Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

WORDSASWORDS vs. NOITALQUOTE for articles about a quotation

Batternut, Sangdeboeuf, and myself ran into an interesting problem in a discussion at The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

In an article whose subject is a quotation, which takes precedence: WORDSASWORDS or NOITALQUOTE?

To briefly summarise, MOS:NOITALQUOTE says that quotations should be placed within quote marks and that one should not use italics for quotes, and MOS:WORDSASWORDS says that when one talks about a word as a word, rather than just using the word (i.e. the use–mention distinction), it should be placed in italics. However, both guidelines are written to deal with your typical quotation or use in the body of an article on some random topic (e.g. a biography, or a film, etc.) and so contain no guidance that directly addresses an article that is about the quotation itself.

It seems fairly obvious that for such articles you will in general have many instances where you refer to the quotation (mention), and probably also many cases where you give the quotation (use). However, in an article about the quotation itself, you get the added problem of how to deal with the bolded first sentence instance of the article's subject (where, due to the typical formulation, it will almost always be a mention).

The three of us went a couple of rounds on this—one editor taking one position, one the opposite, one waffling back and forth—and then hit a dead end. In this specific case, the two guidelines as written, appear to be in direct conflict, and neither address the relevant case directly. Thus we're here asking for both broader discussion, and, hopefully, input from editors familiar with the discussions that led up to the two relevant MOS sections. Or, obviously, other policy/guideline/MOS guidance that could help cut the knot. --Xover (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• As a quotation, it really needs to be in quotation marks; since it would already be in quotation marks, the italics would be redundant—not incorrect, but as pointless as having punctuation both inside and outside a quotation mark, à la She said "Yikes!". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for chiming in Curly Turkey. I think even in the original discussion there was agreement that when the phrase in question is being used as a quotation it should be in quotation marks (and not in italics). However, in our article about the phrase we in some instances need to discuss it as something akin to a grammatical construct and not as a quote. And this situation obtains, for example, in the first sentence of the lead. By analogy, consider Honorificabilitudinitatibus. It is a word, and sometimes functions as such (don't try to use it in a sentence though), but often it is used as a Shakespeare quote. Or Thy name is, which also functions both as a quote and as a snowclone. In any case, it would be good to have some breadth of input on this (hint! hint! everybody) in order to form some kind of consensus that would support application across such articles without having to arrive at local consensus at every single one of them (a small, but non-trivial number). --Xover (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Honorificabilitudinitatibus is not a comparable example—Shakespeare coined lots of words. I can't imagine any context in which "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is not a quotation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
      • It may be a quotation in the literal sense, but often an unintentional one – the speaker need not know that it comes from Hamlet or even Shakespeare, according to Prof. Marjorie Garber. Garber calls it a "shorthand expression" and a "verbal macro...not a specific reference to Hamlet". It's more often misquoted, as in "methinks (X) protests too much", per the Oxford Dictionary of Reference and Allusion (2012, p. 238) and Garner's Modern English Usage (4th edition, p. 591). Granted, that doesn't affect the treatment of the original quotation, but these and other sources seem to imply that the phrase is more than a simple quotation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
        • We use the bard's quotes ad nauseam, as we use mobile phones more for messaging than talking, but should we change the lead from "A mobile phone ... is a portable telephone" to " ... is a portable messaging client"? I think not... Batternut (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
