Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 209

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

Archive 205

←

Archive 207

→

Parentheses in examples

Greetings, DrKay. Could you (or anyone else) explain in a bit more detail the rationale for the parens added back in this revert? I don't see any particular reason for them to be there, so they look weird to me. -- Beland (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That must be an inadvertent misclick. I wasn't even aware I'd made an edit. DrKay (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, when are they going to modify rollback to ask for a confirmation? This happens all the time! E Eng 16:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That would defeat the purpose. There is a gadget lying around for people who find themselves repeatedly in this situation.... --Izno (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

How would it defeat the purpose? You click, it says, "Are you sure?", and you say Yes or No. E Eng 17:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This purpose is to reduce the number of clicks to roll back, so lots of vandalism can be handled quickly. -- Beland (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Changing one click to two doesn't "defeat the purpose". You're still doing N undos with a constant number of clicks, whether that constant is 1 or 2. It's a small price to pay to eliminate these regular whoopsidaisies. E Eng 22:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I've already undone the rollback. --Izno (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Good. Then there izno cause for alarm. E Eng 17:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hurray, thanks! -- Beland (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Do translated titles need sources?

Hi. I'm just wondering if the translations of songs titles need sources? (see these examples). Is it stated somewhere here in some guideline or not? Thank you so much. --Paparazzzi (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

See WP:Manual_of_Style#Foreign-language quotations and WP:NOENG. In general the order of preference is:

Modern translation according to a reliable source (cited).
Translation according to a reliable source (cited).
Translation by a Wikipedian (uncited).
Machine translation (uncited).

See WP:Translation for assistance. Option 4 is to be avoided where possible, and should be checked by a human, particularly for BLP.

You also need to look at Las de la Intuición, there is a different translation in the lead and the info box: "The Ones with the Intuition" and "Pure Intuition" respectively. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I am checking in here mostly because I am interested in the conversation. So on Las de la Intuición it seems that the lead has a translation while the info box has the English language release title. "Pure Intuition" is the title of that song as it was released to English audiences. I would question the translation of "The Ones with the Intuition" but I understand why those choices were made. The Spanish lyrics that have this refrain translate to something like "we women are the ones who have intuition". Anyhow, sorry if I'm rambling or off topic. Just based on this example, I would think it would be very important to have a reliable source to cite as I wouldn't immediately trust that translation in the lead.PopularOutcast ^talk2me 10:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

There's almost always more than one way to translate any given phrase from one language to another; often the different choices more or less are equivalent, often they are not and require context or deep knowledge to get them "right". In most cases, Wikipedian translations should be left alone unless challenged for some concrete reason. Unless there's some difference between "the ones with the intuition" and "the ones who have intuition" that actually makes a demonstrable difference in the context, I'd leave it.

There are (rare) cases where cited translations are simply wrong, and where a knowledgeable Wikipedia can provide a better one. This is a situation the MoS instructions don't handle well. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

New discussion at Ron Stallworth regarding use of yearbook photo

There is an RfC that has just been started at the Ron Stallworth talk page regarding the use of a high school yearbook photo for a biography in which the subject achieved notability later in life. Please visit and comment on the appropriateness of using this image on the page. Thank you. Amsgearing (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The images subpage is thinly watched, so I copied his notice (including signature) from there to here (apologies if this is not the ideal way to do that). And I added the currently best version of the photo. This RFC is running about even, and could use more eyes. Dicklyon (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Organisation to organization

Feel free to join this discussion about consistently moving category names to 'organization' in case of non-English speaking countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia Manual of Style regarding commas

Here is a section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, about which I have a question.

The Manual of Style (WP:MOS#Commas) states:

In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element unless followed by other punctuation. Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year, unless followed by other punctuation. In both cases, the last element is treated as parenthetical.

Correct:

He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands.

Incorrect:

He set October 1, 2011 as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma to meet his demands.

So, my understanding is that when entering a date, we place a comma both before and after the year. Hence, two commas are used. Also, when entering a location, we place a comma both before and after the state. Hence, two commas are used.

So, here is an example: The date of December 7, 1941, will live in infamy. There is a comma both before and after the year "1941". Another example: The population of Dallas, Texas, exceeds one million. There is a comma both before and after the state "Texas".

