View source for Wiki143 talk:Manual of Style

{{Talk header |WT:MOS |search=no }}

{{Round in circles|search=yes}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
 |target=Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive index
 |mask=Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive <#>
 |leading_zeros=0
 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{FAQ|quickedit=no|collapsed=no}}
{{Section sizes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |1=
{{WikiProject Manual of Style}}
{{Wikipedia Help Project|importance=Top}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
 |algo = old(30d)
 |archive = Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive %(counter)d
 |counter = 229
 |maxarchivesize = 900K
 |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
 |minthreadsleft = 4
}}
[[File:Moshpit2.jpg|thumb|upright=0.9|Welcome to the MOS pit{{hn}}]]
__TOC__
{{clear right}}
{{stb}}

==Style discussions elsewhere==
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 06:15, 18 June 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1876457735}}<!-- END PIN -->
Add a link to new discussions at top of list and indicate what kind of discussion it is (move request, RfC, open discussion, deletion discussion, etc.). Follow the links to participate, if interested. Move to ''Concluded'' when decided, and summarize conclusion. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

===Current===
(newest on top)
<!--
Don't add threads that are on the same page as this list.
Capitalization-specific entries should go in the corresponding section at the top of:
 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
-->

*[[Talk:Cuauhtémoc Brooklyn Bridge collision#Requested move 18 May 2025]] - involves [[MOS:ENBETWEEN]] though this is not the primary issue discussed; also concerns a usage dispute about ''collision'' in maritime terminology (May 2025)
*[[Talk:Carleton_S._Coon#Birth_and_death_places]] - a discussion pertaining to [[MOS:IBP]] (April 2025)
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/The term committed suicide]] – A perennial unresolved usage debate has returned, with a variety of proposals (March 2025)
*: Summary of prior related major discussions: [[MOS:SUICIDE]], [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 160#Wording on articles about suicide in line with recommended best practice based on research|MOS 2014]], [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 7#Does "died by suicide" constitute a euphemism?|WTW 2016]], [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2017 archive#Usage of "Committed suicide"|MOSBIO 2017]], [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 197#Use of "died by suicide" at the David Reimer article|MOS 2017]], [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 140#Stigmatizing language regarding suicide|VPPOL 2018]], [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 138#Change suicide references to remove criminal allusion|VPPOL 2017]], [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 8#Suicides?|WTW 2018]], [[Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 17#RFC: Categories with committed suicide in title|CAT 2019]], [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 164#RFC: "Committed suicide" language|VPPOL 2021]], [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 138#Change suicide references to remove criminal allusion|VPPOL 2023]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#RfC: Removal of links to "animated" on animated film articles]] – Has fairly broad [[MOS:LINK]] implications, beyond animated films (March 2025)
* [[Talk:Vasa (ship)#Informational footnotes (again)]] – a discussion pertaining to [[MOS:RETAIN]] and [[MOS:LAYOUT]] (Jan.–Feb. 2025, following on a not quite conclusive Feb. 2024 RfC)
* [[Talk:Archimedes#MOS:'S]] – on whether this subject should be exempt from [[MOS:POSS]] (Dec. 2024 – March 2025)
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Proposal to import a line-item from WP:JUDAISMSTYLE into MOS:BIO]] – to use policy-based material on "Christ" found in an essay but more useful in a guideline (Nov. 2024)
<!--Please put newer entries at the top.-->

{{block indent|1=<nowiki />
'''Pretty stale but not "concluded":'''
* RfC needed on issue raised at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2024 archive#British peer titles in infoboxes]] (June–July 2004, archived without resolution). Presently, the royalty/nobility wikiprojects have imposed putting British peerage titles in place of names in biographical infoboxes, against [[MOS:BIO]], [[MOS:INFOBOX]], and the template's documentation. Either the community will accept this as a best practice and the guidelines changed to accomodate it, or it should be undone and the infobox used consistently and as-intended.
* A [[MOS:JOBTITLES]] revision RfC needs to be drafted, based on [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#JOBTITLES simplification proposal]] (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024, archived without resolution). JOBTITLES remains a point of confusion and conflict, which the guidelines are supposed to prevent not cause.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)#Use of comma and abbreviation of Incorporated]] – Involves [[MOS:TM]] (plus [[WP:COMMONNAME]], [[WP:OFFICIALNAME]], [[WP:POLICYFORK]]). Covers more than thread name implies. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Stalled without resolution; at least 3 options identified which should be put to an RfC.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet"]] – Involves [[MOS:HONORIFIC]], [[MOS:DOCTCAPS]], [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:CHERRYPICKING]], etc. (Sep. 2023 –) ''Result:'' Still unresolved, though consensus seems to lean toward permitting lower-case "prophet" when needed for disambiguation, but no agreement yet on specific guideline wording.
* [[Help talk:Table/Archive 9#Indenting tables]] – Help page is conflicting with [[MOS:DLIST]] and [[MOS:ACCESS]] on a technical point. (Aug. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' No objection to fixing it, and a suggestion to just do it [[WP:BOLD]]ly, but the work actually has to be done.
<!--Please put newer entries at the top.-->
}}<!-- end of block indent -->

{{block indent|1=<nowiki />
'''Capitalization-specific:'''
{{Excerpt| Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters|Current|subsections=no}}
}}

