Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Survey: Xsign, re-add removed ")", support B
Line 188: Line 188:
===Survey===
===Survey===
*'''Oppose both A and B'''. The correct answer is: it depends. If we have evidence that the subject prefers one usage or the other, we should follow that. The two given choices A and B are insufficient, and we should not start making rules for things that would normally fall under editorial judgement per [[WP:CREEP]]. So formulating this RFC as a binary choice between which of two new rules we should impose was a bad choice. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 01:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose both A and B'''. The correct answer is: it depends. If we have evidence that the subject prefers one usage or the other, we should follow that. The two given choices A and B are insufficient, and we should not start making rules for things that would normally fall under editorial judgement per [[WP:CREEP]]. So formulating this RFC as a binary choice between which of two new rules we should impose was a bad choice. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 01:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support A, B or C'''. It is standard practice in the library and archive world to index names by the particle if the name is not native to the country from which the individual comes and without it if it is. So, in this case, as she's American it would be A, but if she was French it would be B. ''However'', this would only apply if it was her birth name. Given it's her married name and her husband, as a Frenchman, would be indexed without the particle, it's a less cut and dried case. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 09:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC
*'''Support A, B or C'''. It is standard practice in the library and archive world to index names by the particle if the name is not native to the country from which the individual comes and without it if it is. So, in this case, as she's American it would be A, but if she was French it would be B. ''However'', this would only apply if it was her birth name. Given it's her married name and her husband, as a Frenchman, would be indexed without the particle, it's a less cut and dried case. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 09:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support B'''. Lesseps, Luann de. Since her name is a French name that she still uses post-divorce, given to her by marriage from a French nobleman, Count Alexandre de Lesseps, and the traditional cultural usage as well as historical indexing of the name is to sort by the surname not the particle, I think one would conclude that in this case it should be indexed under Lesseps. I see no reason to index them differently because of nationality.
*'''Support B'''. Lesseps, Luann de. Since her name is a French name that she still uses post-divorce, given to her by marriage from a French nobleman, Count Alexandre de Lesseps, and the traditional cultural usage as well as historical indexing of the name is to sort by the surname not the particle, I think one would conclude that in this case it should be indexed under Lesseps. I see no reason to index them differently because of nationality. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:AnAudLife|AnAudLife]] ([[User talk:AnAudLife#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AnAudLife|contribs]]) 17:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
*'''Support B'''. The sorting order of names should depend solely on the name, not on any other factor that has nothing to do with the name itself. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 15:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


===Threaded Discussion===
===Threaded Discussion===

Revision as of 15:59, 17 September 2019

WikiProject iconManual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
Note icon
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate.
Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Note icon
For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Style discussions elsewhere

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

Current

(newest on top)