So, my first question: Is my understanding correct? My second question: Does this rule also apply (or not) to article titles? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a question there as far as I can see... - SchroCat (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Sorry. My questions should appear now. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the commas should be used in the manner you described. RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. So, then, ... does this rule also apply (or not) to article titles? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It should in theory, but you should expect resistance from certain quarters. RGloucester — ☎ 20:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to say which article you are asking about, rather than us trying to deal in hypotheticals. - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying, perhaps, that according to the above, we should title our article for Peoria, Arizona, as Peoria, Arizona, because a comma separates each element and follows the last element unless followed by other punctuation? I guess it does say that, but no one thinks that it should. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 20:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No, because it's not being used in a parenthetical manner, just as a title - SchroCat (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No, because titles don't end with commas. I really don't think that's what Spadaro is asking. Far more likely he wants to know if, for example, 2018 Schoharie, New York limousine crash should have a comma after York per MOS. My answer is the same as that from RGloucester above. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. This is the article (and title) that I am asking about: 2018 Schoharie, New York limousine crash. On the article Talk Page (located here ---> Talk:2018 Schoharie, New York limousine crash#Requested move October 7, 2018), I stated that two commas were needed. Another editor said "no" and gave an explanation that I did not quite understand. So, I came to this Talk Page. What should happen with that article title (2018 Schoharie, New York limousine crash)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x3 It seems, to me, that ambiguity and potential confusion increases with your manner of restating the guideline. If your focus is on a comma before and after the year, you could come to apply it as 15 October, 2018, for day-month-year formulations which would be incorrect. And it would be incorrect to assume that multiple levels of subordinate divisions will always conclude with a state as well. I would suggest that the last sentence in the linked guideline: "In both cases, the last element is treated as parenthetical." lends similar confusion and I'd be curious, otherwise, to know the intent and purpose for its inclusion. Among other things, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Notes says that MoS instructions about sentences also apply to items that use sentence case which would seem to mean that they should apply to article titles whenever said titles are given in sentence case (I also see examples where this is not applied in practice).--John Cline (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand the explanation given at the page... but I don't agree with that interpretation at all. The editor is making a distinction between when a comma-separated place name is used as a noun: She grew up in Victoria, British Columbia, but went to school in Nanaimo. vs. when it is used as an adjective: She grew up in a Victoria, British Columbia, household. – the idea being that, according to this distinction, the second example should be rendered as She grew up in a Victoria, British Columbia household.

I don't see how the guidance in the MOS makes that kind of distinction. Yes, the example given is where a comma-separated place name is used as a noun, but it doesn't state that the comma inclusion or treating that final geographic subdivision as parenthetical only applies in cases where the place is being used as a noun. In fact, the description of treating the final subdivision as parenthetical would suggest the terminal comma is required... because what we're really saying here is that She grew up in a Victoria household. but we're adding information to the "Victoria" part to clarify which Victoria. Similarly, if we were writing She often played with Matt, her neighbour, in the nearby park. we would never write She often played with Matt, her neighbour in the nearby park. (which actually changes the meaning of the sentence). You don't need to include the "her neighbour" part of the sentence, so it's set off in commas. Similarly, you don't necessarily need the "New York" in "Schoharie, New York limousine crash", so it should be "Schoharie, New York, limousine crash". IMHO. Of course, given the relative uniqueness of "Schoharie", the suggestion to just go with "Schoharie limousine crash" sidesteps the dispute effectively. 🙂 —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. The MOS example just happened to use a noun. But, that does not mean that the rule applies only when a noun is used. That was my feeling, as well. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with Joey here. The commas are important to meaning. With no second comma “Schoharie, New York limousine crash” links the name “New York” to the limo (indicating a "New York limo" as opposed to a "Connecticut limo" or "New Jersey limo")... With a second comma “Schoharie, New York, limousine crash” links the name “New York” to the town of Schoharie (as opposed to a Schoharie in some other state) - which is the intent. So... if New York is to be mentioned, include the second comma. Blueboar (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I second (third?) Joey's and Blueboar's interpretation. It is a parenthetical and thus requires the second comma, just as it would a closing parenthesis. I also agree that "Schoharie limousine crash" is probably sufficient for the title and avoids the comma issue; New York can be clarified in the lead paragraph. CThomas³ (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with reasoning above: don't mention New York or any other place if it's obvious from the context. As for comma, I'd treat it case by case, just as all writers must for many of their comma decisions. Avoid ambiguity, and if not ambiguous, consider the bumpiness a disadvantage. Tony (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Just as an FYI: The general consensus is that, when searching for this incident, most people will remember "New York". But, no one will know or remember the name of that small town (Schoharie). Hence, most have advocated to have the words "New York" and "limousine" in the title. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Ever heard of a redirect? RGloucester — ☎ 14:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree on the redirect. Additionally, we can have both versions of the redirect, so those who prefer the comma and those who don't can both have their preferred versions. CThomas³ (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Why not avoid the comma question and use parentheses instead: "Schoharie (New York)"? Jmar67 (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting approach. Thanks. But, I have never seen a Wikipedia article title use parentheses like that. Do you have any other Wikipedia examples of that? I imagine that that goes against some rule or another (for article titles). But I am not sure. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

