Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:MOS)
For the concept describing what discussions take place here, see Bikeshed color.

Welcome to the MOS pit[Humor]


    Style discussions elsewhere

    [edit]

    Add a link to new discussions at top of list and indicate what kind of discussion it is (move request, RfC, open discussion, deletion discussion, etc.). Follow the links to participate, if interested. Move to Concluded when decided, and summarize conclusion. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

    Current

    [edit]

    (newest on top)

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Capitalization-specific:

    This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Current.[edit]


    Move requests:

    Other discussions:

    Concluded

    [edit]

    What’s wrong with “considered”

    [edit]

    In Re https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&oldid=1342096953. @EEng:

    It seems to me that “considered” is exactly the right way to express the actual state of affairs. “Is avoided” also implies that these considerations are followed, or alternately merely implies a pattern of behaviour that doesn’t necessarily extend to Wikipedia, which would render the clarification unnecessary. Anselm Schüler (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    No idea what you're saying. I'm happy to let our esteemed fellow editors work this out. EEng 01:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    Editors who follow the gender-related language portion of this MOS page may be interested in this nomination of multiple "he or she" templates for merging. Please comment there instead of here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    pseudo headings using definition list markup

    [edit]

    What is the truth? Today I edited 2026 Henderson, Nevada mayoral election to fix cs1|2 template errors and encountered an {{Endorsements box}} template that had this markup (permalink): 

    |list=;Labor unions
*[[International Association of Fire Fighters]]...

    That markup, to me, is in violation of:

    So I changed that template to use this markup which I believe to be correct: 

    |list='''Labor unions'''
*[[International Association of Fire Fighters]]...

    Not long ago I made a similar edit at 2026 California gubernatorial election. My edit was quickly reverted by Editor Aesurias who left an edit summary: Endorsements box uses a semi-colon because of spacing. So I started a discussion at Talk:2026 California gubernatorial election § reverted edit. That discussion died unresolved so here I am, looking for definitive resolution.

    What is the truth? Is the {{Endorsements box}} template exempt from the proscriptions mentioned above? Was I wrong to replace the ; markup?

    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe it is exempt, and I believe an endorsements box meets the definition of a description list. Essentially every Wikipedia election page uses semi-colons instead of the three apostrophes. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a description list: in a description list, the semicoloned item is a term and the one (and only one) those below it is a are definitions. In this case, as Trappist says, it's a heading (since it introduces a list of multiple items fitting into the category it declares), and bold markup should be used. If the mistake is common in a certain class of articles, it's understandable how it could have persisted, but the consensus represented by the MoS outweighs that of a small group within the Wiki. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    the semicoloned item is a term and the one (and only one) below it is a definition is not strictly true. In definition lists, a term (;) may have multiple definitions (:). This example is perfectly legitimate: 
    ;term
:definition 1
:definition 2
    and produces this html: 
    <dl><dt>term</dt>
<dd>definition 1</dd>
<dd>definition 2</dd></dl>
    But, this example uses the (correct) : definition markup, not the (incorrect) * unordered-list markup.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point: amended. But agreed, that's not what's happening here: "International Association of Fire Fighters" is not in any way a definition of "Labor unions". UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:13, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I just don't get the argument here.. it's not a "pseudo-heading", it's literally in a box. The entire thing is "pseudo". The issue with pseudo-headings is that they aren't fake sections so they can't be navigated to. This is obviously not possible here either way. If you'd really like to spend your time going through 40,000 election pages changing endorsement boxes, I won't oppose it, but I think removing the semi-colons make the boxes comically spaced out and ugly. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    (I don't care how this is resolved, but) A heading in a box is still a heading. Gawaon (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Using semicolon markup
    first endorsements heading
    • First endorser
    second endorsements heading
    • second endorser
    • third endorser
    Using bolding markup

    first endorsements heading

    • First endorser

    second endorsements heading

    • second endorser
    • third endorser
    @Aesurias: 40,000 election pages? Where did you get that number? According to this page, {{Endorsements_box}} is transcluded into 2430-ish pages. That number is confirmed by this page. This search of article space returns approximately 2330 articles that have an {{Endorsements box}} template. So, where does the 40,000 number come from?
    In your revert of my edit at 2026 California gubernatorial election, claimed: Endorsements box uses a semi-colon because of spacing. You have brought that same objection to this discussion: I think removing the semi-colons make the boxes comically spaced out and ugly. What spacing are you talking about? Since you appear to be unwilling to explain further, I conducted a side-by-side experiment →. Is that the spacing that you find objectionable? Inspecting the two boxes in my browser (chrome latest / win 11 / desktop / vector legacy) the height from the top of first endorsements heading to the bottom of 'third endorser' is 148.33 for semicolon markup and 156.73 for bolding markup; a difference of 8.4. Chrome does not provide units for these measurements. The difference, visually and numerically, seems rather small to me.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Old Style dates in infoboxes

    [edit]

