Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

RfC: Inconsistent capitalization of eponym in same context

Should MoS clarify that capitalized eponyms do not lose their capitalization when used adjectivally? The test case for this is the very long-running dispute about using "Gram stain" but "gram-negative" (i.e. negative in a Gram stain test) when both of these are eponymous (of Hans Christian Gram) and refer to exactly the same dye-staining process in microscopy. (It has nothing to do with the metric unit gram/gramme.) The rationale offered for the inconsistency has been that some medical publishers/organizations (like the US CDC, and some medical dictionaries) like to lower-case eponyms in adjectival usage, a rule that WP's Manual of Style (and most other style guides) do not have. Doing that would require a special exemption to MOS:ARTCON, the overriding consistency guideline of MoS. Use of lower-case "gram-negative" style is not consistent in reliable sources in bacteriology, medicine, histology, microscopy, and related fields. It's purely a house style choice (as our own articles indicate, with sources).

This RfC does not address cases where an eponym's connection to its namesake has been effectively severed and the meaning has shifted (e.g., we would continue to capitalize in constructions like Platonic solid, Platonic love, and the Draconian constitution of Athens, but permit lowercase for figural usage like "His relationship with his roommate was platonic", "She said her parents' rules were draconian", though in encyclopedic writing we'd be better off avoiding such wording). Lower-case is also used in various other cases when virtually all sources agree on lower case (eustachian tube, caesarian or cesarean section), again due to loss of a clear connection to the namesake in the public mind (contrast degree Celsius and other units, Hodgkin's lymphoma and other diseases, Newtonian mechanics and other scientific principles, etc.)

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments on the RfC

• Support. Our central MOS:ARTCON guideline already indicates we should not mix-and-match these styles ("Gram stain", "gram-negative"). Wikipedia capitalizes eponyms and other proper names (except when off-WP usage consistently uses lower case, as with caesarean section), and has no special "do not capitalize if adjectival" rule; we don't care if CDC or AMA does have one, since their house styles are not ours. The most obvious problem with this mixed usage is that it can result in "gram-negative" and "Gram stain" in the same article, even the same sentence, which confuses readers as to whether these are even related concepts, and leads to long-term editwarring (since 2004!). In this particular case, an additional major rationale is that "gram-negative/positive" strongly but wrongly implies to non-expert readers that this has something to do with the metric gram unit. Attempts to impose spelling (especially capitalization) quirks from specialist sources are something WP routinely rejects; this is known as the WP:Specialized-style fallacy, the notion that sources reliable for technical facts about a topic are somehow transubstantiated into the most reliable sources for how to write plain English for a general audience any time that subject comes up. We've had numerous RfCs on this before (including this huge one), and it's a common theme at WP:RM, with consensus consistently siding with WP's style guide and with internal WP consistency. The habit of medical (especially American medical) people of down-casing eponyms used adjectivally because their journal publisher does it is understandable, but the attempt to force it on WP as a "standard" is a WP:CONLEVEL policy problem. Furthermore, carving out a special one-topic exception to ARTCON would be WP:CREEP and would do nothing useful, only inspire more demands for special topical exceptions to every rule someone in some field doesn't use in their writing for other publishers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support in principle but what is the proposed wording? Usually I argue that when a term is not consistently capped in sources, it's not to be treated as a proper name in WP. But with Gram, clearly a person's name and clearly capped in the "Gram stain" context, though only capped about half the time in sources in "Gram-positive" and such, I think I'd agree that downcasing it randomly sometimes is a bad idea, especially given the ambiguous interpretation here that is both an explanation for and a bad effect of the downcasing. So I'm unsure whether there's a general principle here, but for WP capping the name Gram should be the clear preference, since we are about clarity, consistently using caps to signify proper names and not otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

  Oh, I didn't much care about specific wording. Even what I used above, "capitalized eponyms do not lose their capitalization when used adjectivally", ought to work. This wouldn't impose anything weird like "always capitalize eponyms even when sources do not: Caesarean section".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I cannot offer any argument against the use of Gram for the staining procedure - perhaps if the page was changed back to Gram stain that would work. I only know that most books that I refer to all use lower case when describing the bacteria and upper case when referring to the Gram stain. Lower case reads better, especially in pages with many references and I'm all for easier reading. A clearer guideline would probably be helpful.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • But the page is at Gram staining, and consistently uses that spelling: "Gram staining or Gram stain, also called Gram's method, is a method of staining used to ...". We already know, absolutely, from previous discussions on this that the lower-casing of "gram-negative" and "gram-positive" is just something a few particular publishers' house styles do (following a general rule they have to lower-case eponyms is adjectives, a rule WP doesn't have and which is also not found in most other style guides; there's nothing special about Gram and bacteria in this). That the books you happen to read are from those publishers is just a WP:IKNOWIT coincidence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This should be done on a case by case basis (does this topic use upper or lower case for this use of this name?) rather than trying to set the hard-and-fast rule that topics are required to be consistent in capitalization for different usages. Clearly, in some cases, the common usage is not consistently capitalized and Wikipedia should nevertheless follow that common usage rather than trying to become a trendsetter for consistency. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • But this isn't about "different usages", it's about the same usage, the namesake "Gram" in bacteriology. Why on earth would we write "Gram stain" in one sentence then "gram-stained" in the next, in the same article, just because the second is adjectival? This is not a "rule" that MoS entertains anywhere for any case, so why would we do it in this one case? What's magically special about adjectives as used by people with microscopes?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
    • But it's clearly not the same usage; they are different in other ways (like one is followed by the word stain and the other by the compound part -positive). As for why: because those are the ways they are commonly written (if that's true; I have no opinion on the specific case of "Gram", only on the general position that we should follow the scientific literature, even when we think it's inconsistent, rather than trying to impose our own consistency on it). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

      Already pointed this out, but will do so again: the style you're advocating would have "Gram stain" in one sentence and "gram-stained" in the very next one, simply because the latter is adjectival. We just don't do that on Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

      "We just don't do that" is correct, if by "that" you mean making up new capitalization conventions because we don't feel the commonly used ones obey a consistency rule that we are making up ourselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support: there seems to be no clear reason for inconsistency. –Sb2001 18:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Further consideration: See also Giemsa stain, Leishman stain, Papanicolaou stain, Wright's stain, Romanowsky stain, May–Grünwald stain. The "gram-negative" style (decapitalize eponym if used adjectivally) would result in "may–grünwald-negative", "papanicolaou-negative", "wright's-negative", etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Dictionaries are inconsistent but favor uppercase: Uppercase in Oxford, Random House, and Collins; lowercase in Merriam Webster; both in American Heritage; not listed in Cambridge or Macmillan. Of these major online dictionary publishers, only a minority even provide the lower-case version at all, and only one rejects the capitalized one, while three reject the lower-case version. A more recent commercial site is WordWebOnline (also powers one of the most popular mobile-app dictionaries); it gives only the capitalized version [1].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion of the RfC

Background material:

Dispute about this, especially "Gram-" vs. "gram-", on Wikipedia dates back to at least 2004 [2], and has never stopped, though with more editors in favor of consistently using "Gram-", and citing Wikipedia rationales for doing so, with a minority of editors insisting on "gram-" for the sole reason that CDC or some other entitity spells it that way. To use the history of Gram-positive bacteria as an example: consistent capitalization efforts for several years [3] [4] [5], followed by a sudden de-capping [6], later reverted [7]; reimposition of lower case [8], then upper [9], lower [10], upper [11], lower [12], upper (among other cleanup) [13], mass-revert back to lower [14]. For the last several years, this mixture of "Gram" and "gram-" has been "enforced" by a single editor, as the later diffs show.

Some time during this "slow editwar", editors began to use the article text itself as a battleground to falsely advance assertions that lowercase "gram-" is a scientific standard (which of course was challenged [15]). There's a similar history at Gram-positive bacteria and various articles on specific bacteria and other bacteriological subjects.

Previous inconclusive discussion has happened at:

• Talk:Gram-positive bacteria#Standardized spelling & punctuation
• Talk:Gram-positive bacteria#Gram positive
• Talk:Gram-negative_bacteria#Standardized spelling & punctuation
• Talk:Gram-negative bacteria#spelling instructions

The results of these discussions have been:

1. A helpful short section in the articles, on the conflicting orthography in off-WP sources; this removed the PoV/OR assertions in favor of "gram-" as some kind of standardized requirement.
2. A single user imposing "gram-" style on Wikipedia without consulting our own MOS [16] [17] [18], and without feedback from anyone; this was on the basis that some medical works prefer this style, but WP is not a medical work.
3. Reversion of "Gram-" at various bacteria articles, such as E. coli [19] (by the same editor present "enforcing" the "gram-" style at the main articles)
4. Recent revertwarring (same editor again) against "Gram-" on the basis of the above discussions (which are not about WP usage at all), even after MOS:ARTCON is cited both in talk and in edit summaries.