There is... see WP:USPLACES. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This applies to the titles of articles on the placename (and in general to mention of it in articles). Schoharie, New York complies with it. However, I wouldn't interpret it as mandating this style anytime the town occurs in a title. As far as examples, I have seen parentheses used frequently in titles of musical works to disambiguate when more than one composer produced a work with the same name. It seems like a very reasonable approach. Jmar67 (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Another possibility: 2018 limousine crash in Schoharie, New York. Jmar67 (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Since I sort of indirectly triggered this, my point was this: All the cited examples from the MOS above, and at the article talk page, concern the use of CITY, STATE, as a noun. I asked, what happens when we use it adjectivally, i.e., YEAR CITY, STATE EVENT? There is nothing in the MOS currently on this.

One other editor believes the comma isn't necessary in that construction; he cites the fact that when we use full dates as event descriptors, we don't generally put a comma after the year (I think the idea is that we don't put commas after adjectives generally).

I see the point above that the second element could easily thus be seen as a descriptor for any noun in the event, but I don't think most native English speakers will understand it that way.

Frankly, I do agree that we can moot the whole issue with "Schoharie limousine crash": the year isn't currently necessary, there are no other Schoharies in the U.S. and using just the state would lead to the frequent conflation of the state and the city. I should add that a number of events that occurred in specific locations within New York City itself—transportation disasters such as July 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment, December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment and Kew Gardens train crash—use the name of the neighborhood, not even the borough, in which they occurred, without any further distinction seen as necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we do always put comma after the year if there's one before, and after state if there's one before, whether there's every example in MOS or not. Many style guides explicitly say to do so. I think they've been reviewed before; maybe we can find that discussion or review them again. Dicklyon (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

E.g. the lastest Chicago Manual of Style (17th) section 6.17: "Commas in pairs. Whenever a comma is placed before an element to set it off from the surrounding text (such as "1920" or "Minnesota" in the first two examples below), a second comma is required if the phrase or sentence continues beyond the element being set off. ..." Their examples are also noun phrases, not adjectives, but the "whenever" seems clear enough. Dicklyon (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright, that seems pretty clear, although if I were a regular user of the CMS I'd ask them to consider whether this applies to paired commas in adjective phrases as well, and state so explicitly, as there does seem to be an increasing trend towards dropping the second comma in that usage (which, of course, may just be laziness, but laziness has led to many linguistic changes in the past, so let us not knock it). I looked in my old copy of the AP Stylebook, but it has nothing to say AFAICT. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: This website isn't a major stylistic guide, but it seems to be drawing on them. It suggests using commas after the year when dates are used adjectivally. However, it notes that this is still in a state of doubt:

When a date is used as an adjective, most authorities require a comma following the year. Yet at least one significant authority (Bryan Garner, in his third edition of Garner's Modern American Usage) omits it. Given the uncertainty, it is best to recast the sentence.

Example:

The July 10, 2011[,] meeting was canceled due to a hurricane watch.

Revised:

The meeting scheduled for July 10, 2011, was canceled due to a hurricane watch.