===Concluded===
{{collapse top|left=y|title=Extended content}}
<!--Please put newer additions at the top, by order of closure. -->
*[[Talk:Malung-Sälen Municipality#Requested move 22 April 2025]] – Concerns [[MOS:ENBETWEEN]] and hyphenated compound single place names and (May 2025). Multiple pages nominated for move. ''Result:'' Pages not moved, hyphens retained following low-participation RM discussion.
* [[Template talk:Infobox song#RfC: customizing infobox background colors based on album or single cover colors]] – involves [[MOS:COLOR]] concerns (Jan.–Feb. 2025) ''Result:'' unanimous opposition to stylistically colorize infoboxes in this manner.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Use of template "further". Does it need clarification?]] – open discussion on lead placement of templates <nowiki>{{further}}, {{broader}}, etc as compared to {{main}} and {{see also}}</nowiki> (Jan. 2025) ''Result:'' Template documentation clarified.
* [[Talk:2018 Crozet, Virginia, train crash#Requested move 15 January 2025]] – new discussion around the use of [[MOS:GEOCOMMA]] in article title specific to train accidents (Jan 2025). ''Result:'' Not moved to delete comma after "Virginia".
* [[Talk:1925 Tri-State tornado#Requested move 26 December 2024]] – involves a number of style and title questions, including capitalization, disambiguation preferences, what the most common name in RS is, etc.; reopened after move review (Dec. 2024 – Feb. 2025) ''Result:'' moved to [[1925 tri-state tornado]].
* [[Talk:United States Virgin Islands' at-large congressional district#Requested move 10 December 2024]] – plural possessive [[MOS:POSS]] question. ''Result'': Moved from "Islands's" to "Islands{{'"}} spelling.
* [[Talk:Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh#Requested move 18 December 2024]] – a [[MOS:AT]]&nbsp;/ [[WP:AT]] question, involving ambiguity, consistency, concision, and other concerns (Dec. 2024 – March 2025) ''Result:'' no consensus (so remains at the original article title).
* [[Talk:Second Italo-Ethiopian War#Flags in the infobox]] – a [[MOS:FLAGICONS]] matter (Nov.–Dec. 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but article has been stable for a while with flag icons in the infobox, whether or not this conforms with the relevant guideline. This is the opposite of the result at "Battle of Tory Island", below.
* [[Talk:Kula–Farallon Ridge#Requested move 26 October 2024]] –&nbsp;Use en dash not hyphen in four paired names? ''Result:'' Yes.
* [[Talk:Battle of Tory Island#Infoboxflags]] – use of flag icons in infobox per [[MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS]] (Sep.–Nov. 2024) – See also prior [[Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict#Belligerents flags]]. ''Result:'' No formal closure, but article has been stable without flag icons in the infobox, based on the relevant guideline. This is the opposite of the result at "Second Italo-Ethiopian War", above.
* [[WP:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 59#Could MOS:TMRULES be amended to avoid conflict with WP:COMMONNAME, esp for contemporary artists and their works?]] – In short, should we use odd-ball stylization of band names and the like to match their marketing? (July–Aug. 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but a clear consensus against this idea, and against the underlying "conflict" premise; the proponent simply did not understand the policy.
** Various simultaneously executed RMs by the same proponent all concluded against the desired over-stylizations (usually ALL-CAPS) – some by affirmative consensus against, some by no consensus to move. 
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2024 archive#British peer titles in infoboxes]] – Should British peers use their peerage title in place of their name in infoboxes? (June–July 2004) ''Result:'' archived without resolution. This needs to be RfCed.
* [[Talk:Shays's Rebellion#Requested move 27 April 2024]] – [[MOS:POSS]]: "Shays'" or "Shays's"? ''Result:'' "Shays's". No objective rationale was presented for an exception to the guideline, and evidence shows "Shays's" common in source material even if "Shays'" is also common, especially in older sources.
* [[Template talk:Infobox university/Archive 23#Type]] – Should multiple entries be formatted as a list or a single phrase? (Apr.–May 2024) ''Result:'' 4:1 against proposed change to a list format; alternative idea at end neither accepted nor rejected.
* [[Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict#Flags and wikilinks in the Infobox "Belligerents" section]] – Do flags in this infobox serve a "useful purpose" per [[MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS]] or are they primarily decorative and should be removed? (Apr.–May 2004) ''Result:'' 3:1 against inclusion; the 1 did not read or understand the entire guideline. See also later [[Talk:Battle of Tory Island#Infoboxflags]].
* [[Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 16#Collages in infoboxes]] – Primarily on a recent habit of military-conflict articles having collages of 4, 6, or even more images in their infobox. (Mar.–May 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but a clear consensus against this practice; image galleries (when appropriate at all per [[WP:GALLERY]]) belong in the article body.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 23#RfC on the leads of DOY articles and their FL eligibility]] – [[MOS:LEADLENGTH]] (and [[MOS:LEADREL]]) in "day of year" (DoY) article candidates for "featured list". (Feb. 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, and little clear consensus other than that [[WP:OWN]] / [[WP:CONLEVEL]] apply, as does [[WP:DUE]].
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/Archive 17#Possessives in condition names]] – On [[Asperger syndrome]] vs. [[Asperger's syndrome]], etc. (Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' No clear consensus reached; a great deal of sourcing is provided, but there's a feeling that real-world usage varies considerably on a case-by-case basis, so [[WP:COMMONNAME]] might invididually trump [[WP:CONSISTENT]]. Worth revisiting in a few years to see whether source usage has shifted.
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Names of deceased trans people]] (moved from WP:VPPOL) – Yet another round of this long-term, multi-RfC process. Consensus about "deadnames" seemed possible this time but was mostly elusive. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' no consensus to change the wording of MOS:GENDERID based on this proposal; consensus against changing "should be included" to "may be included".
** Related: See numerous previous deadname-related and more general GENDERID discussions listed below.
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 189#Make Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computer science]] – Proposal to merge a "guideline in all but name" into MoS. (Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' consensus to promote to a guideline (after some significant revisions).
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 210#Increase default thumbnail size from 220px to 250px]] – Peripherally related to [[MOS:IMAGES]] and [[MOS:ACCESS]]. (Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Consensus to increase to 250px.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#JOBTITLES simplification proposal]] – [[MOS:JOBTITLES]] has long been considered too complicated and hard to follow. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' input stalled out over the holidays, then it was archived without resolution. 
** [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2024 archive#RfC on JOBTITLES]] – Abortive, unclear RfC that resolved nothing. (May–Sep. 2023) ''Result:'' unanimously opposed.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 61#Request for comment on the relationship between WP:CRITERIA and WP:TITLEFORMAT]] – has stylistic implications (punctuation, leading "The", etc.) despite not being intrinsically an MoS matter (Nov. 2024) ''Result:'' "There is consensus that WP:TITLEFORMAT does not take precedence over WP:CRITERIA. Editors should continue to balance all relevant guidelines and policies when determining article titles, without giving inherent precedence to either section."
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles/Archive 8#Kangxi radical template/gloss]] – Involves [[MOS:FOREIGN]], [[MOS:SINGLE]], [[MOS:ALLCAPS]], [[MOS:BOLD]]. (Oct.2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Archived without closure. There does not seem to be a compelling reason for this ALL-CAPS behavior in the template/module, but it was still happening in Nov. 2024.