    In most articles, Old Style dates (Julian calendar) are rarely used in infoboxes. For example, some infoboxes does not use {{OldStyleDate}} including Battle of Borodino, Russian Revolution of 1905, and Joseph Stalin. Instead, by replacing with regular dates (Gregorian calendar). Absolutiva 22:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a question, a proposal, or just an observation? I don't think OS dates should be used without at least noting this, or having the Gregorian too. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Or are you questioning why the Battle of Borodino (for example) gives the data as 7 September 1812 when contemporary Russian records would have recorded it as 26 August 1812? Which I guess suggests that you are proposing a new rule:
    • Events that occurred after 1582 but before the polity concerned adopted the Gregorian calendar should give both dates explicitly rather than in a footnete.
      • So this battle would be dated 7 September [O.S. 28 August ] 1812
      • And George Washington was born February 22 [O.S. February 12] 1732
    Is that what you had in mind? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO (for whatever that's worth), the Old Style dates should be given first, with the N.S. date in brackets, if it even needs including at all. The reason being, that if you are doing historical research and working with primary documents, it is helpful to have dates that accurately match the dates on the primary documents. It is NOT really helpful, at all, to have dates that were being used in other parts of the world at the time, but not in the place you're reading about. Because - who cares? (I will note there will be exceptions, of course, and George Washington's birthdate is one such notable one, because the N.S. birthdate is very widely known). ~2026-19011-03 (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    There is another template, {{Old Style to New Style}} (or, more usefully, {{OS2NS}}) which can do that. With that template, this battle is rendered as 28 August [7 September N.S.] 1812. In both cases of course, it is just a convenient way to format the output. Neither template calculates the other date from the given date, which would be a superbly useful enhancement if anyone is so inclined?
    𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    See also

    [edit]

    Repeated links cannot be included in this section; however, are links provided through templates also included in this rule? Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    No, because navboxes, both footer and side navboxes, are provided to only 30% of daily readers. They are not shown on mobile, the predominant reader option. They are still important components of original Wikipedia, offered to millions of readers a day, but a feature only shared by 30% of readers cannot replace the functional use of adding important relevant links to See also sections. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the same as well; I opened this thread just because it's not explicitly stated in the rule. So it's probably applied this way, and if it's not written in the rule, there must be a reason for it (and this might be one of those reasons). Still, the guideline says "content", and templates are probably considered part of the article's content as well. Otherwise, if this is a loophole, it needs to be discussed. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's explicit at WP:SEEALSO: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body [my emphasis]." DrKay (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There is some merit to the comment above, as it could be an issue for long articles. Still, I think it would be useful to add a note about this. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Bolding of victim names in event‑based articles

    [edit]

    There seems to be some uncertainty about whether the name of a victim should be bolded in the lead of an event‑based article (for example, a disappearance, killing, or murder case). I have been told that bolding the name is not appropriate for event articles, but this appears to be applied inconsistently across Wikipedia. Many similar pages do bold the victim's name in the lead, and this has been the common practice on most articles of this type that I have seen. The admin who disagrees with the bolding is the first person I have ever encountered who does not support it. Every page I have seen, whether it is a redirect or not, has always bolded the name, even on event‑based articles, which is why this has come as a surprise. In cases where the article title refers to an event involving a specific person, the person's name is closely tied to the subject, because the event is defined by what happened to them. Although the article is about the event, the event is still centred on the individual, and their identity is inseparable from the topic. For that reason, bolding the name seems reasonable and consistent with how many editors approach similar pages. The issue is that editors are receiving conflicting guidance. If bolding is not appropriate for event‑based articles, then it would be helpful to have a clear, centralised consensus so that the approach is applied consistently. At the moment, if someone unbolds a name on one page, it is likely to be reverted on another, which makes it difficult for newer editors to know what the correct style is. Could we clarify whether victim names in event‑based articles should be bolded or unbolded in the lead, and whether this should be applied consistently across all such pages? If there has been a previous discussion on this point, I would appreciate being directed to it. Thank you! ItsShandog (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    See MOS:BOLDALTNAMES:

    If an article is about an event involving a subject about which there is no main article, especially if the article is the target of a redirect, the subject should be in bold.

    The example given in the MoS is Death of Azaria Chamberlain, which begins Azaria Chantel Loren Chamberlain (11 June 1980, Mount Isa – 17 August 1980, Uluru / Ayers Rock) was a nine-week-old Australian baby girl who was killed by a dingo on the night of 17 August 1980 during a family camping trip to Uluru (Ayers Rock) in the Northern Territory. (emphasis original). UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have been sent that example by someone else who agrees with me that it should be bolded, but an admin reverted my edits and said you do not bold it. The discussion is currently on the help desk here: Wikipedia:Help desk#Is bold for someone's name not allowed if the page is not a redirect? ItsShandog (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Mathematics has an RfC

    [edit]
    icon

    Mathematics has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place regarding if the page should have short description. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to be fussy, but I don't see why you posted this here. This really has nothing to do with MOS, and this page really doesn't need any extraneous traffic. EEng 03:10, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=1346537712"