Concluded

Extended content

Contradictory MOS guidance for using crore, etc

MOS:NUMERAL seems to essentially say, We're not telling you not to use lakh and crore, but don't use lakh and crore.. On the other hand, MOS:INDIA#Basic India conventions says to go ahead and use lakh and crore, but give the equivalent standard number alongside (which isn't generally done). These two sections seem to contradict each other, so I thought I'd bring this up and see if anyone had suggestions for how to reconcile this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that lakh and crore are not understood by most of the English-speaking world, or at least not by most of the English-speaking world outside of India. For other ENGVAR things like spelling and word choice, there's not usually much intelligibility issue, so that's all fine. In this case, a stronger suggestion to not use lakh and crore, or at least to be sure to also show numbers that the rest of the world would understand, makes the most sense. But I haven't looked at the wording; that's just my opinion of a thought to approach it with. Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even the most discouraging MOS pages I found allow the terms when "contextually important" as they often are (sources and other editors use the terms constantly). All MOS pages I looked at recommend linking first instances the terms for those who don't understand them. As I noted in a Talk:India thread some time ago, my print Encylopædia Britannica uses those terms without any explanation. IOW, if you're interested in India, you should understand those terms. What you're definitely not supposed to do is adopt the digit separators peculiar to the Indian system (99,99,99,999), which indicate lakhs and crores. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To me, "contextually important" for crore means that the article is actually talking about the crore as an entity in its own right, probably in the context of number systems in general. This is a pretty standard exception for most kinds of proscriptions in the MOS; conversion from crores to millions is trivial and shouldn't depend on what was used in a source. What EB did is kind of irrelevant. People who happen upon an India-related article shouldn't be expected to know what crores and lakhs are. But the main point is that we have contradictory guidance in two places in the MOS. I don't know the whole history or what should have precedence, or all the various discussions that have happened up to this point. I started this thread to try to get this sorted out, and because some other people probably have a better handle on that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The recent RFC is here. --Izno (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mnmh, yeah. Well, MOS, like all rules, is usually more supposed to codify common practice than didactically prescribe stuff. I guess common practice by Indian editors using Indian sources in articles pertaining to India is to use the Indian numbering system a lot (not always, I guess). So OK. If you're looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles, you're specifically looking for guidance on articles related to India. For those, it says you "may" (not "must" or even "should") use the Indian numbering system. That seems sensible.
But then, the main MOS says that this is discouraged in Wikipedia articles by WP:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality. And it is! But there are lot of contradictory things that are discouraged here. If an editor, reading the main MOS (and perhaps not even being aware of what WP:INDIA says, or anyway preferring the main MOS), wants to not use the Indian numbering system, that is entirely fine, and no problem. If another editor, reading WP:INDIA (and perhaps not even being aware of what the main MOS says, or anyway preferring WP:INDIA) wants to use the Indian numbering system, that also is entirely fine.
And WP:ENGVAR does lead off with "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of the language over any other". It then goes on to talk about spelling and date formats and not specifically about milliards and crore and so forth. But then neither does it specify that the Indian numbering system is not included. And lists of examples are not considered to be intended to be exhaustive unless so stated, I think.
And that's the situation that we have now. I'm not seeing a huge problem. Unless there starts to be a conflict or something. I wouldn't worry about it too much.
This could be expressed better. It probably should say "this is discouraged in Wikipedia articles by WP:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality, but encouraged by common practice, and not mentioned at all by WP:ENGVAR, so do what you think best, and give others that same courtesy". Or something. But it's not worth the heavy lifting to enact this language, at least for me. Herostratus (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, looking at the above-mentioned RfC, I see that my comment re the Encyclopædia Britannica was made there, not at Talk:India, in case someone actually went searching for it at the latter spot and couldn't find it. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran across Mahanagar Gas which needs some cleanup relative to use of lakh. Is there an appropriate tag? MB 23:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sometimes Wikipedia has ambiguity and mixed practices as its chosen norm, and this is one of those cases. I think the mixed use is fine and that articles on Indian topics are better for using the standard terms in the source literature and culture. If anyone proposed another guideline discussion on the topic then I would participate. Blue Rasberry (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CONLEVEL, MOS:NUM (which contains MOS:NUMERAL) supersedes MOS:INDIA. However, since MOS:NUM isn't "banning" krore and lakh, the smart thing to do is to merge these quasi-conflicting sections so they agree: Generally avoid using those numeric system unless it's important in the context; but if you do use them, then provide standard Western numbers intelligible to most of the readers of en.WP. — AReaderOutThataway t/c 15:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ENGVAR is one thing (and believe it or not, I once published (1999) a hefty AE-BE dictinary), but the language of Wikipedia as I understand it, is supposed to be fairly easily understood by most readers whether native English users or not. We are not supposed to be confronting them with guessing games that force them to leave the page unnecessarily to look up what is meant. This is the English Wikipedia and AFAIK, it's not the 'Indian Wikipedia in English' - yet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Kudpung. The use of crore, lakh and the "peculiar" comma-separations impedes access for the majority of our readers and adds nothing except in articles specifically concerning those units and formats. - Sitush (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Native American Name Controversy

Has there been a resolution on WP of the Native American name controversy? There are some editors who use, or insist on using, the word Indian. This word is considered pejorative or racist by some. It is also inexact in an internationally available site or publication, as it refers to persons of the sub continent. The article Indian Massacre of 1622 is misleading as the title infers that Indians were massacred, the event is popularly known as the Jamestown Massacre or Jamestown Massacre of 1622,not the Indian massacre. I've seen it referred to as the Powhatan massacre.

I have changed the word Indian to Native American and "Indian" only to have the change reverted by an editor, different pages. I have tried to bring the issue to discussion on talk pages, but either no response, or an angry response. Is a consensus possible? It would eliminate edit warring and cool things down. The US Government has opted for the term Native American. Should not WP follow the lead of the government?Oldperson (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldperson: This is several issues at once. The central matter might be ripe for an RfC by now. I would suggest that WP:VPPOL is the best venue for that. Read WP:RFC carefully. Advocating for one side or the other when drafting an RfC will get it labeled non-neutral and possibly administratively closed as an invalid RfC. Opinions will be divided on it; even some Native Americans prefer the term "Indian[s]", so it's not a cut-and-dry matter (though the potential for confusion is higher on WP that it would be in some other contexts).