** Discussion re-opened at [[Module talk:Kangxi radical#All-caps]] (Nov. 2024). Changed to lowercase [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3AKangxi_radical&diff=1259286315&oldid=1253292255]; we'll see if that sticks.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/Archive 14#Fictional characters known by initials - what qualifies as the "preferred style for their own name" ?]] – Involves [[MOS:WAF]], [[MOS:INITIALS]], [[MOS:TM]], [[MOS:ACRO]], [[WP:OFFICIALNAME]], etc. (Oct. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but there seems to be no appetite for diverging from [[MOS:INITIALS]], and the OP commingled unrelated cases like stagenames of real people.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 16#Making redundant table captions screen-reader-only]] – About use of {{tlx|sronly}} around table captions (which are primarily for screen readers) to hide them from the usual non-screen-reader view, only when their content repeats what is in the table headers. (Nov.–Dec. 2023) ''Result'': Archived without firm resolion. As there was but one opposer of the idea, there is no consensus against doing this. If more opposition arose or some reason, open an RfC about it.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#ALL-CAPS for "keywords for lexical sets"?]] – Involves [[MOS:ALLCAPS]]. (Oct. 2023 – Feb. 2024) ''Result:'' Thinly attended, but there does seem to be a linguistics standard to render [[lexical set]]s in {{sc2|smallcaps}}, so this has been accounted for and added to the exception lists at [[MOS:ALLCAPS]] (since our articles are consistently doing it based on that sourcing).
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 14#"the late"]] – On [[MOS:EUPHEMISMS]] and whether to add another example to it. (Oct. 2023) ''Result'': Discussion archived without a clear conclusion.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles#About adding a link to each hangul syllable using Template:Linktext]] – On use of a template to link Korean characters to Wiktionary (Jan. 2024). ''Result'': general consensus to not do that excessive linking; and a bot request made to clean it up.
* [[Talk:Mercedes-Benz]] – Use an en dash instead of a hyphen? ''Result'': Withdrawn
* [[Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_February#P%C4%81keh%C4%81_settlers|Pākehā settlers move review]] – Move review on Pākehā settlers vs. European settlers in New Zealand, related to [[WP:COMMONALITY]], [[WP:TIES]], [[WP:CONSISTENT]], [[WP:RECOGNIZABILITY]] (Feb. 2024). ''Result:'' There were many steps in this process but ultimately [[Pākehā settlers]] was moved to [[European settlers in New Zealand]].
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables#Proposal to discourage vertically oriented ("sideways") column headers]] – Specifically in tables, possibly elsewhere. [[MOS:UNITNAMES]] (at the table "General guidelines on use of units") has an example of existing use that is being challenged, and material at [[Help:Table]] is also at issue. (Dec. 2023 – Nov. 2024) ''Result:'' Discussion died off without clear resolution.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles of works#MOS:TITLECAPS footnote to handle symbols substituting for words]] – To treat word-substitutions ("U" for "You", "❤️" for "Heart", {{nowrap|"..."}} for elided wording), as "words" for the purposes of a particular line-item about title-case treatment. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Done, with unanimous support.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Minor consolidation merge]] – To merge a line-item (about stylization of stage/pen names) out of MOS:INITIALS (where the one of the examples is only semi-pertinent anyway) and into [[MOS:TM]], leaving behind a cross-reference to MOS:TM from [[MOS:NAMES]]. (Nov.–Dec. 2023) ''Result:'' Because of some things that apply to personal not corporate names, this ended up not being practical; intead the MOS:BIO material was cleaned up and cross-references between the two MOS sections was improved; description at: [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Minor overhauling]]. No objections or other issues have come up.
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Standardizing ISBN formatting (and an end to editwarring about it)]] – Proposal to add something to [[MOS:NUM]]. (Oct.–Dec. 2023) ''Result:'' "no consensus as to whether or how to standardize ISBNs or whether to subject them to a CITEVAR-like rule .... The closest thing we have to a consensus here is that spaces (option 4) should not be used."
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#MOS style for odds]] – About changing [[MOS:RATIOS]] to specify a format (new or otherwise) for betting-odds ratios. (Oct.–Dec. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but apparent general agreement that the <code>:</code> style for ratios in general applies to odds ratio in particular like the rest, and MOS:RATIOS updated to say this.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places)#Centralization re: decommunization of names]] – Primarily a matter of article title, but there are related issues such as capitalisation. (Nov. 2023) ''Result:'' basically stalled out, without resolution/action. Specific revision proposal is needed.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Number format within TV articles - request for views]] – Also involves [[MOS:NUMERALS]]. RfC on "season 3, episode 7" vs. "season three, episode seven" styles (and probably also "seventh season" vs. "7th season", etc.). (Oct.–Nov. 2023) ''Result:'' "season and episode numbers should be expressed as numerals in tables, headings, and article body" (revision of a previous, less clear close).
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#Proposed change MOS:TERRORIST]] – On how WP uses terms like "terrorist/terrorism" and "freedom fighter", specifically to add a requirement "these words should only be used in quotations or referencing third-party use of the term". (Oct. 2023) ''Result:'' "nearly unanimously opposed".
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC on capitalization after a colon or dash]] – Involves [[MOS:TITLES]], [[WP:AT]], etc. (Sep.–Oct. 2023) ''Result:'' "rough consensus to allow for lowercase or capital letters after dashes or colons in article titles, section titles, and list items".
* [[Talk:Ulster Scots people#RfC on inclusion of ancestral national flags]] – [[MOS:FLAGS]] / [[MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE]] and Northern Ireland again. (Sep.–Oct. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but near-unanimous consensus against using national flags as ethnicity symbols.
* [[Talk:2023 Hawaii wildfires/Archive 2#Use of Hawaiian symbols in names]] – Involves [[MOS:HAWAII]] and could have implications for what the guideline says due to wildfire news bringing many more editorial eyes to that page than to [[WT:MOSHAWAII]]. (Aug.–Sep. 2023) ''Result:'' Archived without closure or any clear consensus; the general gist seems to be that the state of Hawaii is named Hawaii, the island is named Hawaiʻi, and diacritics ([[ʻokina]] and [[kahakō]]) should not be suppressed in the more localized names (and the US Geological Survey, which sets official placenames, along with the Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names, which basically tells USGS what to do in Hawaii/Hawaiʻi, both agree).
* [[Talk:Bayes' theorem#Requested move 23 August 2023]] – [[MOS:POSS]] stuff. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' Not moved. Lots of invalid arguments, and confused attempt to pit [[WP:COMMONAME]] against MoS (COMMONNAME is not a style policy, never has been one, and never will be; every proposal to incorporate a style matter into a policy has failed).
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 171#RfC: Use of 12 or 24-hour time]] – Wikiproject propsal to change [[MOS:TIME]] or [[MOS:MILFORMAT]]. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' wrong venue, and to the extent people commented on using 24-hour time, it was mostly opposed.