Despite the WP:POLICY position being obvious (from MOS:ARTCON to WP:CONLEVEL), an RfC seems warranted given the 13 years or so this dispute has been running.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I would just dispute the claims of this being a case of continued edit warring - since June 2014 with the addition of the orthographic note there has been an acceptance for this among the usual editors (myself included). On occasion someone has reverted the use without comment or just changed a few instances, and in line with ususal editing practices the previous version has simply been restored. This has happened on very few occasions since June 2014. Editors seem happy with using lower-case. --Iztwoz (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I think using "Gram" in "Gram stain" and "gram" in "gram-positive" and "gram-negative" isn't a problem. The first is (if I understand this correctly) a procedure named after a person, and the latter two are adjectives describing bacteria and/or the results of a test using the procedure. I'm sure at some point in the past, before Wikipedia, there was a period when both "Caesarean section" and "caesarean section" were used. It was a transitional period with the changeover to lower-case. I think in English generally, the preference is for lower-case; I agree with Iztwoz that lower-case is easier to read. The fact that "gram" could suggest to non-experts that it has something to do with the weight unit I do not find persuasive. There are many homonyms in English; also, the real connection between "gram" and the person is just something that one needs to learn if one is interested in the topic. The only way I would support "Gram-positive" and "Gram-negative" would be if the great preponderance of sources spell them that way.  – Corinne (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

They're both named after the same person. Lower-casing "gram-negative" is exactly the same thing as writing "Gram stain" then "gram-stained", or writing "newtonian mechanics", or "shakespearean theatre". While there are style guides in the world that call for this, WP's MoS is definitely not one of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

For whatever it might be worth, as a biology teacher I can tell you that upper case "Gram stain" for the process and lower case "gram-stained", "gram-positive", and "gram-negative" are what I am used to seeing in the texts we use. --Khajidha (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

We know that various (especially American) biology and medical publishers like to lower-case eponyms in adjectival constructions; that's explicit in the whole discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I've just seen an edit summary of yours on Escherichia coli. When making the same revert you state that it (Gram) is a common name proper name etc. and should be treated in the same way as Kelvin and Ohm - nobody ever uses these terms capitalised - there is the ohm and the kelvin. ? --Iztwoz (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I was misremembering and misstating; the Kelvin scale is capitalized, but the unit is not; that also seems to be the case with ohms and amperes. Celsius and Fahrenheit get the caps. So, it's an inconsistent system. The rationale I gave was faulty; "Gram-negative" isn't a unit or unit symbol anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

In mathematics, it is standard to capitalize the name Abel when it modifies another word as a noun adjunct ("Abel equation") but not when it is used adjectivally ("abelian group"). However, there are other names that remain capitalized even when used adjectivally (Euclidean, Eulerian, etc). It would be incorrect to change the capitalization in these cases. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

We just need to get entirely away from this idea that WP is going to mimic this mathematics publisher, and that medical style guide, and this train-spotting website, and that news publisher's stylesheet, when they don't even consistently apply their own "rules" (not within a field, and often not even within a publication). We don't have any issue with standardized ISO units being lower case even if often named after a person, but this "sometimes use lower case just because it's an adjective" is fiddly nonsense that inspires never-ending editwarring here, and it only exists off-WP in the house styles of particular publishers, so it has no place here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

On unit capitalization: ISO's rule on the matter is "lowercase the first letter and capitalize anything else derived from a proper noun". In this case, your error is that the unit is not "Celsius" but instead "degree" with the modifier "Celsius"; the same with "Fahrenheit" and "degree Fahrenheit", and also the only-used-in-freedom-loving-country-while-engineering-units "degree Rankine" (though occasionally you'll hear or see "rankines"...). The unit "kelvin" is consistent with the general rule, as are amperes, ohms, and any other unit. Our own article covers this at International System of Units#Unit names. The NIST follows that particular rule. --Izno (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough; my point is they remain "Celsius" and "Fahrenheit", despite technically being adjectival (they're modifiers of "degree[s]" in such constructions).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Using {{clear}} to prevent images bleeding into other sections

Does the MOS have any recommendation for or against using the {{clear}} template to prevent images from spilling into subsequent sections? It appears to be the main use of the template, according to its documentation, but I couldn't find any official guideline mention. Obviously, the best course would be not to use too many images, but this is not easy to achieve consistently across all displays. With today's huge display resolutions, an article that follows MOS:LAYIM's benchmark of not spilling over at 1024×768 might still break down on wider screens. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It's mentioned at Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. DMacks (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not really part of the MOS, though... --Paul_012 (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps more specific recommendations could be made at MOS:IMGLOC and/or MOS:LAYIM? Something along the lines of "try not to have images spill into the next section, and optionally, use {{clear}} to prevent this happening on wider screens." --Paul_012 (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should be mentioned in the layout MOS somewhere. I'm not sure simply spilling into later sections is a problem (the tradeoff is whitespace that interferes with flow of text). But if the later section(s) have images, there's an image-stacking problem that makes those other sections' images not located where their content is, and "put images where their content is" is a explicit MOS guideline (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Vertical placement. DMacks (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I think this is best left unsaid. If images are stacking (in windows of reasonable width – there's always going to be some nerd with a super-big monitor telling us that articles don't look good in super-wide windows) then resize them, juggle them to different sections, left-right alternate them, or whatever. You really shouldn't be using {clear} to solve that problem, because as already mentioned it substitutes one unattractive thing (excess vertical whitespace, which can REALLY look awful) for another. Pretty much the only time I use it is when there's an image near the end of the last section of the article, just before ==References== etc., and maybe on a wide screen the image will intrude into the references, distorting the column layout or whatever; plus I've used it in a few very well-considered situations in articles that are very stable, with a lot of images carefully laid out. (Open Phineas Gage for editing and search {clear}.) But this something best left to experienced editors, and it's best taught by their seeing it in actual use. If we start talking about {clear} in MOS some zealot will start running around adding it everywhere an image spills into the following section, and next thing you know there will be edit wars, angry words, and we'll all be at Arbcom. So let's just let this lie.

Wikipedia:Picture tutorial being burned by angry Wikipedians

BTW, I think I wrote the text at IMGLOC, An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section; if this is not possible, try not to place an image "too early" i.e. far ahead of the point in the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this could puzzle the reader. Notice that it says an image shouldn't be too "early" – it doesn't talk about being too "late". I worded it that way consciously to avoid making editors feel every image must be neither too early nor too late, and must therefore be "just right" i.e. in the exact section. If an image of John Smith comes a paragraph later than where he's discussed in the text, that's not so bad, because the reader has presumably already read about him; but if the image comes before where he's discussed, then the reader may be puzzled.

Finally, Wikipedia:Picture tutorial is the most godawful hypertechnical overcomplicated help page we have, and should be ripped to shreds and the pieces ritually burned, if we could figure some way of doing that over the internet. It's useless – horrible. EEng 02:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, fair points. I've also mostly used it to stop images breaking the references columns, but was kinda worried it might be regarded as an inappropriate lazy hack or something. I'll stop worrying. (Since you mentioned WP:Picture tutorial, might I add that I've never understood why there are so many image policy/guideline/instruction pages, nor been able to easily locate information in any of them?) --Paul_012 (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Archaic -st words

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Archaic 'st' words – it's more of a MOS:COMMONALITY vs. MOS:ENGVAR matter than a MOS:WTW one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The title of this section is biased. -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I just copy-pasted it from the original (and fixed the markup). This is just a pointer to the discussion; the place to object to the title is at the actual discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the bias in the title (it could have been "Chiefly UK 'st' words") the subject still merits discussion. Sorry if you think the title is biased, but the fact remains that outside of the UK (particularly in America), those words are considered archaic. Various UK style guides seem to agree. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The trouble is, if you are wanting to start an open RfC-style discussion about something, beginning by creating an impression that these words are archaic is not particularly good. You do not need to say anything about them. –Sb2001 21:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I renamed the original thread "Are -st variants of words archaic?" (and preserved the old one as a valid link target, with {{anchor}}). Hopefully that will resolve the issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC on quotations within links

There is an RfC in progress at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#RfC_about_linking_in_quotations about MOS:LINKSTYLE & MOS:LWQ. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

When more than one variant spelling for a word exists within a national variety of English

I often despair of Wikipedia and its growing list of does and don'ts. I am reverting the Revision as of 06:28, 2 October 2017 by user:Scribolt because it is not only unnecessary instruction creep it is also potentially harmful to the goals of the section in which it resides.

