of comments are helpful to sorting out a multi-faceted discussion, except perhaps in a discussion regarding a specific proposal for a change to the current style guide. This present discussion is actually covering several different things, and has gotten a bit confusing, but I don't think it is on a specific proposal. Also, I don't think saying "especially not by 'I got here first' chest-beating" is helpful, either. I don't see any previous comments that suggested that attitude, and if anyone mentioned "first major contributor", it was because it is in the MoS already, and quoted above.
Several times you have said that it is more logical to use the DMY date format for science articles:
When I asked, "What is the particular connection between date format and science that would require using the DMY date format?", I don't think I got a good answer. "Science generally uses DMY format" isn't enough. If the vast preponderance of sources in science use the DMY format, that may be a sufficient basis to include in the MoS: "The DMY format should be used in all science articles." That is why I asked, "Do do American writers and scholars really use the DMY format?" Your response was, "Who cares?" implying that I was asking about these writers' and scholars' personal writing preferences. I wasn't. I was asking about what they use in published books and articles. If there is a mix in the sources, then I have to agree with Peter coxhead, who wrote, above, "For many articles, perhaps most particularly science-related ones, there's no reason to prefer one variety of ENGVAR to another, so there is no rational way of reaching a consensus." I also think that Wikipedia is mainly used by the general public, including young people, and that they ought to be able to find and read at least some articles written in the variety of English they themselves speak, read, and write. That is why I think it is right that some articles are written in British/Indian/Australian/Canadian English and some are written in American (U.S.) English, and that some articles use the day-month-year date format and some use the month-day-year format. For the same reasons, I also don't think that, even if most scientific publications use the day-month-year format, our science-related articles should all be written using that format. 
I'm surprised that you would write,
I don't know about those who "whine and cry too much any time they don't get to write exactly like the want to", but saying that "DMY is understood just fine by everyone, it's just not everyone's personal preference or what they're most used to" is disingenuous. Except for a few writers such as yourself, the month-day-year date format is very much the preferred format for over 250million American (U.S.) readers. I don't think they should be dismissed so easily.
When I wrote, above,
You made a big point of saying that it is not only the US or Great Britain. Of course I know there are other varieties of English, including Indian, Australian, and Canadian, and the English of the Philippines and Okinawa; I just didn't feel I needed to list them all. When I wrote, "There ought to be some things left to the choice of those who write or expand articles", you responded, "They just shouldn't be style things." I disagree with you. On certain types of topics, and at certain stages in the formation of an article, the choice of ENGVAR is a style choice, and I said this: if there are no strong national ties to a particular place that would recommend one variety of English over another, and if the article is not on a military topic, then the person who starts a new article, or expands a stub, ought to be able to select the variety of English he or she wants to use. I don't think the person should have to gain consensus on this. If, however, an article on such a topic has, over time, developed a mixed style regarding ENGVAR, then discussion may need to take place and a consensus reached. I don't think this is anything new. When I used the phrase "first major contributor", I was merely using the phrase that is in the MoS; if you feel it needs to be changed, then I think it should be a separate discussion following a clearly written proposal. This discussion has been too much all over the place. 
I am a copy-editor, and consistency is important to me, and I work to ensure it in articles. I have always believed that the date format should match the variety of English used in an article. To me, it was always pretty clear: use DMY with British, Indian, and Australian-related topics and MDY with American- (U.S.-) related articles. I now understand that there are some other combinations such as articles that use Philipines English. When I wrote, above, "I am persuaded that there is no need to require that the date format in an article match the variant of English used in the article", it was only because I saw several comments that seemed to say there isn't, and shouldn't be, such a requirement to match the date format with the variety of English (even apart from the exceptions to the usual matching). Maybe I'm too easily persuaded. I see nowand I don't know why this wasn't clear to me from the beginningthat you agree with me that there is a correspondence, and that the date format should match the variety of English used. I think it's already in the MoS:
So, regarding allowing editors to select the style they want to use, I want to make it clear that I do not mean that they should be allowed to mix-and-match date format and variety of English as they please. 
So, to summarize:
1) We all seem to agree that, in an article about a country where English is not the primary language and there are no strong national ties to a particular English-speaking country, the date format used in the language spoken in that country is irrelevant.
2) MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:ENGVAR are fine as they stand, except perhaps we ought to change "the whole article should conform to it" to "this date format should be used throughout the article" (in the fourth bulleted item in MOS:DATEVAR). I have gone ahead and made this change.
I would like to propose that the fourth bulleted item in MOS:DATEVAR be changed from:
to:
 – Corinne (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of fair points, though I think you mistake my intent in a few places (or I just made my intent unclear). I really don't want to get into an argument with you, either, and suspect another detailed response would largely restate the same previous points in other wording.  Some of them might be interesting discussions, in separate, focused threads about specific issues to solve.I like the general nature of the change you're proposing, other than we should do as Peter_coxhead suggested, and remove references to first major contributor and instead couch it in terms of edits.  The WP:OWNish behavior you say you're not really aware of is very familiar to some of us, and a problem that's been running for a decade or so, and even worsening (and applies to all the *VARs). The insertion of another "magically special party", namely "the editor making the most recent major expansion", compounds the problem.  It's adding a new bug while trying to fix an old one.  But the approaches will combine well.  Moving that to new subthread so people see it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about ENGVAR ... {{snd}}Arbitrary section break 