** [[Talk:Franklin–Nashville campaign#RFC on change from 12-hour clock time to 24-hour clock time]] – Above question was raised at a specific article as a "local consensus" matter. (Aug.–Sep. 2023) ''Result:'' unanimous opposition to 24-hour time.
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 50#Multinational bands and music groups]] – Follow-up to "unfruitful" discussions at [[WT:MOSMUSIC]], etc. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure; general agreement basically boils down to "write clearly and don't confuse or over-simplify with an adjective".
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 171#RfC: Abbreviations of rank]] – Wikiproject proposal to change rank abbreviations (to NATO style) in [[MOS:COMMONABBR]]. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' no formal closure, but overwhelming consensus to stick with MoS and ignore NATO preferences.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#Proposal to split MOS:GENDERID from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography]] – And some alternative ideas, including merger into [[WP:BLP]]. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, and the idea was mostly opposed, with no effect but returning all of the shortcuts ([[MOS:GENDERID]], [[MOS:GID]], [[MOS:DEADNAME]], [[WP:GENDERBLP]], [[MOS:NB]]) that someone changed to point to the [[WP:Manual of Style/Gender identity]] essay to now point back to the real guideline at [[WP:Manual of Style/Biography#Gender identity]].
** The essay has since been retooled to be an exegesis of the guideline, though attempts at [[WP:POLICYFORK]]ing are likely to continue, as this is one of our most hotbed internal topics. See also the guideline [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language]], and the essays [[WP:Gender-neutral language]] and [[WP:Gender-neutral language in Wikipedia policies]].
** [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 186#RfC on GENDERID in BLP]] – Proposal to move the MoS material into WP:BLP. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' Procedurally closed as "premature".
* [[Talk:Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod#Requested move 25 August 2023]] – Should the en dash have spaces around it; should it be an em dash? ''Result:'' moved to spaced en dash.
* [[Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 August 5#Hyphen vs. En dash usage (Wikidata)?]] and [[d:Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2023/08#Hyphen vs. En dash to separate years of birth/death?]] – Relating to concordance between wikidata descriptions and enwiki "short description". (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' Good summary: "as long as you choose a comprehensible form, your edits are fine. However, you should not change existing descriptions for stylistic reasons, and also not to unify desriptions for a given set of items"; also observations that various languages, e.g. Spanish, do not use an en dash for this purpose. So, Wikidata will not be changing away from hyphen as default, and any desire to have WD material, like automatically provided short descriptions, will have to do that change on our end.
* [[Talk:Decatur & Eastern Illinois Railroad#Requested move 9 August 2023]] and [[Talk:Central Maine & Quebec Railway#Requested move 9 August 2023]] – Use "&" or "and"? (see [[MOS:&]]). ''Result:'' Follow [[MOS:&]]; the essay [[WP:WikiProject Trains/Style advice]] conflicting with the guideline and with [[WP:COMMONNAME]] policy was noted, and this [[WP:ADVICEFORK]] was fixed in Jan. 2024. The second of these actually closed as "no consensus" because the [[WP:NAC]] who closed it did not know of [[WP:CONLEVEL]] policy and incorrectly treated policy- and guideline-based arguments as no stronger than those based on a contrary essay.
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 184#RFC: Change wording in MOS:SUICIDE to better reflect the supermajority consensus in the RFC that added it]] – Some re-wording proposals, and even a suggestion to remove the language entirely. (July 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, and did not result in wording changes, though a re-do might come to such a conclusion.
* [[Talk:SAG-AFTRA#Requested move 20 July 2023]] – move to [[SAG–AFTRA]] like [[AFL–CIO]], or is there a reason to hyphenate as [[SAG-AFTRA]]? (July 2023) ''Result:'' Not moved. The closer actually misunderstood the guideline wording badly, and this has created a [[WP:CONSISTENT]] policy failure with titles of other such entities including AFL–CIO, and the Famous Players-Lasky decision covered just below. This probably needs to be re-done.
** [[Talk:2023 SAG-AFTRA strike#Requested move 20 July 2023]] – ditto. ''Result:'' Procedurally closed as a [[WP:TALKFORK]] of the RM above.
* [[Talk:Famous Players-Lasky#Requested move 24 June 2023]] –&nbsp;proposal to use dash instead of hyphen. (June–July 2023) ''Result:'' Use the dash per [[MOS:DASH]]; a followup RM to add "Corporation" to the title rejected that idea despite [[WP:NCCORP]] supporting it, one of several recent RM incidents suggesting that at least some portions of the page do not enjoy consensus.
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 185#RfC: Proposed addition to MOS:GENDERID - when to include deadnames]] – Proposal to change [[MOS:DEADNAME]] that "encyclopaedic significance of the deadname [be] established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources, or if they were notable prior to transitioning". (June–July 2023) ''Result:'' "no clear consensus".
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 182#RFC: MOS:GENDERID and the deadnames of deceased trans and nonbinary persons]] – Primarily about "When should Wikipedia articles include the former name of a deceased trans or nonbinary person who was not notable prior to transitioning?" (May–June 2023) ''Result:'' "there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. Where, exactly, the lines of encyclopedic interest and avoiding confusion are is not simple or clear and will likely need discussion on individual articles, although there is definitely space for more guidance in the MOS". This has let to a lot of follow-on discussion and dispute.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations/Archive 2#"Acronyms in page titles" is mis-placed in an MoS page]] – Proposal to move section to naming-convention guideline. (June 2023) ''Result:'' no pro or con input; re-opened (Jan. 2024) on main MoS page.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#Remove the "living" qualifier in MOS:DEADNAME]] – Proposal to make anti-deadnaming rules apply to the long-deceased as well. (Apr.–May 2023) ''Result:'' No consensus to remove ''living'', so "the ''living'' qualifier, shall remain in place". The May–June 2023 RfC above was an outgrowth of this discussion.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 17#RfC Can notable Brazilian jiu-jitsu people display a rank icon in their infobox like Judo people do?]] – essential information, or icon cruft? (Mar.–Apr. 2023) ''Result:'' "There is consensus against inclusion of rank icons."
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing/Archive 10#RfC about replacing "vs." and "v" with "vs" in boxing match article titles]] – involves [[MOS:MISCSHORT]] and [[MOS:TIES]]. (Feb.–Mar. 2023) ''Result:'' no consensus to use "v"; continue to use "vs." or "vs" as suits the [[MOS:ENGVAR]] of the article.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Archive 8#Bold and Italics]] – Should an external style guide be used in place of [[WP:MOS]] in chapter lists (e.g. [[List of Alpha Phi Alpha chapters]])? (Jan.–Feb. 2023) ''Result:'' Insufficient input to reach a consensus. Needs to be RfCed. But the {{lang|la|status quo}} default principle is that a lack of consensus to create an exception to general rules does not result in such an exception.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 162#Decimals when quoting time periods?]] – Open discussion as to whether decimalized years should be used in personal biographies. (Jan. 2023) ''Result:'' discussion archived; majority felt that decimalized years are not standard in biographical prose and should be limited to a statistical/mathematical context.
<!--Please put newer entries at the top.-->
{{block indent|1=<nowiki />
{{Excerpt| Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters|Concluded|subsections=no}}
}}
{{collapse bottom}}