          • We don't publish original research, so that would depend on how reliable sources describe the topic. In this case, we have reliable sources that describe the phrase as a "cliché" when taken out of the original context (Foakes 2004, p. 158) and a "shorthand expression" that has become "part of our culture" (Garber 2005, pp. 40, 467). It also appears in a "Book of Clichés" (Cresswell 2007) and a dictionary of "Proverbs and Proverbial Phrases" (Bryan & Meider 2005, p. 445, which doesn't mention Shakespeare at all). So it seems to be more than just a quotation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
            • It would be OR to claim that people don't recognize a quote as a quote—a quote remains a quote regardless of whether the speaker recognizes the source. Regardless, the article's about the quote, so anyone reading will soon be well aware it's a quote. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
              • We have a reliable source that says explicitly that people don't always recognize it as a direct quote from Hamlet. See Garber (2005, p. 467): "Few of those who quote or adapt this line will recall that it refers to the Player Queen in 'The Murder of Gonzago', Hamlet's play-within-the-play". I'm not denying that it's a quote; I'm saying that it's a common phrase in addition to being a quote: what the sources describe as a "cliché", "universal", "part of our culture", etc. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
                • Sangdeboeuf: I think you need to read my comment again—I've already addressed all that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• There is also in this case the separate question of whether The lady doth protest too much, methinks should always be treated as a quotation, or whether it has become a verbal cliché apart from its use in Hamlet. I say yes, Batternut says no. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• MOS:NOITALQUOTE says always use quote marks, MOS:WORDSASWORDS allows quote marks specifically for whole sentences, why make life difficult?
  Before Sangdeboeuf started on this article it used quote marks throughout (see March 2017 version), now we have a mix, which is ugly, and editors will have to conduct a philosophical analsysscratch their heads and bicker over "use" versus mention, which isn't always obvious (qv Davidson's both use and mention). Batternut (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• @SMcCandlish, David Eppstein, Izno, and EEng: Pinging a few recently active editors here whose names I recognize as MOS regulars. Apologies for the noise (notification), but we were really hoping to get wider input on this issue from a relevant constituency. So far we have gotten only one (whose participation is very much appreciated!), which, while helpful, is not really sufficient to support a consensus for even the immediately applicable article (The lady doth protest too much, methinks), much less one applicable across the handfull of similar articles. If you (or anyone else, obviously) could chime in with your thoughts on this it would be very helpfull! --Xover (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not at all convinced that WORDSASWORDS is relevant here (it's about a quote not about the words of a phrase), and NOITALQUOTE certainly is relevant. But even if we consider this as being a case of WORDSASWORDS, it clearly states that quotation marks are a valid form, and potentially preferable, when the phrase in question is a whole sentence as it is in this case. So I think the case for using quotation marks is strong and the case for using italics is not. It's too reliant on parsing MOS text in the most favorable way for the case and not enough on common sense. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Frankly, I think that NOITALQUOTE requires a bit of parsing itself. The key phrase there is Quotation marks alone are sufficient, implying that some editors are tempted to use both quotation marks and italics. Since the vast majority of quotations on Wikipedia are not in articles about those quotations, NOITALQUOTE seems to refer only to times when Wikipedia itself is quoting a source, not when a quotation itself is the subject. I don't think it necessarily applies to a case like this, where common sense suggests that this is not a typical case of "quoting".