I think this also applies to placenames. Unfortunately we do not have the luxury in article titles of recasting it this way (at least I don't think so), which is all the more argument for just using "Schoharie" without the state, to me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dicklyon and Joseph A. Spadaro: OK, I have done further research and found just what Garner has to say. He, as it happens, is about the only authority I've found who speaks directly to this issue (i.e., the adjectival use of comma-separated placenames) and I think that website's characterization of his position as "omits it" is too mild. Here's what he has to say about this in The Oxford Dictionary of Modern American Usage and Style, from about 2000:

The practice of using as adjectives place names having two or more words is generally to be resisted. But it is increasingly common. Although California home and Austin jury are perfectly acceptable, Sacramento, California home and Austin, Texas jury are not. To make matters worse, some writers place a second comma after the state. Thus, using a city plus a state as an adjective disrupts the flow of the sentence—e.g., "Farmland's president, Marc Goldman, hired sleuths who traced the missing containers to an Elizabeth, N.J., warehouse he says is filled with discarded bottles of designer water." (Wall Street J.) Such constructions contribute to noun plague, lessen readability, and bother literate readers.

Well okaaaaay, Mr. Garner, do let us know what you think ... actually I think he makes some very good points, and we should strongly consider not only their applicability to this discussion but appropriately amending the MOS so it, too, recommends dealing with this by avoiding the comma and recasting the sentence so the second element, if necessary, is introduced in some other way, much like we do if you find yourself beginning a sentence with a number that should be spelled out. Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Garner is unique (and uniquely American) in that respect, I think. I do agree it's good advice to avoid such constructions; omitting states is often fine, and European-style dates are often OK, so that takes care of some cases. But when something is set off by a comma, omitting the second one is "not acceptable" as Garner says, even if he thinks including it is even worse. Dicklyon (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

What's the counterargument, though? That we're weakening the general rule regarding appositive phrases?

And I'd like to see if say, any Australian or Canadian stylists have weighed in on the question (I think the former country, in particular, has the similar issue as the U.S. with multiple states have a community with the same name). Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I did some more research, and Garner actually outlines his thinking about this in greater detail when discussing the use of full MD,Y dates as modifying phrases in the 2016 version of Garner's Modern English Usage, critiquing the arguments for its use in the process. I find this argument equally applicable to the comma after the adjectival state:

The idea of the comma after the year, as it has commonly been taught, is that the year is in apposition, so the comma is required. But if that year is an appositive, it's unlike other appositives; it certainly isn't interchangeable with the noun (the date) that precedes it. The more plausible argument—supporting the absence of the comma after the year—has two parts. First, the comma is really just separating two numerals, so if a second comma isn't syntactically required, then it doesn't belong <a November 17, 2001 meeting>. Second, the comma after the date marks a nonexistent pause; when a full date is used adjectivally, a knowledgeable speaker of the phrase marches toward the noun instead of pausing after the phrase. An adjective represents a surge forward, while a comma represents a backward-looking pause. It makes little sense to punctuate a forward-looking adjective with a pause at the end of it.

Res ipsa loquitur. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Garner makes great points. But his opinion is uniquely in contrast to "as it has commonly been taught" as he says. So yes let's work to avoid the issue, but still if we put a comma before we need one after, according to essentially all grammar authorities. Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: OK, fair enough, if the consensus is, even by omission, for the second comma.

But nonetheless, we could perhaps certainly add some mention of this issue to the MOS, discouraging the use of the comma-separarated date or location as a modifier but calling for the second comma if that use is unavoidable? Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the MOS is fine, as is. But, I would not object to the clarification you propose. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"Is my understanding correct?" Yes. "Does this rule also apply ... to article titles?" Yes, absent some special-case reason it would not (the most common being that we wouldn't change the title of a published work, such as a book named December 7, 1941 and the American Entry into World War II). — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 07:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Possessive of "United States"

A question arose today on the possessive of "United States". It could be interpreted as a singular (country name) or plural form. According to MOS:POSS, if singular the possessive would be "United States's"; if plural it would be "United States'". What is correct? I would like to see this addressed in the MOS as a special case of a plural construable as singular. Jmar67 (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Preferably, you would avoid this problem altogether by writing 'American'...if for some reason that is distasteful to you, the headlinese 'US' is an option. RGloucester — ☎ 20:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Having now looked at the specific problem you faced, I realise that I was slightly off the mark. Still, however, the answer is to rewrite the sentence, as opposed to using a clunky possessive. In other words, write 'the largest university in the United States', or equivialent. The usual answer to these sorts of problems is a rewrite. No matter where you put that apostrophe, it won't read nicely. RGloucester — ☎ 20:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree with RG... phrasing such as “... of the United States” or “... in the United States” almost always works better than an apostrophe. Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)′