== MOS feedback needed on FA Dementia with Lewy bodies ==
See [[Talk:Dementia_with_Lewy_bodies#Over-use of initialisms|discussion on talk]]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]])  20:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:The linked discussion has converged on the following consensus: {{tq|I'd also support spelling out on first mention in each section (with brackets: so "Alzheimer's Disease (AD)") on first mention in each section, and then abbreviating thereafter.}}
:I think the suggestion to re-introduce abbreviations in each section of longer articles (on a case-by-case basis) would be a good addition to [[MOS:1STABBR]]. Lots of articles would get easier to follow that way.
:[[User:Joe vom Titan|Joe vom Titan]] ([[User talk:Joe vom Titan|talk]]) 20:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::I would also second this – readers often go to one section of the article without reading the others, especially for longer articles. [[User:GnocchiFan|GnocchiFan]] ([[User talk:GnocchiFan|talk]]) 18:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

== Dates and times on Spaceflight articles ==

Hello, I was looking to get some clarity on how we should handle dates and times on Spaceflight pages. 

The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Style guide|style guide for WikiProject Spaceflight]] states: {{xt|Since space is not within any Earth-bound time zone, and to avoid regional bias, the [[WP:WikiProject Spaceflight]] community has established a consensus (discussed [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Archive_5#Spaceflight article standards and conventions|here]]) to use [[UTC]].}}

However in creating [[Template:Launch time]], [[User:Redraiderengineer]] has opposed using UTC has the primary time zone, saying:
:Launches and landings are events that take place in a time zone on Earth, and [[MOS:TIMEZONE]] gives "priority to the place at which the event had its most significant effects." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Archive_10#Times_and_dates Previous editors] have suggested using local time for Earth-based events (e.g., launches and landings) and UTC for events in space, which is aligned with the MoS.
:The [[WP:MOS|Manual of Style]] has [[WP:CONLEVEL|precedence]], and "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."

I was hoping that some more experienced editors can give some clarity on how we should handle this issue. Thank you in advance for your responses. -- [[User:RickyCourtney|RickyCourtney]] ([[User talk:RickyCourtney|talk]]) 22:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:To provide additional context, my understanding of [[MOS:TIMEZONE]] for Earth-based events (e.g., launches and landings) is to prioritize where the event took place with the local time zone and add UTC for dates and times in the infobox and/or first use in the article.
:Effectively, the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Style guide#Dates and times|difference]] in interpretations is the local time zone first or second. For example:
:*{{ltime|June 4, 2022|13|25|02|EDT|net=no}}; or
:*{{Start date|2022|6|4}}, 13:25:02&nbsp;[[UTC]] (9:25:02&nbsp;am&nbsp;[[Eastern Daylight Time|EDT]])
:If a launch occurred in the Eastern Time Zone, the [[WP:MOS|straightforward]] approach is to prioritize ET while including UTC to allow for a reference to events that occurred in space. This use existed on some spaceflight articles before the template and is currently used on articles such as [[Blue Origin NS-16]], [[Starship flight test 8]], [[Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster]], and [[Blue Ghost Mission 1]].
:The mention of precedence was based on my understanding that the WikiProject cannot override the MoS based on [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS|local consensus]], which is an additional reason I addressed this.
:Thanks, [[User:Redraiderengineer|Redraiderengineer]] ([[User talk:Redraiderengineer|talk]]) 00:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::While it’s true that a few articles are listed with launch local time first, the majority are listed with UTC first. That includes all the Apollo mission articles (most of which passed the rigorous Featured Article review process), all Soyuz mission articles (which don’t even list local time), and the majority of the Space Shuttle mission articles (many of which took off in one time zone and landed in another, further complicating what is “local time”). -- [[User:RickyCourtney|RickyCourtney]] ([[User talk:RickyCourtney|talk]]) 01:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:::There is [[WP:OTHERCONTENT]] with UTC listed first, but that alone is not a reason to prefer it especially when this matter didn't reach broad, explicit consensus in the past (plus after further examination [[WP:CCC]]). The other content does indicate that editors have determined a local time zone, and the MoS guideline is to prioritize it.
:::I don't think local time is that complicated. If launch and landing have a different local time zone, they are both used for their respective event along with UTC. Space Shuttle mission articles, such as [[STS-40]] and [[STS-48]] (two random picks), and [[Artemis I]] are examples of articles that take this approach. [[User:Redraiderengineer|Redraiderengineer]] ([[User talk:Redraiderengineer|talk]]) 02:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:I'd support adding an exception to the global style manual for spaceflight launches and landings: These should give UTC first and local time in parantheses. UTC is the most sensible when thinking about a space mission of which launch is only one part. However, local time is also relevant (e.g. night/day), so it should be given in parantheses. Perhaps an RfC is in order? [[User:Joe vom Titan|Joe vom Titan]] ([[User talk:Joe vom Titan|talk]]) 19:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::If an exception is desired, I agree that an RfC is the next step. [[User:Redraiderengineer|Redraiderengineer]] ([[User talk:Redraiderengineer|talk]]) 15:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't believe that the style guide for WikiProject Spaceflight is in conflict , nor that your interpretation is incorrect. There are no time zones in space, so we are outside the guidance of MOS:TIMEZONE. By "priority", the MoS only meant which local time to use, not the ordering of the time. (As usual with the MoS, this change was made BOLD-ly, and reflects local consensus only [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FDates_and_numbers&diff=prev&oldid=588480037]) I personally feel that the putting UTC first when multiple local times are in use makes the article easier to read. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 00:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the actual time used for the launches by the launch control and operators, FAA signoffs etc., is UTC not local time, just like with all other aspects of aviation. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 14:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

