Welcome to the MOS pit[Humor]


    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)

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Capitalization-specific:

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

    Move requests:

    Other discussions:

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Concluded

    Extended content
    This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Concluded.[]
    Capitalization-specific:
    2024
    2023
    2022
    2021

    Discussion at Archimedes § MOS:'S (redux)

     You are invited to join the discussion at Archimedes § MOS:'S. Remsense ‥ 论 21:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Specifically, input would be appreciated regarding the treatment of derivative proper names (e.g. Archimedes' principle) in running text versus the titles of dedicated articles. Thanks! Remsense ‥ 论 07:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, I detest and/or, which the MOS backs me on, but (besides ... instead of the clearer [...] in quotations) I also detest Archimedes's. Can't we just use the Latinate genitive Archimedis? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who does not particularly despise Archimedes's, I would cast my even less ramified ;vote for that. Remsense ‥ 论 05:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Me also. It’s a straightforward grammatical rule that ‘s indicates a possessive singular and ‘ ,following on from an s, indicates a possessive plural. That is clear to both casual and expert readers alike, and the large majority of our readership nowadays wont have any familiarity with the archaic or traditional forms used for a handful of mostly ancient historical figures. MapReader (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite; ‘s indicates a possesive of either a singul or of a plural not ending in s. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The genitive Archimedis is faux Latin in this situation. The correct Latin is la:Cochlea Archimedea (the adjective wikt:Archimedeus = Archimedean). More importantly, the Latin genitive is confusing in English. 173.206.40.108 (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:ELLIPSIS and midline horizontal ellipsis

    MOS:ELLIPSIS says: "Wikipedia's style for an ellipsis is three unspaced dots (...); do not use the precomposed ellipsis character (…) or three dots separated by spaces (. . .)".

    Do this cover only the U+2026 character …, or also the U+22EF midline horizontal ellipsis ⋯ (a.k.a. centered dots), in which case this should be mentioned?

    I'm asking because there was an uncontroversial technical request by Hairy Dude to move 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ (with the midline horizontal ellipsis) to 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... (with an uncentered horizontal ellipsis). I don't know whether using uncentered dots is typographically correct in this context. In examples, Help:Displaying a formula#Larger expressions suggests the use of centered dots in such a case. About this, I've opened a discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Dots / ellipsis in math formulas.

    — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, it would be helpful if any mention of Unicode character beyon ASCII, e.g., U+2026 … HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS, U+22EF ⋯ MIDLINE HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS, used the {{unichar}} template -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It definitely only covers lowered dots, U+2026. The other kinds of ellipsis are used primarily in mathematical formulas and replacing them by individual dots would break the formatting of those formulas. Hairy Dude has stated in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics that the supposed "uncontroversial technical request" (which per that discussion turned out to be controversial and was reversed) was based on a misunderstanding: they incorrectly believed that the dots in the article in question were lowered dots, U+2026, possibly because of technical limitations of their browser. Centered dots are typographically correct for this formula, and uncentered dots are incorrect. (The meaning is still conveyed but the formatting is not good, kind of like writing the name Lefèvre without using the grave accent.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any circumstances apart from mathematical formulas where they might legitimately be used? pburka (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I read that to be Wikipedia's style for an ellipsis is three unspaced dots (...) prohibits all other types of ellipses; the other things after the semicolon appear to be "including but not limited to". The purpose of MoS is consistency.
    The centering can easily be done with {{DISPLAYTITLE:1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + <span style="position:relative;bottom:0.3em">...</span>}}. In fact with this CSS, the dots render more centered on my computer. 173.206.40.108 (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    n-th versus nth