      MOS:ITALQUOTE goes into more detail: For quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics [...] a quotation is not italicized inside quotation marks or a block quote just because it is a quotation (emphasis mine). This isn't a case of both italics and quotation marks, but of using italics to mark a mentioned phrase per the use-mention distinction. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

      • Repeating yourself after every comment like that, without actually responding to anything in the comment, is making me think WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT may also be relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• No time to read the discussion so far, but...
  • What about foreign phrases e.g. Arbeit macht frei?
  • Here's an interesting case: Brian Wilson is a genius.

EEng 16:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC) Did someone say barf quotes ad nauseam? That seems redundant.

• For foreign languages the advice at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Foreign-language quotations is to use italics. MOS:NOITALQUOTE allows this where it advises "They should only be used if the material would otherwise call for italics, such as for emphasis or to indicate use of non-English words." (I also read into that advice that using both italics and quote marks is OK, though it is not explicitly stated. That could be another discussion though...) Batternut (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'd suggest using quotation marks (normally) to indicate a quotation, while using italics to distinguish the analysis of a quotation. I've always thought the guidance for quotations was murky in some regards, but I see this as a solution that would, at least, be helpful in my own experience as a Wikipedia reader. I disagree with the earlier statement that a mix of quotation marks and italics would be "ugly". In fact, once the intended distinction was understood, it would serve its purpose quite well. Primergrey (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Ok, after waffling back and forth on this for a while, and consulting a somewhat more linguistically able friend, I think I've finally managed to sort it out in my head. I got stuck on the ontology of whether the phrase we're discussing was a quote, a use, or a mention. But this is, of course, a category error: a quote (words taken from another source) is always a quote, so the relevant distinction is only whether we use the quote or mention the quote.
  And in properly encyclopedic language, we effectively always mention the quote. In a different context (newswriting, say) we might appropriately write [The unpopular politician] was therefore hoist on his own petard, so to speak., but we would never here write along the lines of Methinks [the female pop star] protests too much in this regard. WORDSASWORDS (and common sense) doesn't mandate italics, only provide them as the way to do it when a use—mention distinction is necessary, and since our use of the phrase is always a mention, we never need to make that distinction.
  Thus a quote is a quote and should have quotation marks, and doesn't need italics to distinguish our mentions of it from our non-existent uses of it.
  I'm sure we'll run into some exception somewhere, but for the wast majority of cases, including specifically in the first sentence of the lead of our articles about quotes, this should cover it. Which, I believe, is what Curly Turkey had previously said with far more brevity. :) --Xover (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Concur completely with Curly Turkey; just use quotation marks for something like "’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves / Did gyre and gimble in the wabe"; italics would be redundant. For a coinage of term now used by other people, that's about the word(s), so use italics: seredipity. When it's about the meaning, origin, or use a term in the quote, same thing: The common hypothesis is that Carroll derived the nonce word mimsy from a portmanteau of miserable and flimsy. It kind of boggles the mind that this even turned into any kind of dispute. The guidelines are not in conflict, people are just confusing themselves into thinking that if we know who said/wrote something first then that makes it a quotation even when others are using it. Not true. If you quote me saying "In my opinion, some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em", then that's how it's written (surely with a note that I'm ripping off Shakespeare). It's not written "In my opinion, 'some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em'", which is you doing original research to show me explicitly quoting someone else, when I might have thought the phrase came out of my own head. Wikipedia does not read minds or impute motives. The two largest sources of stock phrases in the English language are Shakespeare and the King James Bible; if we put quotation marks around every phrase from these works, almost every page here would have quoted things in it and no one would know why they had quotes around them. Something like Thy name is is only a quote in the context of the original material; in the snowclone context, it's words-as-words. Remember that almost every modern term of art has a known origin. When we write about the meaning of hypervisor, we use italics because we're talking about it as a term. We do not use quotation marks, unless quoting something – more than the word – directly from a cited source: "Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization (RHEV) is a commercial implementation of the KVM Type-1 hypervisor."[1] We do occasionally use quotation marks for words-as-words cases, but only as an alternative to italics in material already dense with italics used for another purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Attempted summary (semi-arbitrary break)

Ok, based on all the above, the prevailing opinion seems to boil down to "Just use quote marks" with a side helping of "You're overthinking this". EEng doesn't express an opinion, but adds a few other interesting examples, and Sangdeboeuf argues for italics, but everyone else that has participated lands on quote marks. Several participants also mention cases where italics might be appropriate, and, as Batternut has pointed out, when discussing the use—mention distinction we're properly in philosophical territory, and most of the discussion above has been in the abstract. I will therefore try to make it concrete in order to test whether the apparent consensus above holds. First, for reference, a pruned excerpt from the article as it stands right now; and attempted applications of the discussion above. Instances in green are, I believe, uncontroversial; the ones in maroon are the ones (again, AIUI) we're trying to settle (my emendations are blue).

Current formatting (pre-discussion, but reflects "Quote marks only when directly quoting Shakespeare" version)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks is a line from the c. 1600 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. […] The phrase is used in everyday speech to indicate doubt in someone's sincerity. A common misquotation places methinks first, as in methinks the lady doth protest too much. […]

Hamlet then turns to his mother and asks her, "Madam, how like you this play?", to which she replies ironically "The lady doth protest too much, methinks", meaning that the Player Queen's protestations of love and fidelity are too excessive to be believed. The quotation comes from the Second Quarto edition of the play. Later versions contain the simpler line, "The lady protests too much, methinks". […]

As in the play, it is commonly used to imply that someone who denies something very strongly is hiding the truth. It is is often shortened to (X) protest(s) too much, or misquoted with methinks at the beginning, as in methinks the lady doth protest too much.