== [[New York-New York Hotel and Casino]] ==

This is an odd one. My initial instinct was that an en dash should be used, not a hyphen, but upon double-checking [[MOS:DASH]], I'm not so sure. Although we normally use an en dash {{tqq|in compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with ''to'', ''versus'', ''and'', or ''between''}}, this is not connecting two place names like [[Minneapolis–Saint Paul]] but rather repeating the same place name twice (unless the second "New York" refers to the state, which would be an odd use of a hyphen or dash, but I couldn't find information on the origins of the name in the article or online). {{tqq|Use an en dash for the names of two or more entities in an attributive compound}} would seem to support the use of an en dash, but again, it is technically the same entity and I'm not confident this classifies as an "attributive compound". We could also easily shorten the name to [[New York-New York]] <small>(and probably should, per [[WP:CONCISE]] and [[WP:COMMONNAME]])</small>, in which case, we are advised to {{tqq|use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities}}. I guess it just looks strange to use a hyphen because we usually {{tqq|use an en dash when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that itself includes a space}}, but this isn't a prefix. This reads like <code>New / York-New / York</code> rather than <code>New York / – / New York</code>, and "York" obviously doesn't modify "New". Thoughts? [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 21:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:How do independent sources that discuss this hotel/casino present the name?  Do they “correct” the dash, or consider it “part of the name” and leave it.  I would especially be interested in exploring sources that we trust to usually get stylization right - to see if ''they'' make an exception in this case. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 22:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
::Should we be looking to third-party sources for this? Many sources don't use en dashes {{em|at all}} in accordance with whatever style guide they follow (e.g. [https://x.com/APStylebook/status/1824425888659685429 AP]); we have our own style guide. So I don't think this is a matter of COMMONNAME. In any case, a cursory search on [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22new+york-new+york%22+%22casino%22&udm=36 Google Books] shows wild inconsistency, ranging from spaces to commas to slashes (and many false positives). [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 22:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I think you have answered my question - since we ''don’t'' see other sources making an exception to their own style guides for it, then neither should we. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 00:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
::::When I said "many sources don't use en dashes at all", I was not referring to this instance in particular, I meant {{em|in general}}. Some style guides do not use en dashes in any scenario, including cases where our style guide would call for them. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 00:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Never look to sources on style issues. Sources are for facts, not style. External style guides can influence our MoS, but they are only one of multiple factors to be considered. Any mention of style guides should be in the context of proposed changes to our MoS, not individual cases. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 00:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
:::That said, damn the hotel owners for unnecessarily creating such a conundrum for Wikipedia's MoS wonks. "New York Hotel and Casino" would have done just fine, and readers could just deal with any ambiguity between that and Sydney's [[New York Hotel]]. I'd be inclined to use the hyphen and call it a day; it's just not ''that'' critical. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 01:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