    Is n-th or nth supposed to be used? If you do know, please add it to the dash/hyphen section of the page as that's where people will probably look for it, (idk if a hyphen or en dash is supposed to fall between "n" and "th") and if there is not a standard set for Wikipedia I think that it should be set to be "n-th" with a hyphen to match the OEIS, as n-th is typically referring to a sequence and the OEIS is probably the organization to look to when handling sequences. Apersoma (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The OEIS, great as it is, is not eminently viable as a style guide, since its choices seem to be made toward facilitating plaintext representations. Since we're typically meant to italicise variables, wouldn't nth be correct? Remsense ‥ 论 19:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My preference would actually be nth, as a specific exception to the rule about not using superscripts here, because it extends better to (n+1)st and so on. I think (n+1)st is kind of confusing. --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't think that would be potentially confusing for expressions involving exponentiation? Remsense ‥ 论 20:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. I don't know any solution that can't be confusing. I think the superscripts might be a little better. --Trovatore (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reasonable minds may differ here I think. Given variables are theoretically italicized, I think I prefer the other method as more parsimonious. Remsense ‥ 论 21:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly prefer nth, not n-th. The OEIS choice is not standard elsewhere and appears to be a hack to allow them to continue to use plain-text ASCII formatting and still distinguish the formula part from the text part. Because we do not limit our content to plain-text ASCII we do not need and should not use this hack. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So what do we do with en-plus-first? --Trovatore (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    th, pronounced "n plus wunth". —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Understanding perfectly well orthography need not adhere to phonology when semantics is what matters—is it common to pronounce it "n plus first"? Remsense ‥ 论 21:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you can hear it pronounced that way but I think it is incorrect. We are using the numerical value of 1 in the expression, not using 1 in the positional sense, so it is "one" not "first", and then the suffix "th" applies to the whole expression. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I thought, then. Thank goodness. Remsense ‥ 论 22:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with David about it being incorrect. Both forms are found in the wild, but in my experience "first" is more usual, and I prefer it because it just sounds better. --Trovatore (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Only until you think about it some more. It is a type error. "First" is grammatically ordinal, but the 1 in the subexpression is not mathematically ordinal. The meaning of the expression is ordinal(plus(n,1)), not plus(n,ordinal(1)). There are natural-language ways of combining ordinals (by which I mean positions, not mathematical ordinals): "second best" or "second from last") but the operation they represent is not quite addition. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, I understand what you're saying. But you could make the same argument about twenty-first. In Italian (for example) you'd say ventunesimo, not *ventiprimo, but in English the suffix "agrees", so to speak, with the last numeral in the expression, which I think makes (n+1)-st or however you want to handle hyphen/superscript/etc more natural for English. --Trovatore (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we need any guidance about this in MOS:DASH. We needn't list all the cases where dashes/hyphens aren't used, and I imagine anyone pondering whether to use one would end up at nth, which has an example of correct formatting. pburka (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Change pseudo-namespace

    I feel that it's time to change the paeudo-namespace to "MS:" because the "O" is for "of" and typically abbreviations shouldn't include letters standing for "of". style="color #964b00 Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    See what happens if you click this link, coded [[MS:Laman Utama]]: MS:Laman Utama. Largoplazo (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See, for example, LOC, TOC, and MOU. pburka (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Also, POS and DoS attack. And, in the US, DOJ, DOE, DOD, DOT, and DOL. And G.O.A.T. Largoplazo (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I offer MoS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout § Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2025 fix contradiction with WP:MOSSIS

     You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout § Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2025 fix contradiction with WP:MOSSIS. 173.206.40.108 (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    conciseness & succinctness: efficiency, not size

    Apparently WP:BECONCISE, WP:SUCCINCT redirect to WP:TLDR, a stupid term with bad redirects. One of my professors is on a team editing the world's (maybe formerly) largest science/mathematics book--on abstract algebra--which was 20,000 pages (multi-volume). It was made more efficient (saying more with fewer words) while describing same, so they reduced to maybe 5,000 pages (or in range of 10% to 1/3). Isn't that what conciseness/succintness is, though for most people, still too long to read? Redirects should be to more (less unintellectual) details here (or WP:CONCISE), not a crass Internet meme term mostly used by Millennials, Zoomers who grew up reading few books; there's an article how even freshmen at USA's elite colleges feel they can't read books, because they never got in the habit. I'm not deletionist, but I'd say delete WP:TLDR, because people saying that about one full-length standard (not extended) Twitter/X statement (increasingly common) may not want knowledge.--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 06:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's just an essay, not policy. Gawaon (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, well people are throwing many of these around maybe implying they should be followed, and 'WP' could look official. What about the redirects?--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib)
    If you want to move or delete Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read you'll have to suggest doing so on that page. Success would be more likely without weird comments about people now in their 40s growing up without books. CMD (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want others to read your posts? Then comply with their requests to shorten them. You can't force others to read'em. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah but TLDR is an insult. "I didn't read your whole paper, it was [not succinct enough, not concise enough, too prolix, whatever] might sting but is not an insult and is constructive criticism. "Here's your paper back, TLDR" is just dismissive. Herostratus (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I went ahead and did put in a requested move there. Herostratus (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good; thanks. I don't consider 'TL;DR' an insult, but indeed dismissive, anti-intellectual, and not conducive to discussion: if they won't read what others say, why should anyone read what they say, and why say it at all? It's often a waste of others' time just like many people only replying 'me too' when Eternal September started on Usenet and then early world wide web (WWW) forums--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 18:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    More input wanted at Talk:IMEC regarding the brand's capitalisation