message: I'm going to make a few points, and then try to summarize our discussion, trying to make it clear for those who come across this discussion only now, and then propose wording for the second and third bulleted items in MOS:DATEVAR. Please indicate your preference (or propose alternate wording), clearly indicating which bulleted item you are referring to.
I'd like to point out that the heading in MOS:DATETIES is "Strong national ties to a topic". The first sentence in that section reverses this, saying "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country...", so the heading is a kind of abbreviation for the real situation. Note also the use of the word "country". 
We're talking about the wording of MOS:DATEVAR. For easy reference, here is the section as it is now, minus the "See also", the shortcut, and the link at the beginning:
* 
* 
* 
Just under a new heading, above, "Combined DATEVAR revisions", SMcCandlish proposed the following:
If we combine Peter_coxhead's and Corinne's clarification proposals, something like following seems to emerge (with an additional tweak to tie the last conditional to actual development happening, not just time passing with no development):
* 
* 
*  [Note: I actually retracted some of this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Further revision

message: Please see this sprawling discussion, in which an alarmingly large number of people are convinced that primary-source opinion pieces in the form of film (and book, etc.) reviews are secondary sources within WP's meaning because they're reviews of other works (i.e. that the work that is the subject of WP's article is the primary source, and that individual opinion magically transubstantiates into secondary sourcing because it's about a work instead of about, say, a mineral or a person).  I'm not even sure why this discussion is happening at an MoS subpage.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I think the confusion arises from people thinking that we are talking about secondary sources for the films themselves, which is how the phrase is used in literally every other instance on that MOS subpage. Yes, it is alarming that so many people can't tell from context, and the reaction I got to my initial edit is enough to make me have serious doubts about this assumption. But I still can't believe that that many editors could seriously be questioning the PRIMARY status of individual film reviews as sources for a film's critical reputation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've avoided getting involved in that discussion, but my current walkaway is that a review is a primary source when it's interpreting elements of the film or generating new content in the form of the review itself, but could be considered a secondary source when discussing (but not interpreting) elements of the film itself (cast and crew, plot, runtime, etc.) that anyone watching the film could walk away with. Is that a reasonable interpretation (though I'm not sure how relevant it would be to the kinds of editing I tend to do)? DonIago (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Much of that's actually tertiary. When all it's doing is regurgitating – practically copy-pasting – from credits lists, that's tertiary.  Plot synopsis is secondary, as long as the material is descriptive rather than subjective interpretation. The whole problem with reviews as sources is that they can veer between secondary and primary right in the same sentence, multiple times: "The Fisher King-like character of Jake is subjected to unreasonable demands and expectations from friends, family, and neighbors upon returning to his hometown, an idyllic fantasy village reminiscent of those in Big Fish and Edward Scissorhands; he struggles with depression as he lets everyone down, until he reaches out to his Percival – the 'manic pixie dreamgirl' love interest Jennifer." Quite a lot of that is primary and right from the reviewer's own head, unless he/she is explicitly drawing on prior analysis of this film.  We can't say in WP's own voice that this movie is based on the Fisher King of Arthurian legend, though we can attribute this assessment to the reviewer; same goes for the potentially controversial assessment of the nature of Jennifer's character, or the subjective comparison of the town to those in other films.  We don't need to attribute the bare summary parts, e.g. that Jake went home, had trouble coping with the demands placed on him, and reached out to Jennifer who became a love interest; that's secondary sourcing. A WP plot summary is on shaky grounds when it weaves in one-reviewer assumptions and opinions, even with citations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