United States' is correct. You don't add an S if the name or item you're trying to show possession on ends in an S. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

That's if you're under 45 or went to public school; if you're over 45 and went to private school, you add 's. E Eng 21:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The "no apostrophe" only applies if the item ending in S is actually a plural itself, as MOS:POSS states. We've gotten lazy over the years and have begun to leave it out, but technically it should be "Thomas's", "Massachusetts's", and "the United States's" (as awkward as that may now look). I also agree that the best call would be to rewrite the sentence to avoid the possessive. CThomas³ (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The rule that I was taught (not sure if this is generally accepted or not though) is to add the 's' if you would actually make the sound when speaking aloud. So when pronouncing the possessive form of "United States", I would say 'United States', so I would not add an 's' on the end of that and just go with "United States'". But for the possessive form of the name "Jess", I would say 'Jesses', so "Jess's" is how I would write that one out. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Amaury: That's true only if you pronounce States' with one syllable. If you pronounce it with two, then States's is correct. The idea that you should drop the s in all such situations is a persistent myth born from confusion over the dropping of the possessive syllable in cases such as "Jesus' son". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Come on, people, ending with s is not the key thing here. It's about plurals. Here, I'd treat "States" as plural (as opposed to treating "United States" as singular). So no s after the apostrophe. The OP posted a good question, and most of the responses here simply don't address it. RGloucester's does: better to rewrite and avoid the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Should be treated as a plural noun, as we would the Phillipines or the United Nations. Unless you write it out as "The United States of America" e.g. "The United States of America's population is a million." . (Though obviously bad form) --Masem (t) 02:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

All awkward, though sometimes unavaidable. The abbreviation is often preferable, used as an epithet, so no clumsy possessive marking: "US population growth"; "US interference in Chile's politics"; "US vulnerability to climate change is ignored by the Murdoch press". Tony (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Those aren't plural nouns though. They don't take plural verbs. The Philippines is an archipelagic country in Southeast Asia. The United Nations is an intergovernmental organization... If it takes a singular verb (is), it must be a singular noun. Whether it ends in an S or was derived from some phrase that was once treated as a plural noun doesn't matter. In the here and now, it is singular. The United States is a country composed of 50 states.... We all agree that United States's is ugly as hell. If we get tired of recasting every single sentence to avoid that form, the solution is to change the MOS's requirement that all singular nouns, regardless of spelling, must take 's. No sane style guide acts like this. Modulus12 (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Chicago does. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I have often felt that the written form should be optically acceptable (usually avoiding "s's") but that its pronunciation should be left to the speaker. Conversely, the widespread pronunciation of an additional "s" should not require it to appear in the written form. That is just a personal rule for me and not based on any particular style guide. I may have heard it in school once. I would write "United States'" but likely pronounce it with a second "s" for clarity that it is possessive. Jmar67 (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Which is just the most bizarre rule. Why would you leave unwritten what is pronounced? What would make s's "optically unacceptable"? This is one orthography myth that I found infuriatingly distracting in how obnoxiously it draws attention to itself. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

A workable rule starts to appear when we divide English words that end in S into two groups: (1) Words where the final S is etymologically part of an added English morpheme: states = state + s or McDonald's = McDonald + 's. (2) Words where the final S is part of the basic word (or a foreign language morpheme): Jones, James, gladiolus. For group 1, the spoken possessive form is the same as the common case, and the written form adds an apostrophe but no s, or nothing at all if it already has an apostrophe. Even when the word or phrase is semantically singular. "The United States' biggest axe." "McDonald's newest kosher cheeseburger". For group 2, the possessive adds an apostrophe S. "Jones's waggon." "The gladiolus's stem." Certain styles guides have exceptions and nuances, but this broadly works. Indefatigable (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that could work. My AP Stylebook gives this category a succinct name, "Nouns plural in form, singular in meaning." Examples: mathematics' rules, measles' effects, General Motors' profits, and the United States' wealth. I like it. Modulus12 (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not actually the same thing as what Indefatigable is talking about—neither MacDonald's nor gladiolus are "plural in form". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was only talking about his Group 1, which are nouns plural in form, singular in meaning. His Group 2 seems like it should be a separate discussion, as this one only concerns words like United States. Modulus12 (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