The problem is that if someone adds a bullet point to this page like this then it is only a matter of time before someone runs AWB or a bot script over articles that the user of the bot or AWB has never manually touched. If there is what you think is an archaic spelling on a page then be bold page and fix it. If it is reverted then follow BRD. That is standard practice and it does not need additional guidance here.

This looks to me like an addition that was not thought through. The bullet point that I am removing says is in a section called "[MOS:COMMONALITY |Opportunities for commonality!]: When more than one variant spelling for a word exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should be preferred unless there is a consensus at the talk page of the article to use the less common alternative.

MOS:COMMONALITY a complicated issues because it is often used as a method to ride rough-shot over national varieties of English, particularly those of minority English dialects -- which in practice means everything but American English. Just look at how "fixed-winged aircraft" article was usurped by "Airplane". If that additional article had been created with "Aeroplane" as its title it would probably have been speedily deleted.

The point is the "there is a consensus at the talk page of the article to use the less common alternative" is an inversion of the usual Wikipedia way per BRD where changes are only made if there is consensus on the talk page to make them. I do not believe this is an issue where the usual proof of consensus ought to be changed, because if the spelling is really archaic then most editing in good faith will accept it, and if not then the usual dispute resolution will end up with change.

Or user:Scribolt was it your intention to create a bludgeon so that those running bots and AWB script could force through changes on multiple pages without the tedium of engaging in BRD to gain a consensus for such changes?

As phrased this rule would allow someone could go through any topic with close connection with Britain and "rationalise" [sic.] the spelling of words ending in "ize" to the usual British ending of "ise". That might be desirable for consistency across British English articles, but how does that improve MOS:COMMONALITY in general? -- PBS (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I've restored a variant of it (since the line-item was added after extensive consensus discussion), but without the "unless ..." caveat that is the subject of this dispute, and modifying it to say "usually", which is consistent with our general approach to such matters (advise, permit exceptions, don't dump a huge list of examples on people). PS: The Oxford -ize worry above is not actually applicable, because Oxford spelling is itself explicitly recognized on WP as an legit ENGVAR, and we even have templates for it along with the "use American English", etc., templates.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you SMcCandlish for your rewrite, that is an improvement. PBS, you might want to consider whether speculating on my motivations for an edit without evidence in such a manner is appropriate. Indeed, if you'd taken even a cursory amount of time to read both the RFC and discussion I referred to in my edit summary I think you would have been unlikely to conclude that an intent to facilitate bludgeoning of any kind was not very likely. For the record, I have never contributed to Wikipedias growing list of female deer, but even if I had I would see nothing to apologise for. Scribolt (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

At User:Scribolt I did not speculate on your motives, ask asked you if it was you intention to. There is such a thing as unforeseen consequences. -- PBS (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish you write The PS: The Oxford -ize worry above is not actually applicable, because Oxford spelling is itself explicitly recognized on WP as an legit ENGVAR, I know about Oxford spelling and its acceptability to date (which is why I used it as an example), but according to the wording you restored it contradicts that for British English because "When more than one variant spelling for a word exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred." as "ise" is more common in British English that negates the use of "ize". If on the other hand you are going to argue that "ize "should be used because it is the most common thanks to its use in American English then that negates ENGVAR. -- PBS (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Except, again, WP treats Oxford English as its own ENGVAR. If you can't replace New Zealand English with Canadian English (without a legit reason), you can't swap out Oxford and non-Oxford British English either. If you think it's necessary, we could add a footnote about it or something. On the side matter, I wouldn't personally mind at all if we just settled on -ize across the board for commonality reasons, since the British have no lack of familiarity with the spelling, but some just prefer -ise. (There are lots of similar conflicts in Canadian English, some arising as "big deal" matters only since the 1990s.) However, there appear to be more British (and other Commonwealth English) users who prefer -ise (as with -st, e.g. amongst – see other thread) despite Oxford and other British publishers advising to avoid that style in formal writing. So, I would not expect such a proposal to gain consensus, and it would piss people off to advance one seriously.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This[20] should do it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)   And that's been sagely compressed by EEng and DrKay [21]; I was sleepy when I cobbled the original together. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that there has been a related discussion about exactly this bit of the guideline over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Archaic 'st' words, which may have been the basis for starting this thread here. For my part, I don't see the problem that PBS describes unless there needs to be a clearer distinction between common and universal vocabulary. So we use regional spellings that are common to a region, but for cases where both universal and regional synonyms are used in the same region (such as among and amongst in the UK), we prefer the universal term. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

At first I thought you said savagely, and the funny thing is that I didn't bat an eye. EEng 23:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I share PBS's concern that the recently added "unless there is a consensus at the talk page of the article to use the less common alternative" is an inversion of normal editing and BRD; we've had this issue before with ENGVAR, DATEVAR, etc., being written as if a consensus discussion has to happen before anyone's allowed to edit. Which reminds me we had a consensus discussion on one of these (DATEVAR, I think) that agreed to clarify it, but the clarification hasn't been made yet (archiver bot hid it away a few weeks ago). As for -st, I'm skeptical we'd get consensus to always prefer "among" over "amongst" right now (though going that direction is inevitable in the long term because English itself is moving that way).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

That bit was actually your suggestion... But yeah, I agree that it's better now, and thanks to everyone involved. Scribolt (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Bystander comment

I never cease to be amazed at the things people manage to find worth arguing about. EEng 11:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel I need to take issue with such a parochial view. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

What?! That word is abused! No church parish is at issue!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Gesundheit. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Should MOS cover "data is" vs. "data are"?

It's been suggested at Talk:Disk storage#RfC on "data are" or "data is" that this issue should be decided by MOS. Is this a MOS issue? Specifically (assuming both "data are" and "data is" are proper English, and the difference is use as either a count noun plural of "datum" or a mass noun) is use choice a national variety, like "colour/color"? Is "data is/are" already covered by WP:ENGVAR? If so, should ENGVAR be amended to make that coverage obvious? If not, should ENGVAR be expanded to cover similar variations that don't follow national boundaries? Should other English "boundaries" be identified by common usage within a field, industry, subject, time, etc., or some combination? How? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I commented there. I see no reason to think this is ENGVAR related, and I don't think the MOS needs to cover such narrow cases. Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to do with ENGVAR, no need for special treatment at MOS. The answer to the underlying question depends on the context (whether the data is counable) , not on a rigid rule. "All of that data is now stored on the backup server". "These three specific pieces or data are now stored on the backup server". --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Concur with Guy Macon and Dicklyon.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Concur. EEng 02:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Perplexing preposition problem

Recently I've run into problems with some editors who insist that the preposition at should not be used with respect to cities, but should always be changed to in, of, from, or some other word. Attempts to point out that at is perfectly appropriate and idiomatic in this context, and also expresses the intended meaning better than the alternatives, usually result in the same changes being made repeatedly. It looks as though a few editors are actively seeking out such phrases and changing them to their preferences, and resisting any attempt to convince them that at a city, town, or other geographical location is perfectly acceptable. I have asked for some authority supporting the claim that this usage is wrong or should be avoided, but haven't been shown any, and haven't found any on my own. Most grammar books and style guides are silent on the issue, or seem to support using at with cities and towns. The Oxford English Dictionary specifically says that this is one of the primary uses of at, and gives examples from the thirteenth century to the present (mostly limited to English cities such as Winchester and London, in my edition).