The quotation's meaning has changed somewhat since it was first written: whereas in modern parlance protest in this context often means a denial, in Shakespeare's time to protest meant "to make protestation or solemn affirmation" [quoth OED].

"Just use quote marks, you dummy!" version

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is a line from the c. 1600 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. […] The phrase is used in everyday speech to indicate doubt in someone's sincerity. A common misquotation places methinks first, as in "methinks the lady doth protest too much". […]

Hamlet then turns to his mother and asks her, "Madam, how like you this play?", to which she replies ironically "The lady doth protest too much, methinks", meaning that the Player Queen's protestations of love and fidelity are too excessive to be believed. The quotation comes from the Second Quarto edition of the play. Later versions contain the simpler line, "The lady protests too much, methinks". […]

As in the play, it is commonly used to imply that someone who denies something very strongly is hiding the truth. It is is often shortened to "(X) protest(s) too much", or misquoted with methinks at the beginning, as in "methinks the lady doth protest too much". [this could go either way, depending on whether you intend it to (mis)quote Shakespeare or illustrate a phrasal template that happens to be derived from Shakespeare]

The quotation's meaning has changed somewhat since it was first written: whereas in modern parlance protest in this context often means a denial, in Shakespeare's time to protest meant "to make protestation or solemn affirmation" [quoth OED].

So… Could Batternut, Sangdeboeuf, Curly Turkey, David Eppstein, EEng, SMcCandlish, and Primergrey please indicate whether one or the other of these examples are in line with their position. Or if not, what changes should be made relative to it to be in line with their position. Absent indications to the contrary, I'll assert the latter version (the "Just use quote marks, you dummy!" version) as reflecting a consensus of the discussion above.

PS. Sangdeboeuf: I'm assuming you favor the former version (what is currently in the article in mainspace), so you do not need to explicitly indicate this again unless you wish to add or correct something.

PPS. If indications are that I've correctly assessed the above debate, I propose that we then move any further discussions on details, or on implementing the consensus, back to the article's talk page. No need to bug WT:MOS once we're back to discussing a single article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xover (talk • contribs) 08:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• The "Just use quote marks..." version, as above, suits me. Batternut (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• +1 "Just use quote marks" Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Put me with the 1st option, as I really feel it provides a useful distinction and thereby (slightly) more information. Primergrey (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

American usage and periods and commas associated with close quotation marks

WP:DNFT --Jayron32 13:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
American English usage has long called for commas and periods to always be placed inside a closed quotation mark, regardless of whether the quotation mark is part of the quoted material. Other punctuation depends on whether it is or is not part of the quoted material. British usage treats all punctuation the same for this purpose. Apparently, Wikipedia adopts British usage for periods and commas, and this is simply wrong for U.S. English. I have tried to correct this incorrect usage on several occasions, and I have received a message that I am wrong. I am not the one who is wrong. It it is not up to an outlet like Wikipedia to change standard usage in American usage. This is not your role. I protest, and ask that you correct your mistaken manual of style. I will no longer allow students to cite Wikipedia for any purpose. The language is already corrupted enough without your assistance. And I'm not even an English teacher, just a teacher who cares about the language. Thanks. John Allison — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.104.248 (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Straight out of the FAQ at the top of the page: This system is preferred because Wikipedia, as an international and electronic encyclopedia, has specific needs better addressed by logical quotation than by the other styles, despite them being more frequent in externally published style guides. These include the distinct typesetters' style (often called American though not limited to the US), and the various British/Commonwealth styles, which are superficially similar to logical quotation but have some characteristics of typesetters' style. Logical quotation is more in keeping with the principle of minimal change to quotations, and is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing, than the alternatives. Logical quotation was adopted in 2005, and has been the subject of perennial debate. --Izno (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC) The way John Allison closes comes off as stright-up trolling—not allowing students to quote Wikipedia because of its established punctuation style? Pull the other one. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC) We should just ignore this, as obvious trolling. For a claimed teacher his knowledge of the language could do with some improving. MapReader (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC) As a former teacher myself, I am quite pleased that he is now telling his students not to cite WP. Our articles should be seen as being basic “introductions” to the topics they cover... but they are works in progress and are not always reliable. In other words, our articles should never be cited in academic papers... instead, students should use WP as a preliminary (background) resource. Ideally, students should be told to read our articles to get an overview of the topic... but to then read the sources we cite, and in turn cite those sources in their work. Blueboar (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Another golden opportunity to shamelessly promote WP:MISSSNODGRASS. EEng 12:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Agreed this is trolling; any post which contains the phrase "I will no longer allow students to use Wikipedia" is a post not worth giving the time of day. Closing. --Jayron32 13:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Y'all better watch your mouths. Teaches be packin' now. EEng 14:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