== "Use the appropriate plural" ==

<blockquote>Use the appropriate plural; allow for cases (such as ''excursus'' or ''hanif'') in which a word is now listed in major English dictionaries, and normally takes an ''s'' or ''es'' plural, not its original plural...</blockquote>
The instruction under [[MOS:PLURALS]] is rather clumsy. The "use the appropriate plural" bit doesn't really convey anything, as it should go without saying. It seems to just be there to lead into the next clause, which mentions "cases such as ''excursus'' or ''hanif''" without any context as to how these terms are significant. Apparently these are loanwords from Latin and Arabic that have become established in English. So what about loanwords that have not become established? What kind of appropriate plurals are to be used for them? Do we reflect CMOS's recommendation that "plurals of non-English words should be formed as in the original language"?[https://style.mla.org/non-english-plurals-in-english/] If so, this should be mentioned in the paragraph before the bit about allowing for special cases. But then the whole thing seems like it would better fit under the ''Non-English terms'' section, especially since there are already ''Terms without/with common usage in English'' subheadings there. Should it be moved there instead? --[[User:Paul_012|Paul_012]] ([[User talk:Paul_012|talk]]) 02:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:It is oddly phrased. Can I assert that I am duly allowing for the existence of such cases but ''indices'' remains the appropriate plural? Or am I being told to use ''indexes''? [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 19:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
::The word {{em|index}} is a weird case. Both {{em|indexes}} and {{em|indices}} are valid plurals, but they refer to different things. If a document has an index for people and a separate index for places, then use {{em|indexes}} to refer to them collectively; if there are multiple scalars, e.g., subscripts, then use {{em|indices}}. -- [[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 13:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
:::That's very nicely summarised - thank you - and I clearly picked a bad example. I am still rather perplexed as to what "allow for cases" is telling/guiding an editor to do; could we be clearer? [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 16:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
::::It's odd. There does seem to be something missing, as in: ''Non-English words used in running text in English (typically?) follow the pluralization conventions of the native language [example]. For cases…'' followed by the current statement (or some improved version conveying the point). It might be helpful to link between this section and the ''Non-English terms'' section, if some version of the guidance is to remain here. For cases where there is more than one reasonably standard plural form, especially where it does not effect the meaning, I wouldn't be overly prescriptive here. --[[User:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana; color: blue;"><b>MYCETEAE</b></span>]] 🍄‍🟫—[[User talk:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>talk</i></span>]] 02:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::We could perhaps turn your phrasing around: ''Non-English words adopted into English take the plurals shown in appropriate English dictionaries, otherwise we follow the pluralization conventions of the native language''? I put "appropriate" because ENGVAR might come into it. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 12:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::This is a big improvement, certainly better than what I wrote. Far less clumsy than the original and more likely to be helpful, and I don't think it changes the underlying standard. --[[User:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana; color: blue;"><b>MYCETEAE</b></span>]] 🍄‍🟫—[[User talk:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>talk</i></span>]] 21:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:"plurals of non-English words should be formed as in the original language". So the plural of "bureau" is "bureaux". [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 23:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, I really hope Chicago qualifies that. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 12:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Doesn't this go without saying? I don't consider ''bureau'' a non-English word, frankly. The full section (11.3: Non-English words and phrases in an English context) in ''Chicago'' mostly concerns setting these words in italics, noting that this applies especially when such words are not listed in standard English dictionaries or may be unfamiliar to readers. {{tq|This convention is intended to alert readers that such terms would not normally be found in English and can help prevent a non-English word from being misread as an error.}} The line about plurals is exactly as quoted in the linked piece above and comes near the end of the section, after the scope of the guidance is established. --[[User:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana; color: blue;"><b>MYCETEAE</b></span>]] 🍄‍🟫—[[User talk:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>talk</i></span>]] 21:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::The problem is that English is full of words that were ''originally'' “non-English”, but are ''now'' considered part of the English language (bureau and index are both good examples). [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 12:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::''Bureau'''s a nice ENGVAR example too; very often -x in BrEng (eg the formal name [[Citizens Advice|Citizens Advice Bureaux]]) though I think often -s of the [[Slant-top desk|desks]] nowadays, but in AmEng more often -s. Still, dictionaries cover that well enough already, and so far the only sense I can make of our "allow for cases" guidance is "if it's in the English dictionary, do what that says and if not, do what the other language does". [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 22:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:::: That sounds very reasonable, and simple enough. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 06:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::OK, I've changed it as above but dropping the "Non-English" from "Non-English words adopted into English"; if it's adopted, it's not non-English any more, or at least that's needlessly arguable. Hope that's OK. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 10:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::Reads OK, but why did you remove the examples? [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 10:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::When I saw how the paragraph would now work, the examples seemed rather obscure and didn't clarify so much as take the reader into the weeds. I wound up daring to think the bald statement was enough, even though the MoS is usually more, um, discursive. In short, no very strong reason! [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 10:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

== The "Italics within quotations" section mentions one applicable template, but not another. ==

The page is semi-protected, and I only really make small fixes to articles (which doesn't happen so often, so I haven't been autoconfirmed), so I figured I may as well just mention it here. The "Italics within quotations" section mentions using the {{tlx|em}} template for emphasis within quotation, using {{tlx|em}} for emphasis is in another section. In the same way, {{tlx|lang}} is talked about for words in different languages in another section, however, {{tlx|lang}} is not mentioned in "Italics within quotations". I feel both of these should be treated equally, whether it be removing the existing mention of {{tlx|em}}, or adding a mention of {{tlx|lang}}. I'm on the side of adding {{tlx|lang}}, but that decision's up to someone else, I can't edit the article. [[User:Davie53K|Davie53K]] ([[User talk:Davie53K|talk]]) 15:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
:Maybe a link to  {{alink||Non-English quotations}}. -- [[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 17:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

== ENGVAR and quoted speech from a written source ==

The guidance under Quotations at [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Original wording]] is pretty straightforward and aligns with my expectations: {{tq|Quotations must be [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiably]] attributed, and the wording of the quoted text must be faithfully reproduced}} and {{tq|In direct quotations, retain dialectal and archaic spellings}}. My question concerns this passage ('''emphasis''' added) from ''[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/jun/09/australian-reporter-shot-with-rubber-bullet-while-covering-anti-ice-protests-in-los-angeles The Guardian]'':
{{tq2|Asked about the incident on the ABC, the Nationals senator Matt Canavan said “it looks like there was a targeting there” but added he was “'''loth''' to jump to conclusions though when you just see part of the footage”.}}
This is reproduced and referenced in to ''The Guardian'' [[June 2025 Los Angeles protests#Australia]] as follows ('''emphasis''' added):
{{tq2|Albanese and Senator [[Matt Canavan]] both said Tomasi's shooting appeared targeted, with Canavan adding he had only seen part of the footage and was "'''loath''' to jump to conclusions".}}
Here we have [[The Guardian|a British newspaper]] reproducing a spoken quote by an Australian man on [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation|Australian TV]] using a variant spelling [https://grammarist.com/spelling/loath-loathe-loth/ ''loth'']. In an article written in American English, is it permissible to change the spelling to ''loath''?
<small>(Note: The [[Anthony Albanese|Albanese]] statement is sourced to [https://www.9news.com.au/national/lauren-tomasi-shot-in-los-angeles-protests-anthony-albanese-responds/428fdfbe-4358-4ba0-8414-40cc4e0254dd a different article].)</small> --[[User:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana; color: blue;"><b>MYCETEAE</b></span>]] 🍄‍🟫—[[User talk:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>talk</i></span>]] 03:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:WP is full of numerous examples where the Engvar of a quote is preserved despite being at odds with the established Engvar of an article.  This case should be no different. [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 04:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
:[[MOS:CONSISTENT]]: "The conventions of a particular variety of English should be followed consistently within a given article. Exceptions include: Quotations". [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 05:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks, both of you. This had been my approach, but someone edited it. I wonder if they thought it was a typo, as I might have done. I needed a sanity check because if we were citing the video we would of course never have transcribed it that way. I will correct and leave an invisible note. --[[User:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana; color: blue;"><b>MYCETEAE</b></span>]] 🍄‍🟫—[[User talk:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>talk</i></span>]] 06:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