I'm not sure there's a Wikipedia policy that applies here. Is it simply an English variant? Or just personal preference? That's how I see it when people substitute other prepositions for the intended one. I've written a lot of articles about ancient Romans and Roman families, and over time I've come to prefer the phrase at Rome, because it conveys location without adding unintended or inaccurate meanings. In Rome implies "within the territorial boundaries", which is too specific and not necessarily accurate; of Rome and from Rome imply origin, which is often somewhere other than Rome, or at best uncertain. In any case, if at is perfectly appropriate, and more accurately expresses the intended meaning, is there any policy to point to when reverting changes to other prepositions based on another editor's preferences? Is it relevant if such a change is the only involvement that an editor has with certain articles? It's a little annoying when it appears that editors are simply searching for examples of phrases they dislike, in order to change them to ones they prefer, if they have no other interest in the articles, or understanding of the reason why one choice of words is preferable to another in a given instance. Or is even asking the question displaying "ownership behaviour"? The situation is becoming quite frustrating. P Aculeius (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Some examples would help, but I think you're way off base here. Looking at your recent edits, I see for example "The gens Flavia was a plebeian family at Rome." (wikilinks omitted). This is horribly awkward; in or of would be a lot better here. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why you think it's "horribly awkward". Could you explain? In either case, in would be completely wrong, since it implies spatial relationships, rather than location, and therefore territorial limitation. The Flavii were a Roman family, no matter where individual members went or lived. While they were chiefly associated with Rome, they didn't have to live within the city limits, or cease to be part of the family when they went elsewhere. Of would be better than in, but it implies origin, which is not necessarily true of many Roman families. But your point seems to be that at should not be used of cities. I don't understand why anybody thinks this; it's flatly contradicted by the best authorities. The Oxford English Dictionary says, "2. With proper names of places: Particularly used of all towns . . ." with examples following: at Winchester, at London, at Jerusalem, at Edinburgh. It's not easy to search for specific prepositional phrases in literature, but I found a site to search Shakespeare, and found numerous examples: at Marseilles, at Rome, at Ephesus, at Antium, at London, at Harfleur, at York, at Venice, at Antioch, at Tyre, at Pentapolis, at Mantua, at Verona. On point, my copy of Reading Latin describes the locative case: "it is used to express 'at' with names of towns and one-town islands", with examples at Rome, at Corinth, at Athens, at Carthage, at Sardes. So what is the authority for this being incorrect? Is it just that some editors don't like it? And if that's all it is, then what's the relevant policy? P Aculeius (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but to me "at" is something you would use for an instantaneous action, while "in" implies a longer duration. So, "our train stopped at Rome", because stopping is a quick event, but "I stayed in Rome for a week last year" because staying is not. In the case of the gens Flavia, they were in Rome (that's where they lived), not at Rome (on their way through from somewhere else to somewhere else). This web site gives a different distinction, based on the size of the place (one that I'm not sure I agree with) but it ends up with the same result in this example. This other web site comes closer to the distinction in my mind: "at" is for specific points in space or time (time, as I explained it above) while "in" is for a broader location or time period. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

If you think for a second that The gens Flavia was a plebeian family at Rome is acceptable 21st-century English, you need to get your nose out of Gibbon. EEng 05:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Concur with Deacon Vorbis and David Eppstein. To answer P Aculeius's question, The gens Flavia was a plebeian family at Rome is horribly awkward, as Vorbis put it, because it's not idiomatic in formal English. It may be idiomatic in colloquial English somewhere, but WP isn't written in colloquial English. That "at [city name]" usage is virtually unseen in writing we'd find in sources we'd consider reliable, except for things like David's "the train stopped at Rome", which is still a construction most people would probably avoid. That kind of case is actually a shorthand for something more specific, either a particular station actually named "Rome", or one named something else and just serving Rome, but called "Rome" for short by insiders to that transit system. The station is not the city of Rome (present or past) or vice versa. By way of comparison, I might get off at a bus stop named Foo Street, at the corner of Foo and First, and say "I got off at Foo Street". But if I got in a car wreck on that street, I'd say it happened "on" (or maybe in British English, "in") Foo Street, not "at" it. The street and the station named after it are sharing a name, but are not the same thing or the same kind of thing, ergo different prepositions are liable to apply in such cases, and even to the same case in different contexts. The Flavian family did not live "at" Rome any more than I live "on" the city of Oakland, or I'm going "for" the grocery store, or your cousin grew up "of" Boston. (Yet a sign may point at Rome, a rain can fall on Oakland, I could work for a grocery store, and your cousin might be of Boston).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

More on "on" vs "in" for streets —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I clearly seem to be in the minority among Wikipedians, but at least I've been able to think clearly enough to check some reliable sources, which flatly contradict the argument that this is somehow wrong or archaic. My OED is from the 1970's, so I guess it's not a reliable source for language anymore; Merriam-Webster has for decades defined at first and foremost as "a function word indicating presence in, on, or near", which clearly covers this usage; and with respect to Rome in particular, I think the argument that "sources we'd consider reliably" would seldom or never use at Rome to indicate location, rather than spatial relationship or point of origin is clearly wrong. I found an abundance of what I would like to think everyone would acknowledge as reliable sources, in terms of Roman scholarship, formal English (whether American or British), and in the case of Mary Beard, the vernacular.

T. J. Cornell: The Beginnings of Rome (Routledge History of the Ancient World) (1995)

• "This seems to have happened at Rome at the end of Phase IIB."
• "What happened at Rome at the end of the sixth century . . ."
• ". . . to my mind the traditional accounts imply a change of precisely this kind at Rome."
• "At least one chamber tomb has been identified at Rome itself . . ."
• ". . . the fall of the monarchy at Rome was part of this wider picture."
• ". . . the Esquiline necropolis at Rome . . ."
• "The Tarquins were not the only outsiders to rule at Rome."
• ". . . the rule was already established that Roman citizens could not be enslaved at Rome."
• ". . . such luxuries as were to be found at Rome must have been imported . . ."
• ". . . may indeed have ruled at Rome."

Gary Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome: from Prehistory to the First Punic War, University of California (2005)

• "These simple graffiti constitute some of the earliest samples of writing discovered at Rome."
• "Furthermore, although examples of writing at Rome are quite rare for this period . . ."
• ". . . J. C. Meyer has combined both these concepts to explain the history of human habitation at Rome during the early Iron Age."
• ". . . public performances of some sort existed at Rome much earlier than is generally supposed . . ."
• "Laws ameliorating the conditions of indebtedness were not forthcoming at Rome until the fourth century B.C."

The Roman Historical Tradition: Regal and Republican Rome, James H. Richardson & Federico Santangelo, eds, Oxford University Press (2014)

• "This child, who had been left at Rome, was the seed of the Fabian race . . ."
• ". . .Timaios attributes the first coinage at Rome to Servius."
• "What is far more perplexing to us is how a historian contemporary with the very first coinage at Rome. . ."
• "However, with the credentials of the story of the Tarquins at Rome now restored . . ."
• "Festus preserves the precious information that she changed her Etruscan name to Gaia Caecilia at Rome."
• "The possible identification of Servius rex at Rome and the seruus rex at Aricia gives an obvious origin and a terminus post quem for the tradition . . ."
• "According to one version, the child of the Fabii who owed his life to having been left at Rome had the praenomen Numerius."
• ". . . Claudius mentioned foreigners who had even attained the kingship at Rome."
• ". . . a time before the establishment of written historiography at Rome near the end of the third century . . ."
• "It seems, therefore, that Marcellus had a decisive impact on the tradition of the spolia opima at Rome, starting in his own lifetime."
• ". . . the fact that they never had, except at Rome, a nomen gentilicium . . ."
• ". . . it implies a fertile and creative narrative tradition existing long before the introduction of literary historiography at Rome."
• "On the Capitoline at Rome, then, there was an acropolis dedicated to the great deity of Olympus . . ."
• ". . . and his mother (unnamed) bore him in the palace at Rome."
• ". . . with interesting repercussions on the transition from monarchy to Republic at Rome."
• "The record of their women as priestesses and queens certainly fits their aristocratic origins and position at Rome."
• ". . . developments at Rome were influenced by Rome's relationship with both the Greek world and Etruria."
• "Even that single Fabius left at Rome, who later became the propagator of his race, has a parallel in the Greek story."
• ". . . they may be used as evidence by those who think the change at Rome from monarchy to Republic was more an evolutionary than a revolutionary process."
• "By traditional dating, this change takes place fifty years earlier at Rome than at Athens.
• ". . . although the three elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy existed at Rome under the monarchy . . ."

Mary Beard, SPQR: a History of Ancient Rome, W. W. Norton (2015)

• ". . . after his detention at Rome and attempts at popular politics at home . . ."
• ". . . the snobbery that was another side of life at Rome . . ."
• "In the first civil war at Rome since the brief conflict after the death of Nero in 68 CE . . ."
• "Some of his rivals called him just a 'lodger' at Rome . . ."
• ". . . Polybius tries to shoehorn the political life that he witnessed at Rome into a Greek analytical model that does not entirely fit."
• "It was never a rallying cry at Rome, even in its limited ancient sense . . ."
• ". . . who would never have dreamt of standing for election at Rome . . ."