ROTFLOL

Ya'll shoulda never collapsed this! (he says as he dodges bullets)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Productions that used to be produced on a regular basis but have now stopped?

Specifically A Prairie Home Companion. "Is a formerly weekly"? "Is a weekly"? Drop the "weekly" entirely? - Immigrant laborer (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Something like "is a program that aired weekly" seems in keeping with MOS:TENSE (it's still a program, but it's no longer airing weekly, or no longer producing new weekly segments). DMacks (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the problem. It isn't "a program that used to air weekly". It is a "former program that always aired weekly". The program isn't aired at all anymore. Following Keillor's firing from APM as producer, the program was ended and replaced with Live From Here. That show still airs weekly. Simply put, it was just awkward wording for "was". The show is done. (note: I've oversimplified; there's a bit more to it than that, but the grammar issue has been fixed.)--Jayron32 20:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair warning: It has passed through the current wording repeatedly already and been reverted. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

To me, this just highlights the sillyness of saying that a program that is no longer in production "is" anything. --Khajidha (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The use of the present tense for shows which are not in production makes total sense if they are still airing somewhere (such as cable, a network which specializes in airing old shows, streaming, or on DVD).SciGal (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It is virtually impossible to know for sure if something is airing or not. ESPECIALLY given streaming services. Using past tense for shows no longer produced makes much more sense to me, as the halt in production is much more easily verified. --Khajidha (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I also don't understand how saying a cancelled show (say, I Love Lucy) "is" because reruns are still showing is any different than saying that a deceased actor from said show (say, Lucille Ball) "is" for the same reasons. Neither Ball nor the show exists anymore. --Khajidha (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

But the show does exist. And when writing about the show in the present tense, it is perfectly fine to write that it stars Lucille Ball. However, if writing about Lucille Ball, she starred in the show. Because, while the show exists, she no longer does. Seems to me, anyway. Primergrey (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess I just look at is as "the show" is the active production, reruns are no more "the show" to me than old home movies of my dead relatives are them. --Khajidha (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It also may have something to do with how I experience fiction. To me, any book I read, movie I watch, etc. isn't something going on as I enjoy it, it is a record of something that has already happened that I am reviewing. "Literary present" tense for reviews just doesn't make sense to me. --Khajidha (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it can sometimes produce some challenging awkwardness to write around, and if the guideline was to write in past tense I'd be fine with that, too. But it's undoubtedly, to me anyway, a good thing to pick one convention or the and go with it. Primergrey (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Indefinite articles and/or vowel-consonant harmony

I just made this edit to correct an earlier edit with what I believe to be a style error, as described in the edit summary there. I looked for guidance re vowel-consonant harmony in the MOS before making the edit and did not find any. It seems to me that the MOS ought to include some guidance on this. This case was {{a ? an}} United States Army (probably following on an earlier edit inserting of United States for clarity). Another case I've seen where guidance would be useful is {{a ? an}} historic (WP:ENGVAR dependent, I think). There may be more cases. I'm neither a grammarian nor a MOS guru, so I won't propose specifics and will leave it for possible discussion by regular editors here. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: While the general question of using an vs. a is a style issue, the lead of the MoS says "Any new content added to the body of this page should directly address a style issue that has occurred in a significant number of instances." Every current use of an united is a direct quote. You should be fine using your own knowledge of the English language and links to Article_(grammar)#Indefinite_article when contested; the MoS is mainly for addressing widely contested issues.