Whether a particular page should move is a WP:RM matter. In this case, you're making a WP:COMMONNAME argument as well as a WP:PRECISE one, so it might turn out to be a pretty routine move).

Finally, WP doesn't care what some government's "official" position on usage is (see WP:OFFICIALNAME, and notice that we have our own WP:Manual of Style rather than follow third-party ones like the US Government Publishing Office Style Manual). We care about the dominant usage in independent, English-language, contemporary reliable sources.
 — AReaderOutThataway t/c

@AReaderOutThataway:Thanks so very much for your clear and succinct response.It took some research but I think that I have done the job. See the template Talk:Native American name controversy I hope that does it. There shouldn't be a controversy on WP, as it is a source for the public at large and especially. School children, what they see here they carry with them, be it myth, fact, propagana or AGF disinformation.Oldperson (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just responded over at Talk:Native American name controversy and will repeat it here: Usage is generational and, to a lesser extent, regional. And the way folks talk in-group is rarely going to be the same as the voice that is appropriate for article space on the 'pedia. Urban Indians, descendants in academia, disconnected vs connected descendants, those on-reserve, on one coast or another, on the Plains, etc etc etc, all may have a bit of a different take on this. And all may answer with authority, or humility, and varying degrees of accuracy. Because on Wikipedia, you rarely know who you're really talking to, unless you have the background to already know the answer. When in doubt, you can come over to the Indigenous wikiproject talk page and ask for input. But, in brief,

  • "Indian" is not racist if, for instance, it is the name of an established organization run by Native Americans (and there is zero doubt they are actually Native Americans. For more on this, see the work in progress essay: User:Vizjim/The "Indian princess great-grandmother" principle), or if it's part of the self-identification of someone who is clearly Native American. Obviously, if someone is intending it as a perjorative, don't use it. But there is zero need to go around changing it in pages unless it was clearly intended as part of a slur or attack. However, "Red Indian", like Redskin, is a pejorative and should not be used. "Amerindian" or "Amerind", while primarily found in literature from the 1970s, is no longer used and seen to be... kind of annoying.
  • Use people's actual Nation/Tribe - this is best. The usual formula used in the Native press is Name of person (Nation). For example: Kim TallBear (Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate), or Chuck Hoskin, Jr. (Cherokee Nation).
  • Native American or Native is probably the most common nowadays, especially among younger people, running neck and neck with,
  • Indigenous, though Indigenous is not specific to the Americas. It can be coupled with a more specific term such as "Indigenous Australian" or "Indigenous Canadian". But on it's own it's too broad if you're only referring to Native Americans in the United States and/or
  • FNIM people. FNIM is an accepted umbrella, but more specific naming is good when possible. See those articles for more specifics. And, again, feel free to ping the wikiproject. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)::@CorbieVreccan:Thank you. Exactly what I was looking for. Issue resolved on my partOldperson (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally concur on using the actual nation/tribe name, and Native American or Indigenous [Where ever]ian otherwise. "Indian" (racist or not) is ambiguous. FNIM is a Canadianism no one else recognizes, though it might be okay on second+ use, in an article about Canadians, after being given in full form (e.g., "...First Nations, Inuit, and Métis (FNIM) of Canada ...").  — AReaderOutThataway t/c 20:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can not remember where I read it (so I can’t say it was an RS) but one source used the term “initial immigrants”. Certainly not common enough for us to use it... but thought provoking. Blueboar (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vlueboar Initial immigrants is factually accurate, however (as far as we have origin knowledge about our species), every occupant of every part of the globe can be described as I.I. Australian aborigines are I.I, the Ainu of Japan are II, and the various peoples of China are I.I. Teutonic tribes, British Celts, the Basque. To call Native Americans I.I is disquieting, the migration, at least in North America, occurred about the time of the ice age. There is a serious question though about the origins of South American natives (especially from DNA analysis). Given it serious consideration even Native American is misleading, as ambiguos as Indian. Essentially I am a native American, but America is a large continent, North,South and Meso.I don't think that we have yet devised an accurate, unambiguos, non insulting, non pejorative term acceptable to all. Much the same as Black or African American. I know some who react negatively to being referred to as African American, and rightfully so, they aren't from Africa. In fact I have no use at all for hyphenated anything. Am I English-American, German-American, Scotch Irish-American, Irish-American, those are all my ancestral roots, and then there is the"one drop" rule, by which people of color are often stigmatized, and discriminated against. The real question is what underlies the psyche of our species that we so need to categorize, label, disenfranchize, marginalize and discriminate against those that aren't like us.. and that is an across the board critique.Oldperson (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on lead formatting at Kate Dover

There is an RFC about lead formatting, partially concerning MOS:LEAD. Any attention is appreciated. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DONTHIDE.