MacDonald's is in Group 1. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't be. If we're talking about the restaurant, it is a separate but especially small category of words (all proper nouns?) that already include an 's. I think sentences containing words like McDonald's will just have to always be written in a way that identifies possession through other means besides an ' or 's, because McDonald's already has those. Modulus12 (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Those would be "possessive in form, singular in meaning," and we can't really construct a proper possessive form with something that always looks possessive. Just write the sentence another way. Modulus12 (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the proper form, for a formal register (per Chicago Manual of Style and our own MoS) is "the United States's", because "the United States'" implies the states acting as independent entities not as a unitary nation. I also agree with the repeated suggestion to just rewrite to avoid it because it's ugly. An occasional non-ideal result is almost inevitably the case with every style rule about everything. The "just recast the sentence" solution is virtually aways the answer. It's really just irrelevant that the AP Stylebook ignores the problem with "United States'" and advocates that style. It's a style guide (and one that only American journalists and PR flacks follow, and only some of them do) for a completely different kind of writing, driven almost entirely by two concerns: reading speed, and compression to save column space. It's a style that dispenses with accuracy, precision, nuance, and much else – things WP does not throw out. Some further analysis: Consider this sentence: "The roadies complained about having to cater to the band members' strange backstage demands". The band members are independent, not a combined entity. The United States do not operate that way (not since the states agreed on a constitution and a federal government over two centuries ago). Contrast with this: "The record company did not agree to the band's demands." The same group is acting as a single legal entity under contract law. It's semantically distinguishable, and directly comparable to "the United States's demands". — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 07:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Foreign-script terms in article body

So I had noticed this a few times before, but it only really caught my eye in the stub article Maqam Ibrahim: terms of foreign origin that are each written successively in multiple ways in the body text, e.g. "Ibrāhīm (إِبْـرَاهِـيْـم‎, Abraham)". It really stands out in a short text like this, where such spelling "variants" take up maybe a quarter of the entire article. I recall from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Using Japanese in the article body that if a foreign term has its own article, there is no need to provide the original script/transliteration as that is given in said article. Does this also apply to other languages? --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

It certainly should, and more so for non-Japanese articles. Japanese text is appropriately included in Japan-related articles more frequently than others because it is impossible to reconstruct the original orthography of Japanese terms from their Roman transliterations, and many (especially names) can be extraordinarily difficult to track down. Even in Japanese articles this ideally would be kept to a minimum. None of those in the Maqam Ibrahim (except for Maqam Ibrahim himself) are appropriate. If the original can be reconstructed faithfully from the romanization, then even the one for Maqam Ibrahim himself may be inappopropriate. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Mmm... thought so. Depending on the transliteration method, it is possible to completely reconstruct Arabic from its romanisation. Mind if I take this as a free pass to get rid of these overtranslations? --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  - HyperGaruda: Go ahead—per WP:BRD, you're fine; if someone objects, they'll have to explicate those objections on the talk page. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with CT on this. Well-reasoned analysis. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 08:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Citations

Should the title be using 'Title' or Title (italicized) in citations? On the links (as they appear in that source), titles are ‘Title’.

^[1]
^[2] — Lbtocth^talk 18:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

References

^ Welch, Alex (October 15, 2018). "'Speechless' and 'Dateline' adjust down: Friday final ratings". TV by the Numbers. Retrieved October 15, 2018.
^ Welch, Alex (October 22, 2018). "Last Man Standing adjusts up: Friday final ratings". TV by the Numbers. Retrieved October 22, 2018.

Standard convention is to italicize titles of works in all cases; quote marks (double quotes or " ") are used for smaller articles within a larger work. I would use Speechless and Dateline there. --Jayron 32 18:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand the issue is that some websites may use single quotation marks for show titles instead of italics, but per MOS:CONFORM, text formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text (such as titles of works) should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment provided that doing so will not change or obscure meaning or intent of the text.— TAnthony^Talk 18:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

And it's important to do so: Imagine an article discussing both Paranoid and "Paranoid", which then quoted an article with different styling from Wikipedia's—we'd quickly lose track of whether we were talking about the album or the song. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Use the italics. Even the citation templates' documentation say to do it (it's one of the "codified" exceptions to the instructions to avoid wikimarkup in |title=, |chapter=, and certain other parameters). — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 08:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Names of sports venues