WP:ENGVAR might raise an issue. I seem to remember recently reading some guidance on this in the MoS; I will have to find it again. My general understanding is that British English is allowed to use an historic because of British pronunciation, but American English always uses a historic. And there are of course other words with different rules. However, I suspect that those handling articles in British English already know the differences, or are amenable to correction if they do not. --E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 13:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

An historic was recently debated Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 201#An historic, without any formal conclusion. It did not boil down to British or American. Applying that discussion to a/an United ... would be difficult anyway. I'd say a united ..., FWIW. Batternut (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

That discussion was what I saw. I didn't really think the discussions applied to a united, because that example has a consistent pronunciation, and most cases do, which is why I mentioned it's not worth adding to the MoS. --E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 15:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

There's no parallel to an historic—which is not an ENGVAR issue anyways—as there is no ENGVAR in which "united" is pronounced /uˈnaɪtɪd/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curly Turkey (talk • contribs)

Note that this American often uses "an historic" in speech, but I don't try to justify it or expect others to use it. --Khajidha (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The "author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named" rationale

Regarding this edit to the guideline by Anythingyouwant in January of this year and this edit by Politrukki to WP:Plagiarism, are we allowing quotes without in-text attribution now? WP:Plagiarism still states, "In addition to an inline citation, in-text attribution is usually required when quoting or closely paraphrasing source material." And it is still recommended in its "Avoiding plagiarism" section. SlimVirgin, PBS, you've both edited WP:Plagiarism, as have I. Any thoughts? I know that Moonriddengirl, mainly known for her handling of copyright and plagiarism issues, usually isn't on Wikipedia these days. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

There was a discussion around that time at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 199#Inline quotations accompanied by inline attribution. It seems there's a push to loosen these requirements up—for the worse, in my opinion. I expect soon we'll have article after article of ugly WP:QUOTEFARMs, with people arguing that the guidelines say "should", not "must"! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not keen on loosening this. I know there are experienced editors who don't attribute quotations; there are FA writers who don't. It's much easier not to. But it leaves articles looking a bit unfinished. I admit that I've failed to do it a few times recently, because I see so many others do the same, but I think the MoS should stay firm and require attribution. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I obviously missed that discussion. This talk page is on my watchlist, but I don't pay attention to everything that goes on at it. You have a good point about quote farms. Another issue is WP:SCAREQUOTES. Also, when a sentence has two or more references, or one or more references are without a URL, it may not be easy to see who made the quote. In some cases, the author might be quoting someone else. I recently advised a new editor on not using quotes without making it clear who the quotes are from. But I see that the discussion you pointed to was extensive. Should WP:Plagiarism be tweaked any further in this regard? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't need two cites for such confusion—books quote other sources, or have multiple authors. A citation is in no way an adequate substitution for inline attribution. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about when a sentence uses a quote without in-text attribution, and the sentence has more than just one reference at the end of it. The additional references may be there to support something else in the sentence. In those cases, unless there is a footnote letting me know who made the quote, I have to check all of the sources for that sentence. WP:INTEGRITY (ref integrity) addresses this type of thing. But even when there's just one source, I might have to check the source and see who made the quote because the sentence is lacking in-text attribution. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly my point. So many editors say that it's obvious who the quoted person is because "Look at the citation!" But the quoted person may not be the author of the source, and it should never be assumed it is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Citations are for verifiability, not clarification. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, they are for both. People shouldn't be adding quotes with making it clear who made them; this is something I used to think differently on. I used to be fine with it, but not anymore. And when we don't know who made the quote, we check the source for clarification, or we try to if it's accessible. If there's no clarity on the matter when checking the source, the line might then be marked with Template:Failed verification or removed altogether. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, by "Citations are for verifiability, not clarification.", it seems you are agreeing that a citation is not a substitute for in-text attribution when it comes to quotes? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I obviously reviewed the archived discussion before making my edit. While I don't like the outcome of the discussion, I just felt I have to fix an inconsistency. Politrukki (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that all quotes should be attributed. I strongly object to any change away from this policy unless a RfC shows that the wider Wikipedia community supports looseing the guidelines. LK (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I would fully endorse using in-text attribution with all quotes. I just don't see how we can say something in WP:Plagiarism if that particular something is not true. Politrukki (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I think what Lawrencekhoo is trying to say is that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." (from WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). If it seems likely that the wider consensus of Wikipedia has a different opinion than the few editors discussing the phrasing on the talk page (as it is less of a style issue, and more of a verifibiality/NPOV issue) then we should have an RfC. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 22:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@E to the Pi times i: Well, then the question is, is the text The Manual of Style requires in-text attribution when quoting a full sentence or more. included in WP:Plagiarism because it was derived from MOS or was it because of a wider consensus (in the form of policy, guideline, or wider discussion)? If it is the latter, we may still be able to protect the idea behind the text while making improvements – like removing the reference to MOS or expanding the body – without an RFC. Politrukki (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Politrukki: I will concede that it was included in WP:PLAGIARISM because it was derived from the original MoS wording. However, I am concerned that an issue which was discussed only by 2-4 people in the MoS talk can bleed out into other areas. Its presence in other policy/guideline pages is an indication that it is not solely a style issue, which the MoS is meant to handle, but both a WP:PLAGIARISM issue and a NPOV issue, which means it should have been more widely advertised as a discussion. ::::I think an edit to WP:PLAGIARISM would be warranted if the status quo MoS phrasing stays. But I don't think a wholesale deletion of the reference to MoS is warranted: the MoS still talks about quotes and attribution, it just advises something different now. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 13:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Commas after a year mainly at beginning of sentence