Surely Navboxes and particularly the template {{Navboxes}} for subgrouping and hiding sub navboxes, all fail the Don't Hide guideline en masse? -- 109.79.169.24 (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes are not generally considered part of the article-proper. --Izno (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm trying to figure out why the rules that apply elsewhere don't seem to apply to Navboxes (which are usually pointless hidden bloat). -- 109.79.169.24 (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comma after "e.g."/"i.e."

Should there be one? Is there a site standard, or should just each article be self-consistent? I've seen both styles used in various articles and I can't find a MOS guideline about it in MOS:PUNCT or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations, and WP:MOS itself (the section-redirect target of MOS:PUNCT) isn't even consistent about it. DMacks (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 215#e.g. --Izno (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


RFC on Sorting of Names with Particles

This issue has to do with the sorting of surnames that are preceded by prefixes known as particles, such as de or von. The rules for sorting of surnames are complex and depend on the customs of the nationality. The question is whether names should be sorted based on the national origin of the surname, or the nationality of the person. An example is Luann de Lesseps, an American socialite and reality TV personality, whose surname is that of her French nobleman husband. Should she be alphabetized as: A. de Lesseps, Luann (nationality of person, American) or B. Lesseps, Luann de (national origin of name, French) or C. It depends. If so, specify what it depends on.

Enter your !votes with a brief statement as A or B. Enter any back-and-forth comments in the Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC) I have updated the RFC to add C. If specifying C, please indicate what it depends on. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Oppose both A and B. The correct answer is: it depends. If we have evidence that the subject prefers one usage or the other, we should follow that. The two given choices A and B are insufficient, and we should not start making rules for things that would normally fall under editorial judgement per WP:CREEP. So formulating this RFC as a binary choice between which of two new rules we should impose was a bad choice. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A, B or C. It is standard practice in the library and archive world to index names by the particle if the name is not native to the country from which the individual comes and without it if it is. So, in this case, as she's American it would be A, but if she was French it would be B. However, this would only apply if it was her birth name. Given it's her married name and her husband, as a Frenchman, would be indexed without the particle, it's a less cut and dried case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support B. Lesseps, Luann de. Since her name is a French name that she still uses post-divorce, given to her by marriage from a French nobleman, Count Alexandre de Lesseps, and the traditional cultural usage as well as historical indexing of the name is to sort by the surname not the particle, I think one would conclude that in this case it should be indexed under Lesseps. I see no reason to index them differently because of nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnAudLife (talk • contribs) 17:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support B. The sorting order of names should depend solely on the name, not on any other factor that has nothing to do with the name itself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded Discussion