Tried searching, but cannot tell if this has been raised before. There is inconsistency across Wikipedia regarding the use of commercially sponsored names for sports arenas. Sometimes we do. Sometimes we don't. I find the use of the sponsored names problematic, and against the spirit of the project. They change frequently, with the changes being reflected here somewhat randomly. They often remove geographic location from the name of a venue. Do we have a guideline? HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The guideline is, as always, WP:COMMONNAME, as this is really more an article titling question. Keep in mind WP:NAMECHANGES, as well, as sources from after an announced name change should be given more weight when deciding what the most common currently used name is. Many venues have never had a geographic tie in their name anyway. And, frankly, I find avoiding a sponsored name just because it's sponsored to be a false neutrality. That is, it itself is a POV, one that sponsored names are not valid. That's more problematic than actually following sources and using the current most common name as used in reliable sources. oknazevad (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with this. Many (most?) newer arenas have never been known by anything other than their sponsored names (Safeco Field, Levi’s Stadium, etc.). It would be quite difficult to impossible to try to find a non-sponsored name for them without making one up. Best to stick with what the most commonly used name for the arena is, even if that usage changes over time. CThomas³ (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no issue with arenas that have never had a non-commercial name. Clearly the sponsored name makes sense then. But there are many here in Australia where both the historical, and the modern, sponsored name seem to be used interchangeably. Deciding on "most common" would be a great source of argument here on Wikipedia. Interestingly, our favourite, reliable source for many matters in Australia, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, has a rigid policy against using sponsored names. That might bias the argument somewhat. HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

In these cases I would think, absent a clear consensus to change it, that the traditional name might prevail. WP:TITLE says to use the name that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize, and unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. Given this, I would think that the name that has been in use longer, and will likely be in use even after the next name change, would be the proper choice if the traditional name is still in widespread use alongside the new sponsored name, even if usage is fairly evenly split. Note that I don't believe that sponsored/unsponsored should tip the scales in either direction, but rather which name has been in use consistently for a longer period of time. CThomas³ (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Related issue:

I frequently see editors update links in articles after such name changes, rather than leaving the old name (which of course redirects to the article with the current titled (name) of the venue). I think articles should we written with the name in use at the time, which would aid in verifying with the sources. But some editors seem to not like linking to a redirect. MB 14:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I would generally agree with that... historical names should be used in historical contexts. For example, if some musician or band held a notable concert in “MegaCorp Arena” but the venue was subsequently renamed to “BigCo Arena”, the article on the concert should continue to use the old n (“MegaCorp”) name when discussing the venue - with perhaps a parenthetical giving the new name. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed (though just linking obviates the parenthetical, as long as the old name is also in the article at the new name). — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 08:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I have to concur that this is a WP:UCRN analysis. That those sometimes turn into lengthy and grumpy debates is just how it is. It has a {{Policy}} tag on it, so the community kind of insists on it, whether it's actually productive or practical. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 08:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Age range

I made an RFC while back here to change the format "(age X–Y)" to "(age X or Y)". Thoughts? Hddty. (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Wait, so it's just to change examples which are immediately adjacent? So "45–46" to "45 or 46", but leave every other possible age range as ""X–Y"?

Yes, only for adjacent age range. Hddty. (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The case posited is that wherein we know that X was born in 2000; on any given date in 2018, therefore, X is 17 or 18 years old -- or I suppose you could say they're 17–18. (Technical note: Actually, on December 31, 2018, they can only be 18.) But turn it around. Suppose we know that on some particular date in 2018 the person is 18 years old; we infer therefore that they were born in 1999 or 2000. How awkward, however, to phrase that as "born 1999–2000", which makes it sound like this person's mother had a very, very prolonged labor! E Eng 19:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Not that anyone's suggesting using that phrase. This is just about a template used in infoboxes, right? EDIT: NO, I guess the template doesn't actually specify infoboxes. Is it really used that much outside of them? --tronvillain (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

At first glance I thought that "or" might be clearer for the cases I mention above, but looking at the RfC there was little support for that, plus there's this pesky "Asian age reckoning" which can lead to a 3-year range, apparently. So I don't see where this is all going. The idea of using "or" seems dead. E Eng 04:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps "Born circa 2000" ? Stepho talk 22:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

That's more imprecise than it needs to be. E Eng 00:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

And it won't work with age-calculation templates. The RfC concluded against the proposed change, anyway. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 07:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Meh... nothing says we have to use the template. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)