text: See also pointer to discussion below; the whole "secondary source for the film itself" thing is wrongheaded; what it really means is "secondary source for objective facts taken from the film itself" like what its plot points are, which character said what to whom, etc. But people are mistaking it for meaning that a review saying something subjective about the film content itself (rather than about the work's reception or something tangential like the quality of a performance) is secondary. That's what I'm trying to address in the revision proposal, though exactly how to source, e.g., a change in critical perception after several decades is a more specific matter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Primary sources might be the film script, contracts and communications. I might include the film credits here too. Reviews are secondary sources as are works analysing reviews. Compendiums would be tertiary. IMHO. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

text: I will clarify my reasoning by analogy with MILHIST. Letters, diaries (personal and unit), messages and ships logs, - all of which are contemporaneous records of or pertaining to the event are primary sources. Secondary sources are works which analyse and report on the event, drawing upon the primary sources and other secondary sources. A tertiary source is encyclopedic in nature, is often a summary and refrains from synthesis or original research - it is generally distanced from the primary sources though it may cite these in respect to fact but not opinion such as a date or time and who was where or when. You will see that this closely reflects how primary sources may, to a limited extent, be used in WP. On the subject of films, marginal notes on film scripts would also be primary. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

text: An interview of recollections is also a primary source of relevance to both film and MILHIST but extracts may be reported in a literary work that is a secondary source even though the author of the work conducted the interview. The "literary work", may, itself, be a film or recording that is edited from the original and includes commentary and analysis (so not technically literary in this case). The interview forms part of the research that is part of the work. This has analogies journal articles in the social sciences (secondary sources) where interview is part of the research methodology. In the physical sciences, a scientist's lab book recording and reporting individual experiments and results would be a primary source which is used to report the work in an academic journal - a secondary source.Cinderella157 (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be discussed at the page this thread pointed to; duplicating the arguments here isn't useful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearing up a misrepresentation is useful. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not misrepresenting anyone or anything.  See, e.g., this and the discussion that follows on it, and numerous other statements like that in the discussions on that page. If you all  and read it and comment there instead of forking a discussion here, this will all be clear.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Per what Masem stated, I disagree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

text: And this discussion was forked before I commented in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

text: So, as I understand it, (1) everyone agrees that an overall assessment of the critical reception of a film cannot rely on the reviews (which are primary for this information, but secondary for some other information). But (2) Hijiri thinks that the MOS wording saying to use secondary sources is unnecessarily confusing, because the reviews are secondary for other purposes and many editors won't understand that they are not secondary for this, while Flier thinks that it is more clear to say only that secondary sources are needed and that "not the original reviews" is unnecessarily confusing? That is, we all agree on what we're trying to guide editors to do, just not on the wording that will most clearly say it? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A third-party film review is a secondary source that relies upon (at least) the film as its primary source. It synthesises an opinion on the film. The extent to which a particular review is a RS is totally another issue. To report on the "overall assessment of the critical reception", you need to cite a source that makes this assessment, otherwise, all you have is a collection of individual reviews. A source that makes an assessment is analysing the opinions expressed in other secondary sources. It is not the the "initial" reviews used to make the assessment somehow flit between being primary and secondary sources like Schrödinger's cat. So "no", your first premise does not hold. On your second premise, I do not know what Hijiri and Flier think, but if you want to express an "overall assessment of the critical reception", you need to be citing a source that makes this assessment, otherwise, you are in danger of WP:SYNTHESIS. Regards  Cinderella157 (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that different from what I said? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A review might cite other reviews and thereby make such an assessment. The whole notion of a review being both primary and secondary is problematic. The real issue is whether or not the the source quoted does actually make such an assessment or if it is, in actual fact a WP editor conducting original research. The destination we each arrived at may be the same or similar but I think that the route is different. Hence, my observation that reviews do not "somehow flit between being primary and secondary sources ...". WP:PSTS does give one example where a source might be both primary and secondary: "might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences". This is not the same as a critical review, which are more like the journal article analogy I gave earlier. Hope this clarifies. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 04:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Ah... so it's instruction creep... got it. Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: More like people doing bad sourcing and us discussing how to resolve this because we care, while not all of us care where that discussion is held.  I said myself I didn't understand why this was being talked about on an MoS talk page to begin with, but there's clearly a problem and it clearly needs to get resolved. This is actually more important than a style matter. I don't think forking the discussion further on more MoS talk pages, is going to be helpful.  I agree it would be better to centralize the discussion somewhere else than any MoS page, but while the discussion is raging there it might as well have input from more people who understand RS and NOR better.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention needed to clear up serious confusion about secondary sourcing and MOS:FILM 