And just by titles,

• R. Develin, The Practice of Politics at Rome 366–167 B.C.", Ed. Latomus (1985)
• Sandra R. Joshel, Work, Identity, and Legal Status at Rome: a Study of the Occupational Inscriptions, University of Oklahoma Press (1992)
• Keith Bradley, Slavery and Society at Rome, Cambridge University Press (1994)
• Denis Feeney, Literature and Religion at Rome: Cultures, Contexts, and Beliefs, Cambridge University Press (1998)
• David Noy, Foreigners at Rome: Citizens and Strangers Duckworth, Classical Press of Wales (2000)
• Francisco Pina Polo, The Consul at Rome: the Civil Functions of the Consuls in the Roman Republic, Cambridge University Press (2011)

I'm sure I could come up with many more examples if I spent hours searching for them. But I think my point must be adequately demonstrated by now. At with the names of towns and cities is perfectly acceptable English, whether formal or familiar, and even recommended in certain contexts, of which at Rome is a prime example. And in the particular example that's being cited repeatedly, it's the preferable alternative because I do not mean in with the connotation of "inside, within the boundaries of", nor do I mean of or from, suggesting point of origin, which is frequently unclear or known to have been some other place. Indeed, as some of the passages quoted above discuss, it was not only possible for a family to hail from one town or region or people and yet come to be regarded as "Roman" in subsequent times, but also that it held a markedly different social status at Rome. A family might have been part of the local aristocracy at Tusculum, Antium, Praeneste, but enrolled among the plebeians at Rome; or like the Claudii, distinguished only by wealth and influence at Regillum, but accorded patrician status at Rome.

My question, however, remains. If a word is correct, perhaps more correct than the alternatives in a given context, and another editor makes it a crusade to change it to his or her personal preference wherever that usage occurs, is there any particular Wikipedia policy that supports reverting the change? P Aculeius (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of "at" vs "in/of", I'll just say that it's generally considered ok to revert such a change and then discuss on the talk page, per WP:BRD. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

P Aculeius I appreciate your question, your gracious tone, and the time you spent looking for sources to support your view. I agree with the others, above, that at with a city is unusual today. In the course of reading and copy-editing many articles on Wikipedia, though, I have to say that I have seen the preposition at used with cities, and places in general, more than I ever had before. I think it must be more a British English usage (and perhaps, as EEng said, a usage in only certain parts of England, and perhaps it is a usage that was more common in the past but is fading) than American English usage. Americans would never say "at Rome", or "at London", except for something like Our train stopped at Rome. Instead, they would use in Rome, of Rome, or from Rome, depending upon the intended meaning. In that particular example you cited, I think the sentence could be re-worded so that the connection between the family and the city of Rome were made clearer. "At Rome" doesn't really explain much. I would write something like:

• The gens Flavia was a Roman plebeian family.
• The gens Flavia was a plebeian family centered in Rome.
• The gens Flavia was a plebeian family long connected with Rome.  – Corinne (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps an important detail missing from this discussion is that the example provided is from the lead sentence of the article. It's true that at Rome doesn't really explain much; but that's precisely the point; the alternatives are too specific. The article, and others like it, already provide more detail about origin, location, and time frame. The natural course of an article is to move from the general to the specific detail, beginning with the most general description in the lead. With respect to the alternatives you suggest, the third seems to be the least appropriate, since it implies that the family had some independent status as plebeians divorced from Rome or the Roman state; which it did not, as the distinction between patricians and plebeians is specifically Roman. The first alternative also stumbles here, as there were no non-Roman plebeians; but I also think the phrasing is awkward. Meanwhile, "centered in" combines the notion of territorial limitation that I'm trying to avoid with in, and adds the suggestion that the family diffused outward as one traveled away from the city, which may or may not be true, but which is certainly not the intended meaning of the sentence.

In this specific context, I chose at Rome because it was the simplest, most straightforward way of indicating location without describing territorial limitation, point of origin, duration in time, spatial relationship, concentration, dilution, organization, or other more specific meanings. It's a phrasing that's been used from Middle English up to the present time, and continues to be used in formal and academic writing, both British and American, as well as less formal sources such as SPQR, in ways that cannot be clearly distinguished from the case at issue. I think I have my answer now: there's no particular policy about arbitrary changes to language, but they can be reverted, and if necessary discussed on an article's talk page so that the reasons for or against a particular wording can be debated. Thank you for taking the time to answer me civilly, as I very much appreciate the courtesy, and your suggestions, even though I wasn't convinced that any of them were better than the original wording. It's much easier to discuss issues when you're not being told that your choices are wrong, that you're wrong to ask the question, wrong to present your reasons, to support your point with reliable sources, and that you've just been wasting everybody's time. P Aculeius (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Aside from suggesting that he's got a bit too much invested in this, P Aculeius' list of examples is pointless. Yes, there are lots of places the phrase at [city] makes sense, but They were a family at Rome isn't one of them. Prepositions are funny that way. As usual, Corinne is infinitely patient, and her suggestions are good ones. This is not a MOS matter. EEng 15:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  This is the gist of the entire thread right here: "there are lots of places the phrase at [city] makes sense, but They were a family at Rome isn't one of them." Things like "at Rome at the end of Phase IIB" and "possible identification of Servius rex at Rome and the seruus rex at Aricia" are references to an extended archaeological site and artifacts within it (e.g. inscriptions), not references to a city per se. Families are not artifacts or digs. The "in the palace at Rome" type of construction is different, and common for nested placenames ("University of Texas at Austin"). Families are not placenames. Similarly, "his detention at Rome" is the same kind of case as "The train stopped at Rome"; here "Rome" is referring to a facility (a governmental/military facility in the one case and a transit station in the other). Families are not facilities. And so on. The only kind-of-comparable case I'm seeing in that list (about names) is "she changed her Etruscan name to Gaia Caecilia at Rome." It's uncertain what the exact intent of the statement is without more context (given the legal nature of a name change among the Roman aristocracy, it probably refers to a institution not the entire city, and is thus another shorthand; compare "Alfred the Great died at Winchester"; this means at his royal facilities in Winchester, not "somewhere within the city"). But lets take it at face value and say that "in [city]" is at least attested in the sense that P Aculeius wants to use it, "The gens Flavia was a plebeian family at Rome." Is it the dominant usage? No. Is it common? No. Is it likely to be understood and interpreted as proper English by the average reader? No. Is it likely to result in later editors changing it, and thus in edit-warring over it? Yes (proven, since it already happened).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the distinction you're trying to make doesn't make any sense. The quotations given above cover a wide variety of circumstances including several referring to people. So you seem to be saying, "it's okay with respect to objects, buildings, institutions, and individual people, but not groups of people". And there's no basis for such a distinction other than that you think it sounds odd. Maybe several other people with similar backgrounds may think so too, but that doesn't make it bad English or in any way inappropriate if it happens to be the word that best conveys the intended meaning. I think your conclusion that "it's unlikley to be understood and interpreted as proper English by the average reader" is simply untrue. You've almost certainly passed over constructions of this type hundreds, if not thousands of times while reading various literature and not paid any attention to it because the meaning is perfectly transparent. And I'm even more certain that as an experienced editor in this field, you recognize that just because somebody, or lots of somebodies, prefer to say A rather than B, doesn't make it right, any more than the fact that edit wars get started over it. How many edit wars go on every single day due to people's personal preferences between different ways to say something that are both perfectly acceptable? The fact that one phrase is less common than another, or less common than it used to be, doesn't make it wrong, much less unintelligible. The question here was not whether this was good English, which I think the evidence clearly shows, even if you disagree. The question was how to respond to editors who make a crusade out of imposing one wording over another, if both are acceptable, but one may be preferred due to its meaning. And that question was answered already. P Aculeius (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

No distinction is necessary (though I doubt anyone else has any trouble understanding those distinctions, since they were clearly explained in plain English, with examples, and were self-evident anyway). The fact that it's not a common usage in English is entirely sufficient rationale to avoid it on Wikipedia, per WP:COMMONSENSE. Re: "how to respond to editors who make a crusade out of imposing one wording over another" – Obviously, stop being the one who fits that description, since "both are acceptable" doesn't apply here. No one at all here or at the article appears to accept your "at Rome" construction in such a context; see WP:1AM. If you want to write that a railway line stops at Rome, no one would be likely to object, since that's normal English for that context. "The family lived at Rome" is not, in any dialect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This is getting silly. It's apparent you're not a native speaker of English. And this isn't a MOS matter anyway, so work it out with the editors of the article. EEng 02:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

That was my first instinct, but judging from the user page, P Aculeius does appear to be a native speaker – just one who wants to pursue advocacy of very obscure constructions for no clear reason and which no one else seems to agree are useful here. A bit WP:POINTy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