Hi. I'd like to get from feedback from some "grammar experts" out there about this. 137.187.232.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been on a rampage removing commas from years, mainly at the beginning of sentences, citing Comma#In dates. For example [2]. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Commas shows an example of "He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline...", but this is a different case. I've seen websites say we don't need a comma after a month, year combo such as "They were married in January 2011 in Las Vegas." This sounds right in my head, but at the beginning of sentence it seems to have a different tone. "In January 2011, they were married in Las Vegas." or "In January 2011 they were married in Las Vegas." To me the former sounds better. Even more so "In 2011, they were married in Las Vegas." vs "In 2011 they were married in Las Vegas." But we can't go by sound, so does anyone have any sources of what to do in case like this, especially usage at the beginning of a sentence, and perhaps add it to the MoS? We may also consider adding an example for British date format, as I believe they never use a comma after a full date such as in, "Gerrard made his Liverpool first-team debut on 29 November 1998 in a Premier League match against Blackburn Rovers."? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

In the sentence "In January 2011, they were married in Las Vegas", In January 2011 is an introductory clause. Introductory clauses should always be offset from the main clause by a comma. This is not a Wikipedia style guideline, this is basic English grammar. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/commas-after-introductory-clauses/ General Ization ^Talk 20:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

^^^ What they said. - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, bullshit. In fact, what the page General I. linked says is Although it is not strictly required, it is considered good style to follow introductory dependent clauses containing dates with a comma. Translation: The comma's not a grammatical requirement after all, but if you're not a very good writer and can't make an intelligent decision for yourself, you're safer including it. EEng 20:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