message: I have begun an RFC about accurate dates in citation metadata: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RFC: Accurate dates in citation metadata. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC on accurate dates in citation metadata

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Merge in MOS:PN.
Summary: Proposal to merge WP:Manual of Style/Proper names (as redundant, poorly maintained, and rarely cited) to WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proper names, to centralized advice and maintenance, and resolve "proper name"-related confusion about the interpretation of MOS:CAPS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[MOS:PN]] merge to [[MOS:CAPS]] 

message: There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church)#RfC:_should_this_page_be_made_a_naming_convention asking if the proposed naming convention for the Catholic Church should be made an official naming convention. All are welcomed to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Church naming conventions RfC 

message: I have raised a question at the link per use of hyphenation in ranks and positions or not - eg lieutenant-colonel, air vice-marshall or attorney-general (or a more military version), deputy director-general, quartermaster-general. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Hyphens in ranks and positions]] eg lieutenant-colonel 

message: As here. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Or replacing "United States" after a city,state with "U.S. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think current opinion is "US" rather than "U.S.".  One or the other is a good idea in general, but in this case I suspect it will not be confused with this New York ! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that it is 'US' in infoboxes, but 'United States' on first mention within the article. In this instance, there seems to be no need for either US or United States to be present. As Martin says, there will be no confusion as to which Brooklyn you are referring. –Sb2001 talk page 19:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

text: ...and somewhere (please don't make me dig up where) it's specified that references in article text follow the conventions for titles i.e. we don't tell readers that states of the US are in the US; same applies, I believe, to British counties, Canadian provinces, and I can't recall what else. EEng 22:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you meant the constituent countries of the UK (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) and not British counties (Suffolk, Cumbria, Shropshire, etc.).--Khajidha (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Checking Wikipedia: Naming conventions (geographic names), it's more complicated than either but you were closer to the guideline than I was. --Khajidha (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean that you'd write "this species is found in Nebraska" instead of "this species is found in the US state of Nebraska"? I looked through Wikipedia: Naming conventions (geographic names) and didn't find that, but I could have missed it.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

text: You're talking about a moot point. For better or for worse, MOS calls for articles to refer to Omaha, Nebraska, not Omaha, Nebraska, US (or USAdoesn't matter, we don't use either). EEng 19:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a guideline about adding "U.S." after Brooklyn, New York? 