His user page has {{user en-5}} not {{user en}}. EEng 04:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'd say the book usage supports the idea that "at Rome" was once common and is now uncommon, compared to "in Rome". That's why it sounds odd or archaic to many: because it is. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, he needs to get his nose out of Gibbon. EEng 04:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the usage rapidly and completely reversed from "at" to "in", right at about 1889. I don't think we need to entertain usage from the Victorian era, to-day. Now, my haw-haw toffs, let's be afternoonified about this, before someone with no return ticket wants to worry the dog, go off in an aromatic faint, or burst their stay-laces over this nonsensational jolly. We needn't have grass before breakfast due to cheek-ache about such gaff and gum, like a pack of kanurd and flummut shirksters and scurfs. Granny? (For the curious: [22], [23].) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Better get that keyboard looked at. EEng 05:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

My God, that's another language! Did they really talk that way? Regarding this discussion, I'd like to add something. I think the graph Dicklyon provided is helpful in showing that in Rome is now more commonly used than at Rome. However, it also shows that at Rome is still acceptable, so on that point P Aculeius is correct. If both are acceptable, the question then is whether it is important to use the more common phrase. I believe, though I am not sure, that the participants in this discussion represent speakers of both American and British English, so if the speakers of British English say in Rome is definitely more common than at Rome, then we can agree it is not a question of a difference in variety of English. According to MOS:LEAD, The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. "Accessible" means easily understood by the average Wikipedia reader. According to Checkingfax, "25% of our readers and editors are between the ages of 10 and 17; 50% between 17 and 35; 25% between 35 and 85." We need to keep our readers in mind as we edit articles. The most easily accessible language would, I think, normally contain the most common usage. So on that point alone, P Aculeius ought to concede. The other point is that, as several editors here have said, the particular usage in the example sentence given, "The gens Flavia was a plebeian family at Rome.", is even more unusual than the other uses, so unusual, in fact, that several editors have said it is non-colloquial, and that it is simply not used today. I agree. However, I think it would be more colloquial if a verb – probably a past or present participle – were used before the phrase at Rome. I suggested several examples. Another would be "The gens Flavia was a plebeian family residing at Rome." That, I think, would be considered acceptable for those who don't mind "at Rome" instead of "in Rome". P Aculeius, your point that an article should go from general in the lead to more specific in the body of the article does not mean that a sentence should be pared of the words necessary to make it colloquial. So, here are five possible wordings that could be used:

• The gens Flavia was a Roman plebeian family.
• The gens Flavia was a plebeian family centered in Rome.
• The gens Flavia was a plebeian family long connected with Rome.
• The gens Flavia was a plebeian family residing at Rome.
• The gens Flavia was a plebeian family living in Rome.

Your example, "The gens Flavia was a plebeian family at Rome," does not sound colloquial to most of the participants in this discussion. So, if an editor finds a construction like this, I wouldn't fault them for changing it to something more colloquial. The specific wording to be used can be discussed on the article's talk page. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Many of us would still object to "residing at Rome". PS: I think "does not sound colloquial to most of the participants in this discussion" is meant to say "does not sound idiomatic to most of the participants in this discussion". It does sound colloquial (like something informal and probably in a localized dialect), but it's not what we'd call "idiomatic in English" (reflecting common usage and understanding) any longer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The graph does not say in what contexts "at Rome" remains acceptable. Some, but not as many as used to be. Where "in" is the modern choice, the graph does not show that "at" would be acceptable; perhaps it is, but the graph does not show that. Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Markup for math variables

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Mathematics variables section is wrong and needs updating
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Use of "died by suicide" at the David Reimer article

Another discussion of "died by suicide"? Pass the cup!

–EEng

Can we get some opinions at Talk:David Reimer#"Committed suicide" vs. "died by suicide"? A permalink for it is here. I mentioned there that we have discussed "died by suicide" at this guideline's talk page before. There doesn't appear to be any consensus on Wikipedia about whether we should avoid "committed suicide" or use "died by suicide." And since it keeps coming up, maybe we should address it in the guideline? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree that this should be addressed below, so we can hopefully generate some consensus to guide us in the general case. Two articles already talk about the public debate concerning this point of terminology, namely the Suicide article, and the Suicide terminology article, the latter having an entire section devoted to it. Mathglot (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for opinions posted at WT:LAW, WT:MED, WT:LGBT, WT:SOCIOLOGY, WT:PSYCH. Mathglot (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy with which ever. We have had RfC on this in the past[24]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• I see no reason whatsoever to avoid saying "committed suicide". It is a common expression. bd2412 T 02:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • And "died of suicide", besides appearing to have the intent of violating WP:EUPHEMISM in this case, is the wrong preposition. It should be "died from suicide". (I realize the Google statistics show that a lot of people disagree with me, but they're all wrong.) —David Eppstein (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

At Rome they say "died by suicide". EEng 03:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "died at suicide"?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

What about just "killed himself/herself"? Sizeofint (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

"Ended it all"? "Offed himself"? "Took the easy way out"? "Cheated the hangman"? "Did away with himself"? "Died by his own hand"? EEng 03:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Committed suicide" is standard English. So is the even blunter "killed himself". Anything else is so rare in usage or so obviously a euphemism as to raise questions as to the purpose for using such phrasing. Or questions about the writer's competence in English. Either way, there's no reason to change it. oknazevad (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree; they are all invariably "standard English" by textbook definitions. "Died by suicide" is also not a euphemism — and to me it's far more neutral in that it describes what happened without putting intentionality into focus.

We don't express that someone "committed a motorcycle accident" or "committed alcoholism", despite both being choices to engage in motorcycling or alcohol drinking (at least initially). What is standard isn't de facto correct or neutral, and we should strive for neutrality over an infatuation with "standard language".

Within the professional community suicide is seen as a complication of depression, and this wording is a both uncomplicated and straightforward way to get this point across. Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

By sticking to the common usage we are being neutral, as we aren't choosing phrasings to ale a point. WP:NOTSOAPBOX/WP:GREATWRONG and all that, which your response below skates quite close to. oknazevad (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

No, common usage is often far from neutral. Backpain in Spanish is often referred to as "kidney pain", however that is patently false. The same is true for "hysteria", which implies origin in the womb. Just because people in general say something does not imply neutrality. Neutrality is not what is most common... Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, I did an N-gram at the main thread showing about a 100:40:1 ratio of "committed suicide" : "killed himself"/"killed herself" (combined) : "died by suicide".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  I don't see a problem with any of "committed suicide" : "killed himself"/"killed herself" (combined) : "died by suicide". they all describe unambiguously what happened and are sufficiently neutral and in my opinion grammatically correct. Leave it to the editors to establish consensus, and if that fails, stay with the earliest version of one of these three. The choice for a particular use may be guided by flow of the prose for FA. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

would agree w/ Pbsouthwood--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Committed suicide is the common term. Died by suicide is an attempt at political correctness and is unnecessary in wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you've thoroughly misunderstood what political correctness is, and further misunderstood it by stating that something being politically correct is an argument against its use... Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know you think that. Natureium (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

"Politically correct" has two meanings: the original positive sense propounded by left-progressives in the 1970s (the "politically correct = respectful" idea), and the pejorative sense that now dominates, used by anyone (even on the left) who tires of having everyday English "policed" in the interests of hypersensitivity. I don't think think anyone here is unaware of that, or unaware which meaning Natureium intended. It seems disingenuous on CFCF's part to suggest that Natureium has "misunderstood" when it's clearly a matter of disagreement, not ignorance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The point is that saying that something is "politically correct" is not an argument against it. It is textbook WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Had the argument been that it oversimplifies, or it adds ambiguity or is not generally recognized — then you have an argument. Saying that something is politically correct, and therefore we should not use it — is to imply that Wikipedia should strive to be politically incorrect. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not it at all. I'm saying that rejecting the most common term, which has been used in both formal and informal contexts for many years, for the sake of protecting someone's feelings is censorship. Natureium (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly what I meant. Thank you for clarifying for people who apparently don't understand. Natureium (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly prefer died by suicide. There are various professional guidelines about how to discuss suicide, which generally conclude that this is the preferable way to express such deaths. This is not specifically an issue of article names, so we are free to follow less standard language in the pursuit of neutrally covering a topic. It doesn't matter one iota what ngram tells us, because even if "killed themselves" was the most common — it's entirely inappropriate for use in an encyclopedia. I think we shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel, but instead follow the professional guidelines that exist about this. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Here are several sources which explicitly recommend "died by suicide" over "committed"

• American Foundation for Suicide Prevention — Recommendations for Reporting on Suicide
• Samaritans — Media Guidelines for Reporting Suicide

Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The ngram approach is tricky when examining a term with changing usage. I doubt it can be done well enough to trust. If even the AFSP, working on prevention, seeks to avoid "committed", then why would we seek to perpetuate its use? Certainly advocates for and practioners of "assisted dying" would not want "committed" to continue. It's an obsolescent term rooted in particular mores and changing legalities. Further, it implies a mental volition and determination which may not be applicable in all cases. Sometimes attempts are more successful than intended when all that was desired was attention. In such cases "committed" is simply wrong. In David Reimer's case the intent is obvious but not the commitment. It would be sufficient to say that he turned a shotgun on himself. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The N-gram approach is actually quite solid when the numbers are big and the search is proper; it's only iffy when there's barely a statistical difference between usages, or the user does not account for how Google Ngrams is indexed and what the limits of its searching are. I'll repeat here what I posted at the article talk page, and people can judge for themselves:

"Committed suicide" is normal English and does not imply criminality ("commit" has multiple meanings in English - one should commit to committing them to memory). It is by far the most common construction, which is easily provable [25]. "Died by suicide" is actually quite rare (surely owning to its archaic awkwardness, shades of "died by [his/her] own hand", "died by misadventure", etc.). "Killed [him|her]self" (combined) have a bit less than 50% the usage rate in modern works as "committed suicide". There are other ways to write this sort of thing, like "death was ruled a suicide" (if we have official reports that say so), and rearranging the sentence: "His/her suicide ...". There are others (see Suicide terminology), but most of them are awkward. We've spent too many cycles on too many pages arguing about this. People who think that "commit suicide" auto-implies a crime are just flat-out wrong as a matter of English language usage, but in the end do we really care? It's easier and faster to re-word than to keep arguing about this on page after page for the next decade. But "died by suicide" is pretty much the last option; virtually no reliable sources use it other than a few newspapers who've jumped onto the oversensitivity pandering bandwagon. This "died by suicide" stuff is the advocacy position of a particular organization [26]; pushing it here is a WP:NPOV policy problem. While we should not revert rewordings of "committed suicide" that are actual improvements (and "died by suicide" is not, or way more than around 1% of sources would use it), programmatic editwarring against "committed suicide" has to stop. This is rapidly approaching disruptive editing levels, and is a major drain on editorial productivity. It's consumed probably several hundred editorial person-hours just in the last couple of months. [End copied post.]
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• A few thoughts:
  • "Killed himself" does not indicate intentionality, which is a significant limitation. Thus it is usually going to be more appropriate to specify suicide in such cases, to immediately differentiate "accidentally killed himself while behaving recklessly" from "intentionally killed himself because he didn't want to be alive any more". Bluntness that leaves room for thinking that an intentional death was actually accidental is the wrong kind of bluntness.
  • "Died by suicide" has become more common recently, and it has its advantages and disadvantages. On the upside, it's less moralistic than "committed", so it has a slightly more neutral tone in that sense. On the downside, it also feels like it's treating suicide as a very particular, quasi-medicalized method of dying: It's death as a result of a state of deranged thinking that non-suicidal adults associate teenage angst and long-term depression and similar mental health conditions, but that has almost nothing to do with ritual "honor" suicides and terminally ill patients. Blog posts such as this one indicate the concept here: suicide is the last step in a long chain of medicalized events for people with mental illnesses, and suicide is just the sadly predictable result in some people with this class of medical conditions, just like fatal heart attacks are the sadly predictable result in some people with other classes of medical conditions.
  • About the prepositions: "died of" is more common for statements about causes of death, including murder, strangulation and even depression. One relevant exception: "Died from homicide" is more common than "died of homicide", and much more common than "died by homicide".
  • I think that one of the reasons some influential groups have been pushing "died by" is because they are specifically trying to discourage the publication of methods. Suicide and especially specific suicide methods are subject to fads. They may be trying to replace "He died by shooting himself" with "He died by suicide", and hoping that changing the fewest number of words in the sentence would make it easier for the journalists to accept.
  • My personal preference, at the moment, for the generic case, is "died of" or "died from". But my firm opinion is that editors should consider all of the facts and circumstances, and make a choice that fits the needs of the individual article. I do not want a rule that says 'this phrase is required', or 'that phrase is banned'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Lets not split this discussion into multiple venues. The discussion is already part of a well-established thread at here at the Policy Village Pump and as such, lets not split the same discussion into two places, mkay? I will note that as of yet, that discussion has reached an almost unanimous consensus that the appropriate phrasing is "committed suicide". But if you have additional perspectives, please comment THERE and not HERE. Lets bring this into one discussion in one place. --Jayron32 19:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jayron on this... starting another thread here at MOS smacks of forum shopping (although perhaps unintentional). As for the idea of adding something about the word choice to MOS... No. Something as specific as choosing between one phrasing and another is beyond the scope of a style guide. Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, lawdy, has this forked again?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The supposed WP:Forum shopping was not forum shopping. I didn't start both threads; I started one (the one above). And I did not know that there was a general thread on the matter at WP:Village pump (policy). Furthermore, my initial post is more about one article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

TLDNR He committed suicide. He died by shooting [himself]. It is a distinction between "who" did it and "what" was the cause of death. Another case might be, "he was murdered by strangulation" Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I would imagine that murder by strangulation is quite a rare form of suicide. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I stated the following at the article's talk page: Discussions at this guideline talk page haven't helped to establish a consensus on the "committed" matter so far. I don't see that the current one will either unless an RfC is started there. And, yeah, I know that I often rely on RfCs. But per what SMcCandlish has stated, it seems to me that we do need an RfC on this here -- one to point editors to -- since "committed" is being removed from articles so often. People are going to keep referring to certain sources/style guides on the matter as justification for removing "committed." If Wikipedia does not support that route, then Wikipedia needs to be very clear about that. I wouldn't mind "committed" being removed and being replaced with "died by suicide" if "died by suicide" was actual standard language. Above, Doc James pointed to a 2017 discussion at the Suicide talk page about this; he stated "RfC." I'm not sure if meant that the 2017 discussion was an RfC (doesn't look like it was one) or if he was referring to the 2013 discussion that Doniago pointed to as a past RfC, but that 2013 RfC discussion shows that consensus was for retaining "committed suicide." The Suicide article, however, currently uses "died by suicide." As for "killed himself/herself," which I don't find unencyclopedic, it is not possible in the case of many non-binary people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the very few cases where people demand to be referred to by genderless pronouns, a different form can be used instead. Such as "killed themself", since "they" and "them" are being pushed as a gender-neutral singular pronoun. Natureium (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Above, I see that Jayron32 mentioned a WP:Village pump (policy) discussion on the matter, but I also see that CFCF (Carl Fredrik) closed the discussion. Given CFCF's involvement with the discussion above, I find that close inappropriate. The WP:Village pump (policy) discussion would actually lead to consensus on the matter versus this non-RfC discussion, which is yet another discussion here that will die out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the 2013 RfC. That was a long time ago. Would be happy to see another one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I have undone the closure of the VPP discussion. That one is older than THIS one by almost a month. Expecting everyone to pick up and move over here is not how we do things. The older discussion has primacy. --Jayron32 18:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Bring MOS:COMPUTING back into line with MoS and reality

WP:Manual of Style/Computing § Definite article has the following provision in it:

Titles of computer software, unless used in a noun group, are written without a definite article. Examples:

Correct standalone title	Correct in a noun group	Wrong
Windows	the Windows operating system	the Windows
Microsoft Office	the Microsoft Office productivity suite	the Microsoft Office
iTunes	the iTunes media player	the iTunes
TuneUp Disk Doctor	the TuneUp Disk Doctor utility	the TuneUp Disk Doctor
Active Directory	the Active Directory directory service	the Active Directory

This applies to the titles of video games as well, which, additionally, are italicized.

Service brand names are also written without a definite article:

• Correct: Hotmail, Gmail, GitHub, Amazon, Mac App Store
• Incorrect: the Hotmail, the Gmail, the GitHub, the Amazon, the Mac App Store

This is mostly and usually good advice, but has run off the rails in two ways, and is effectively a WP:CONLEVEL and WP:POVFORK problem:

1. Its across-the-board manner directly defies everyday usage in reliable sources.
2. Its emphatic tone, about a trivial matter, is not in the spirit of MoS or other WP guidelines, and it directly conflicts with MoS's standards about how to start sentences, when it involves cases that do not begin with capital letters (i.e., it thwarts many attempts to write around beginning a sentence with soemthing like ".NET" or "3DO Interactive Multiplayer"

In particular:

• It simply isn't true that "the Mac App Store" is "incorrect". This is normal, everyday English. Same goes for "the .NET framework" and many other cases.
• The intent of this guideline was to avoid awkward nonsense like "the eBay" and "the Microsoft Office" (as stand-alone noun phrases), virtually unknown in reliable sources.
• However, it is being bent to 3RR-level editwarring, e.g. at .NET Framework today ([27][28][29][30]), using the patently false claims that "the .NET Framework" is "ungrammatical", to pursue a WP:NOT#ADVOCACY-violating linguistic prescription against ever using "the" even in cases where this is overwhelmingly well attested [31][32][33].