^ Maybe it sounded ruder through writing, but I don't think using a comma for the introductory clause constitutes "not being a very good writer" or "not making an intelligent decision". It may very well not be a "grammatical requirement" but there's no denying the flow sounds much better with the comma. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that using a comma for the introductory clause constitutes "not being a very good writer" or "not making an intelligent decision". I said that those who aren't good writers, and (thus) are unable to make an intelligent decision on their own, are safer including the comma. I'm sorry, but any blanket statement that "there's no denying the flow sounds much better with the comma", without seeing the rest of the sentence, is an immediate self-indictment. Next to the dash – which is essentially impossible to use ungrammatically – the comma is the most flexible of the punctuation marks. There are a handful of places where it's a blunder to include or omit them, but elsewhere their use is guided by pacing and rhythm, not rigid rules. English is not a programming language. EEng 21:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course you don't agree, you're obviously unaware that... Oh, wait, you said, "Fair enough." Okay then. EEng 21:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Calling "In 1776" an introductory clause, as the linked "grammarly blog" appears to do, is somewhat unusual. The Chicago Manual of Style distinguishes between dependent clauses and "introductory words and phrases". The 16th edition has: "An introductory adverbial phrase is often set off by a comma but need not be unless misreading is likely. Shorter adverbial phrases are less likely to merit a comma than a longer one. --Boson (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the lack of a comma following the date in "Gerrard made his Liverpool first-team debut on 29 November 1998 in a Premier League match against Blackburn Rovers." has anything to do with a simple rule that a full date is not followed by a comma. It is a stylistic choice that depends on how integrated the elements of the sentence are intended to be. If the information being conveyed is the date when Gerrard made his debut, and the match is a piece of supplementary information of minor importance, then the date should be followed by a comma. Mary Norris, a former copy editor at The New Yorker discusses similar issues in some detail in Between You & Me: Confessions of a Comma Queen, in the context of The New Yorker's house style of "close" punctuation (i.e. using more commas than others), in a section that starts "The New Yorker practices a 'close' style of punctuation. We separate introductory clauses with a comma [except ...] ...". As she writes, commas are used to mark "a thoughtful subordination of information". --Boson (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Very good. In summary: good judgment, not rigid rules. EEng 03:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Both styles are correct, and because of that the IP shouldn't be systematically changing the established style (à la WP:RETAIN, etc). You're totally within your rights to revert per WP:BRD. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a RETAIN issue because it's not about national styles of English or technical formats (e.g. date formats). But it's stupid and annoying to run around making an arbitrary stylistic change like this all over the place, so the conclusion is the same. EEng 05:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say it was WP:RETAIN—I said "à la WP:RETAIN, etc". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

OK then, I don't think we should apply any principle a la RETAIN other than where actual RETAIN applies. EEng 07:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Then you are for endless bickering over nothing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm resisting instruction creep. EEng 09:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to elevate WP:RETAIN so that it applies to any condition where there are multiple acceptable ways of doing something, not just for national varieties of English.  Stepho  talk  06:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You want to forbid changing anything not flat-out wrong? EEng 07:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:RETAIN doesn't forbid any such thing—it forbids arbitrarily changing established consistent formats against consensus, to avoid stupid, pointless, endless arguments. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Something that apparently embarrasses Curly Turkey [3]

You're in top form tonight. We're not talking about what RETAIN currently says, but rather what Stepho-wrs proposes i.e. to elevate WP:RETAIN so that it applies to any condition where there are multiple acceptable ways of doing something. That says, flat out, that once someone writes something "acceptable", that can't be changed without our most cherished ritual, consensus. Thus if an article says "attained a higher altitude", I couldn't change that to "went higher", because they're both acceptable. EEng 09:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC) That's bullshit, but "You're in top form tonight" shows you're out for a scrap, not a discussion, so fuck this train of "thought". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC) You're indeed in top form. EEng 15:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs: I 100% support the spirit behind rewording "WP:RETAIN so that it applies to any condition where there are multiple acceptable ways of doing something"—nobody benefits from warring over formatting changes. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Curly, thank you for your encouragement. EENG, you know that we waste a lot of time with editors tossing backwards and forwards between two perfectly acceptable forms. Something similar to RETAIN working across broader subjects would minimise this time wasting. I've seen your comments across many subjects moaning about wasting time, so I am not sure why you would be against this. Naturally we would word it to avoid using it as the proverbial blunt instrument against any and all change. There would also be plenty of cases where editors agree to change the form (ie consensus). There will likely also be cases where somebody makes a change and nobody cares enough to challenge it. But it's most likely use would be to stop cases like the current one where an editor decides the world must obey his, and only his, choices. Of course it's really just a way of saying 'respect your fellow editors'. Those 3 words go a long way to having useful discussions instead of backstreet brawls.  Stepho  talk  11:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• There is a very simple solution to this, and similar situations... DON’T EDIT WAR over style choices. If you prefer a specific style choice, it is perfectly OK to edit an article accordingly... BUT, if reverted - STOP. Accept the revert, and move on. Blueboar (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. In fact, don't edit war over anything (though of course all but the saints among us do slip now and then). And we don't need any new rules for that. EEng 15:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion notice: Observe MOS:FONTSIZE in infobox templates

You may be interested in the proposal/discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Observe MOS:FONTSIZE in infobox templates. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)