message: Hello,
There is a discussion over on Talk:Epyc#EPYC or Epyc? over the application of the MOS to a particular product page that might be of interest to editors here. It is over a recent edit which removed the "stylized as" from the lead. (I will leave it at that to keep this post neutral.) If additional editors who have particular expertise/interest in the MOS would contribute, that might help with the discussion. Thanks! Dbsseven (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Application of MOS to Trademarks 

message: I propose to include the following footnote in MoS, which has various explanatory footnotes (keeps the main text more concise):
The rationales for this are
*It's actually important that everyone be clear that full point, full stop, period, decimal point, and dot all refer to the same . glyph in different contexts. We take such care with various other punctuation matters, such as: quotation mark glyphs; the differences between different bracket types; distinctions between dashes of two kinds, the hyphen, and the minus; and so on.
*Two editors in two days have reverted previous attempts at clarification, with the counterfactual assertions that full point isn't correct or is somehow confusing, despite being what New Hart's Rules (the British counterpart to Chicago Manual of Style) among other sources call the character in an overall sense.
My theory is it is better to have a clarifying footnote and precise terminology used contextually, than to have a slow editwar to force the same term (full stop) to be used in every context when this term is not universally used that way.
An editor has reverted the addition of this footnote, as well, so I'm opening this discussion about it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *The whole point of style guides (and, indeed, footnotes) is pedantry. People who find this kind of thing dull won't be troubled by it in a footnote, surely. SarahSV (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would have thought style guides worked better if they were quick and easy. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ever read one?  The current edition of Chicago Manual of Style 1144 pages!  Some publishers have short style sheets, but they also have a small writing staff; we don't. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *I tried to read one once. But I felt I was getting sucked in. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Oh, and it's "zee" not "zed" -- better make that clear while we're at it.  Also, just fix "pound sign" already.  And...  --A D Monroe III(talk)  01:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This gist is that if you're going to use "full ", the full point is the generic, full stop is specific to a context, and Americans just use period; and no, a decimal point isn't something different. It doesn't imply that period is wrong, by any means.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

text: If the problem is that editors might use other types of dot characters, just say directly what yo do. That is, give the style-relevant instruction rather than expounding on the terminology.  DMacks (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My !vote was against the actual OP, specifically stating:  starting with , a weasel word, followed by an opinion in WP's voice that runs counter to ENGVAR. If adding a link to Full stop ends this "pointless" discussion, I'm all for it. (But that wouldn't even need a discussion -- just do it.)  --A D Monroe III(talk)  14:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Technically" removed, then.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The final and penultimate sentences of the re-draft are unnecessary. Since this is the English wikipedia, we are going to write in English and not other languages. DrKay (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that people who are non-native English speakers who only rudimentary English skills edit here all the time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Difficulty with English seems to be epidemic just now. EEng 17:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Clarifying footnote on "." terminology 

message: If the discussion is going to now switch to re-drafting the footnote, then it should be re-drafted to make statements that everyone is agreed on:
 DrKay (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote on terminology

message: Is there any particular reason why the MoS accepts both the en rule and em rule for sentence breaking? Leaving it open seems to do far more harm than good, and leads to people introducing inconsistency within articles. When we already have to contend with the spaced hyphen problem, this seems like an unnecessary hassle.
Proposal</br>
Since the majority of academic style guides—NHR, CMoS, etc—recommend using the em rule, I suggest that Wikipedia strongly considers the possibility of offering similar advice here, since we are WP:NOTNEWS. Journalistic style guides seem to be the only ones to offer advice to the contrary.
To make it clear, I am not pushing a personal preference. I used to use en rules, but switched to ems around six months ago, as a result of Wikipedia. I would be perfectly happy to see only en rules being allowed, as long as we do not have the confusing guidance we have now. –Sb2001 22:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Spaced em dashes... There's one in every crowd. EEng 01:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[MOS:DASH]] 

message: I'm pretty sure the possessive of "US" is "US's" (right?) but what is the possessive of "U.S."? I don't think it's "U.S.'" but maybe it is? This came up at Freedom of navigation. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "American", or in some rare cases "America's" —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you must "possessivize" the U.S. itself, it's the U.S.'s. Awkwardness like this is one of the reasons so many style guides say to reserve the abbreviation for adjectival use.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't possessivize it myself, just trying to de-awkwardize it. I think I'll try "American" as suggested by Eppstein, but I'm fearful of the "Canadians/Mexicans/Brazilians are American too" crowd. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest simply re-writing the sentence to avoid the possessive entirely... for example Instead of writing "At that time, the US's foreign policy was..." write "At that time, the foreign policy of the US was..." Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Or "At that time, US foreign policy was..."--Khajidha (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possessive form of "U.S."?