Below, I suggest revising this – here at WT:MOS with the input of the whole broad MoS-watching crowd, since WT:MOSCOMP appears to be largely dominated as a "local consensus" by two or three editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft revision

The name of a piece of computer software (broadly defined) is usually written without the definite article, except when used as a modifier in a longer phrase, or when the proper name begins with "The". This includes utility, productivity, and entertainment software; video games (which are italicized); online services; and operating systems and their components. Examples:

Correct standalone title	Correct in a longer phrase	Incorrect as a standalone phrase
Microsoft Office	the Microsoft Office productivity suite	the Microsoft Office
Diablo III	the Diablo III console project	the Diablo III
The Sims 4	The Sims 4 release date	the Sims 4
Gmail	the Gmail interface	the Gmail
Windows	the Windows operating system	the Windows
Active Directory	the Active Directory service	the Active Directory

Those with titles that start with "The" often take a possessive form when used in longer phrases:

• The Legend of Zelda's 20th anniversary

There are many exceptions to the overall pattern; a leading "the" should be used when omitting it would be awkward and when its inclusion is typical in similar constructions found in reliable independent sources or the publisher's own documentation:

• The .NET Framework is a technology that ... [34]
• It is available on the Mac App Store [35]

A "The" that is not part of the actual name of the subject is never added to Wikipedia's article title about it, and should not be added in the lead sentence unless confusion could result without it.

Rationales for the changes:

• Our material should agree with real-world English, absent a compelling WP-specific reason to do something peculiar or arbitrary in a certain context (rare).
• This should use "usually", "should", and "often" wording, or the like, because the original's absolute-law approach is both factually wrong and contrary to MoS's intent; plus, as noted above, it can directly conflict with other MoS rules' operation.
• "Noun group" (a.k.a. noun phrase) was being misused. It does not mean what the author thought it means. [36][37][38] (everything in all three columns of the table is a noun group/phrase).
• It did not account for proper names that actually start with "The" (and how they operate).
• The example of "the Mac App Store" as incorrect should be removed, because it's provably counterfactual.
• Most of the examples were redundant, and have been replaced with ones that illustrate different classes of "software" in the broad sense.
• An accurate segment of proper use of "the" is needed.
• Small tables being centered is readability/usability problem.
• WP article titles were not addressed specifically, despite that being the original intent of the section (while MoS is not a naming convention under WP:AT, it fairly often mentions naming matters where pertinent, especially in the topical MoS subpages, to centralize topical advice).

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support most of the draft; but
  Oppose the .NET Framework and Mac App Store part for several reasons:

1. It is a change from one arbitrary style form into another, that only adds more headaches and complexity. (A MOS is supposed to eliminate those.) It defeats the purpose of the guideline, which is to establish consistency and minimize friction between editors.
   • Right now, the editor's decision process is very simple: If it is a book title, film title, software title or play title, we skip "the". Editors can spend their energy where it matters more.
   • When this proposal comes into effect, editors must spend time and energy on such trivia as whether the reliable sources use "The" or not. (There are already disputes over whether something is a reliable source or no. God helps when it comes to indexing them first their use of "the".) Then, some sources use "the" inconsistently. Sometimes, they insert it and sometimes they forgo it. There will be unnecessary reversions and confused newcomers who ask in amazement: "Where is the logic in that?" I ask that too! Where is the logic in that?
2. I am not convinced that the proposal in regards to ".NET Framework" and "Mac App Store" comes from objective observation of the language. The nominator simply shows a portion of the language that supports his view. The evidence provided for "Mac App Store" and ".NET Framework" amounts to a simple "others mistakes exist", and arguing that we should make more mistakes. To that I say: We don't do mistakes. The grammatically wrong "the .NET Framework" and "the Mac App Store" stem from the fact that like Bee Movie and Dragon Book, the title is self-explaining. Let me point out other realities from which Wikipedia deviates:
   • Everyone in the world capitalizes each word in a heading or title. Wikipedia doesn't, because there is no grammar rule for it.
   • The most common grammatical mistake, more common that this, is interchanging "it's" for "its" and vice versa but Wikipedia has not endorsed it either.
3. I question the motivation of the nominator. He alludes to contradictions with other MoS and POVFORK but fails to point to the actual contradictory text. Is the nominator truly here for a tangible improvement and a change with benefit, or because he wants to get back at Codename Lisa with whom he had a nasty argument earlier today? Are you going to make life a living hell for the future generation of editors just because an editor hurt your pride by contesting your change with a reversion?

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 17:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:OSE applies to other content on Wikipedia, not to real-world usage in reliable sources, otherwise we would couldn't have policies like WP:COMMONNAME. It is not a MOS:STABILITY matter because a) that applies to changing article text, not coming to a consensus on resolving guideline wording and conflicts, and b) it is not a choice between one arbitrary style and another, but a matter of following actual English-language usage norms. Your attempt to prohibit the use of "the" in front of the name of an online service, etc. (except when used adjectivally), even though RS in the real world usually uses "the" in many constructions for clarity, is what is arbitrary and against our practices. You're also confusing a reference to something as a title of a work of code as such, and a reference to it as a service or technology as used by people; they are semantically different, and this is reflected in the difference between .NET Framework 4.7.1 was released in October 2017 versus The .NET Framework is a technology that ... (Microsoft's own wording; when are you going to schedule a meeting with Bill Gates & co. to "correct" their grammar about their own product?). Contradictory text: See #contradict anchor point; you can look up all places in MoS pages where this is covered on your own time. Finally, see WP:DR: When a dispute turns intractable and personalized, the solution is to open a general community discussion for further input, instead of two people continuing to argue in circles. This discussion has been broadly advertised to WP:VPPOL and various other pages, e.g. software and technology wikiprojects. Thanks for making it clear (so I don't have to try to prove it) that your position is a prescriptive grammar one (which WP generally doesn't entertain, per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I say simplicity, practicality, benefit and ArbCom's order; you say "when are you going to schedule a meeting with Bill Gates & co. to "correct" their grammar about their own product?" and then lie to me about what I didn't write. Fine. You win. Here is a cookie. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 18:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing is simpler or more practical than using English the way native speakers of it use it in fairly formal writing. "Benefit" is subjective. The ArbCom decision you reference does not apply, and this has already been explained above. It pertains to making useless changes to articles to suit personal preference, and has nothing to do with coming to a WP consensus on what MoS should advise, especially when one MoS page is imposing a "rule" that the main MoS does not, and would not. See MoS's own lead: "If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence over all detail pages of the guideline." PS: What "lie"?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support the first paragraph and the table

Oppose the rest.

First, a MoS must not be overly detailed. It is a guideline, not a policy.

Second, Wikipedia uses reliable sources strictly for Verifiability. In the following areas, we have defied the rest of the world:

• Letting everyone edit
• Citation style
• Capitalization
• Rules governing uploading non-free contents
• Use of the second person pronoun
• Article tone

... or to summarize, in the field of style, we have defied the world. Our reasons are: Accommodating for and simplifying a project that is already massive and complex, without sacrificing accuracy and congruity.

Now, our esteemed colleague SMcCandlish has seen that the rest of the world uses the word "the" willy-nilly in their very small projects that don't even compare to one Wikipedia article. Therefore, he proposes that we go out of our way to study their willy-nilly usage, catalog it, make reason out of it and then apply that reason. The end result is that the word "the" loses its meaning and purpose, and we waste resources for the color of the bike shed.

I say not. I say let adhere to KISS principle. Let's not try to glorify other people's madness. There is no benefit in it. Let's stick to principle-based grammar because it simplifies our already complex project.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The revised version is actually smaller than the original, so the "overly detailed" complaint doesn't apply. "Guideline not a policy" is much of the reason for the revision, because you are trying to impose the extant version as if it were a policy, and willing to editwar over it; an admin just protected the page to stop you. I can't think of a reason to respond to the rest of that, since it doesn't correspond to anything I said or meant, or the fact that RS news sources routinely use "the" in constructions that make better sense with that word prefixed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I would suggest avoiding the Diablo III adventure game as a positive example, since I do not know of any such construction elsewhere. --Izno (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, but I replaced it with an example from the Diablo III article itself.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I suppose the previous example would be seen as somewhat "out of order": "the adventure game, Diablo III". Alternatively, there's a concise concern (given other context): "the adventure game", or simply "Diablo III". The new use seems fine but I'd probably see if I could remove that from the article in question if I were particularly motivated. --Izno (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)