  • According to this [2] there was a Proton family in New Jersey in 1880 and Protons lifespan has been decreasing recently ("An unusually short lifespan might indicate that your Proton ancestors lived in harsh conditions"). This [3] suggests there are Protons in far-flung India, Australia and Argentina. So this question about particles has more significance than one might think.
Seriously, we've talked about this recently with no resolution:
At that time I passed on someone's suggestion to start alphabetizing with the first uppercased word (i.e. ignore the particle if it's lowercased). We're certainly not going to countenance rules based on someone's nationality -- can you imagine that Arbcom case? (That's assuming we adopt a rule at all -- not convinced yet of that, as I still haven't seen the dispute on multiple articles called for in WP:NONEEDNORULE.)
Of course, in these days of <ctrl>-F I wonder how much this matters anyway. EEng 01:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MCSTJR states: Whether or not to include the particle in sorting can be up to the individual's personal preference, traditional cultural usage or the customs of one's nationality, and that American, Australian, Canadian, and English names generally sort on the prefix, regardless of capitalization. What is the correct interpretation of these guidelines? For example, all of the most common surnames in Australia in 2007 originated elsewhere. So, would Australian names in this context be names that originated in Australia, are popular in Australia, or names of Australian nationals? If it is all of the above, then wouldn't the customs of one's nationality encompass traditional cultural usage? Furthermore, regarding this case specifically, according to this New York Times article, the subject states that she prefers to be addressed as Mrs. de Lesseps. I wonder whether that qualifies as a personal preference. KyleJoantalk 01:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In WP:MCSTJR it says, “Names with particles or prefixes are a complex field and there are exceptions and inconsistencies.” And then goes on to say, “Whether or not to include the particle in sorting can be up to the individual's personal preference, traditional cultural usage or the customs of one's nationality.” Firstly, we have absolutely no idea how she prefers her name to be alphabetized but we do know that she likes it spoken out loud as “Luann” or Mrs. de Lesseps, which is common, you don’t drop the particle when speaking the name. Secondly, traditional cultural usage is, according to WP:MCSTJR, “Generally, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish names do not include lowercase particles in sorting, but do include uppercase particles.” Example being Ferdinand de Lesseps, the French diplomat, who, according to Merriam Webster’s Manual for Writer’s and Editors should be sorted under Lesseps not under the particle de. *Note, Luann’s ex-husband, whose name she bears, is a direct descendant of the French diplomat Ferdinand de Lesseps. Thirdly, Luann de Lesseps is of French, Canadian and Algonquin ancestry and she was born in America, so that brings us to the sorting by “custom of one’s nationality”. So what is the custom of American sorting? There are so many other American references like International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (page 68 & 69 of publication, but page 40 of PDF) and the Merriam Webster’s reference I cited earlier and many others that also support sorting by the surname and not by the particle in American reference and catalogue. I don’t want to clutter this area up with a massive amount of links but I will if asked or if necessary. Let me also add, that indexing members of a family bearing the same name that all have different nationalities not only sounds absurd but extremely complicated, unnecessarily tedious and would open up a world of problems in other cases, which is maybe why most indexing instructional references prefers sorting by traditional cultural usage. How would one know to look up Luann by the particle and her ex-husband by the surname? In this particular case, Luann is listed and mentioned along with several other socialites on the The Real Housewives of New York page so making this determination is important for alphabetization purposes. Lastly, WP:MCSTJR also states, “American, Australian, Canadian, and English names generally sort on the prefix, regardless of capitalization.” Her name is neither American, Australian, Canadian or English, as we’ve already deciphered that it is indeed a French name. What this seems to boil down to is does Wikipedia want to adhere to American cataloging norms and customs and index as Lesseps, Luann de or under a different set of indexing rules yet to be established? AnAudLife (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

"MOS:CONSISTENCY" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MOS:CONSISTENCY. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -DePiep (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:US and proper names

I would like to clean up the Gulf War article's inconsistent usage of "US" vs. "U.S.". The former is the clear majority, and the article uses e.g. "Ultimately, the US and UK stuck to their position", so "US" should be used consistently. My question is whether proper names should be consistent with this. For example, should we use "U.S. Navy" or "US Navy" alongside "US military"? In particular, today's edit by another user of a photo caption changing "US military" to "U.S. military" [4], as well as "US barracks" [5] and "US troops" [6], should be reverted per the "retain" part of MOS:US. But should the change from "US Navy" to "U.S. Navy" [7] as well as "US Army" [8] also be, for the same reason? Or is there another rule that would prioritize using "U.S." for those?

The Navy itself seems to be not entirely consistent. The home page of https://www.navy.mil/ currently has several instances of both forms, including a mailing address with "US Navy". The https://www.army.mil/ site seems to be more consistent.

There is also inconsistent usage of "US Marine" (five instances including one of "US Marine Corps", plus several of the citations) vs. "U.S. Marine" (two instances including one of "U.S. Marine Corps", plus one reference). The https://www.marines.mil website and Twitter account] seem to use "U.S." consistently.

Here there is mixed usage in the same sentence: "The U.S. Department of Defense reports that US forces suffered 148 battle-related deaths".

What about "the U.S. 3rd Armored Division also fought..."?

--IamNotU (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Proper names" are not immune to our style guidelines in the general case, and in this specific case, I'd say certainly not. Consistency is preferable. --Izno (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:US is clear about in-article consitency (not WikiProject-wide though). When lack of consensus, a first article version periods or not could be decisive. -DePiep (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep, thanks, but the question isn't about which variant to use overall, but whether, in the case of an established use of "US", there is any guideline to favor spelling a proper noun, such as "U.S. Marine Corps", the way they spell it themselves, even if it's not consistent with the rest of an article's established usage. --IamNotU (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got that, nothing to add. -DePiep (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=916200002"