== When to include the country alongside a city ==

Does MOS have guidance on when a city is large or well-known enough that we should exclude the country name in an article's text? For example, see the second sentence in [[2024 UEFA Champions League final]]. I'm not seeing advice on this in [[MOS:PLACE]], and [[MOS:OVERLINK]] only covers linking. 

If it doesn't, where should that line be drawn? I would assume that London, UK, and New York City, US, are above it. Arguably, places like Chicago, US; Seoul, South Korea; and Istanbul, Turkey, could be as well. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 19:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
*It seems like it should be precisely the same list as "cities that go without wikilinks", no? Given the question in both cases is whether the city is sufficiently recognizable to nearly all our readers. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;🌈&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 19:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
*First, are we talking about mentioning the city in running text, or titling an article?
*:If running text, I would ask whether there is there a need for disambiguation?  An article that mentions “Saint Petersburg” may need to clarify whether it is referring to the city in Russia, or the city in Florida (or some other one). 
*:Article '''Context''' comes into play here.  If the context is Medieval History, the reader can ''assume'' that a reference to “Boston” is referring to the town in England (as it was the only “Boston” that existed during this era). [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 20:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::I'm concerned you may be overestimating our typical reader's knowledge of medieval history. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 20:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
*::{{ping|Blueboar}} As I said above, "in an article's text". :-)) I agree that disambiguation and especially context are important. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 20:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
*For what it's worth, see the list linked as footnote [a] from the "Major cities" section here [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1294514319#Major_cities]. Of course, that list isn't above criticism in the context of a modern, international encyclopedia e.g. (with all due respect) Cincinnati, Cleveland, Oklahoma City, San Antonio??? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 20:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

== Do not use the precomposed ellipsis character (…) ==

I propose to rethink this rule. It was established by one user, having extreme opinion on this issue, 20 years ago, as stated in [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_174#MOS:ELLIPSIS|this discussion]] (latest discussion about this rule that I found in archive of this talk page). It was justified by problems with display of this Unicode character in very old browsers and fonts, all of these problems should be irrelevant now. The problem that brought me here is this:
# AWB replaces Unicode character to three dots as a part of "minor fixes" pack, containing hundreds of fixes, and this pack could only be turned completely on or completely off, there is no way to turn off only this replacement.
# In Russian Wikipedia, my main wiki, local MoS prescribes usage of Unicode character instead of three dots. AWB with "minor fixes" enabled brokes our MoS.
# If I file a ticket to AWB developers, they probably will use enwiki's MoS as a reason not to change AWB minor fixes. Only when enwiki's rule will changed, I can request AWB developers to remove and even inverse this harmful replacement.
[[User:MBH|MBH]] ([[User talk:MBH|talk]]) 16:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Why not change the ruwiki MoS? [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 05:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:If the rules for this differ across various Wikipedias, getting the AWB developers to add a toggle button for this feature seems like the best solution (or maybe it could be autodetected based on the wiki one is in?). [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 07:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:I've not used AWB in other languages, but it makes sense that different rules would apply in different languages. At least we need to check with the AWB developers before changing the MoS on this topic. Last time I looked, the precomposed character and the three dots looked significantly different depending on fonts chosen.&nbsp;[[User:SchreiberBike|SchreiberBike&nbsp;]]&#124;[[User talk:SchreiberBike#top|&nbsp;⌨&nbsp;]] 11:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:We discussed it here [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 228#Reconsider ellipsis ... vs … preference|last year]]. The discussion didn't require a formal close; there was some support for but some marked opposition to switching to or even allowing the Unicde character, and consensus for change was not in prospect. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 11:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

== What's a good format for an interview? ==

Here's my example. Please suggest improvements. I have use italics for the people. Is that proper?

In a CNN town hall interview with Comey, [[Anderson Cooper]] addressed Trump's false claim that "he did not stay overnight in Moscow around the time of the Miss Universe pageant in 2013":<ref name="Foran_4/26/2018">{{cite web | last=Foran | first=Clare | title=Comey on Trump's assertion that releasing memos was illegal: 'He's just making stuff up' | website=[[CNN]] | date=April 26, 2018 | url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/politics/james-comey-anderson-cooper-town-hall-cnn/index.html | access-date=July 29, 2024}}</ref>
{{blockquote| 
''Cooper'': "Do you think it's significant that the President lied to you twice?"</br>
''Comey'': "It's always significant when someone lies to you, especially about something you're not asking about. It tends to reflect a [[consciousness of guilt]]."}}

[[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) (PING me) 19:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Valjean}}. I'm not aware of any policy on the matter, but your format looks good to me. Pretty much the same issue applies to a quote from a play – e.g. (copied from the [[Parchment]] article):
In [[William Shakespeare|Shakespeare]]'s ''[[Hamlet]]'' (written {{c.}}1599–1602) the following exchange occurs:
{{blockquote|''Hamlet.'' Is not parchment made of sheepskins?<br />
''Horatio.'' Ay, my lord, and of calves' skins too.<ref>{{Folger inline|Ham|5|1|116–117}}</ref>}}
:(You'll note two minor inconsistencies there, as to (a) whether the speaker's name is followed by a colon or a period, and (b) whether the spoken words are put in quotation marks; but I think those are valid distinctions to make for the difference between an interview and a play.) [[Special:Contributions/128.86.179.55|128.86.179.55]] ([[User talk:128.86.179.55|talk]]) 16:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks. In these cases, the quotes should be there. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) (PING me) 17:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}