    Hi, I would like some more input at Talk:IMEC § Spelling, regarding whether the name should be capitalised in all-upper-case to comply with MOS:TMRULES point number 3, or capitalised in all-lower-case which is the company's official way of writing their name. That point number 3 says, "as long as this is a style already in widespread use", however an issue here is that there are just as many secondary sources that spell the company name as "imec" as there are sources spelling it "IMEC".

    There just isn't enough watchers of the article to form a proper consensus, so more opinions from the people who know the MoS well would be appreciated! — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Gentilic form of Botswana

    How should the gentilic (adjective and noun) form of the country Botswana be written on Wikipedia articles?

    A: Botswanan (pl. Botswanans) in all cases, without exception
    B: Motswana (pl. Batswana) in all cases, without exception
    C: Motswana in articles with strong national ties to Botswana or South Africa, otherwise Botswanan
    D: Retain whichever word is used first in the article, either Botswanan or Motswana

    ―Howard • 🌽33 12:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I am opening this RfC because I believe a decision here will affect many articles over Wikipedia. Articles are inconsistent with usage, with many using Botswanan and many using Motswana. There was a previous discussion on the matter, but it went for a week without agreement, so I hope by inviting more people we can come to a conclusion. I am inexperienced when it comes to opening RfCs so I apologize if this was malformed or unnecesary. ―Howard • 🌽33 12:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Pinging users from the previous discussion: (Mathglot—Aficionado538—SMcCandlish—David Eppstein—Blueboar) ―Howard • 🌽33 12:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • C: Considering that the Dictionary of South African English lists Motswana but not Botswanan as the gentilic of Botswana and the Historical Dictionary of Botswana (page xiii) uses MoTswana (alternate capitalization), it can be established that common usage within the countries of Botswana and South Africa is Motswana. This word is included in some foreign English dictionaries (OED, CALD) and by the CIA World Factbook, but the OED and CALD do also include Botswanan and two dictionaries (MW, AUH) include Botswanan but not Motswana. Therefore the only resolution, as far as I see it, is to use Motswana as the gentilic in articles with strong national ties to Botswana or South Africa and otherwise using Botswanan. ―Howard • 🌽33 12:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • C or D - Per MOS:TIES - however, mention both in the article text at least once.
      It will be helpful to readers (especially those not from Southern Africa) to explain that people from Botswana are called “Botswanans” externally, but use “Motswana” internally. Once this is explained, the reader will understand whichever usage is used in the rest of the article. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This sounds a bit like consonant mutation in the Welsh language, where an initial "b" might sometimes be written and pronounced as "m". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Should there be a disclaimer similar to Template:Family name hatnote?
      Something like:
      In this article relating to Botswana, the gentilic of Botswana is Motswana.? ―Howard • 🌽33 00:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Most readers won’t know what “gentilic” means. Keep it simple. Blueboar (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Gentilic is the proper word for it, no? Otherwise it would have to be something longer like "the adjectival and demonymic form." ―Howard • 🌽33 00:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you can just link the term "gentillic" to either the Denonym article or a soft redirect to Wiktionary to help readers, would that help? —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 01:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That would be good enough, the same is already done for when patronyms are mentioned (eg. Lenin) ―Howard • 🌽33 22:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • C or D per Blueboar's rationale, it would help readers to explain the above and thus the usage in the article. It may also help to treat the usage similarly to MOS:ENGVAR, retaining it unless there is broad consensus against it, MOS:TIES, etc. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 23:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't we just have this discussion already? Use option A. Use plain English, not terms that are familiar to nearly no one who is not from the area. I would grudgingly accept C as a compromise, but only barely. We need to get away from the idea that, e.g., articles about India are written only for Indians, that articles about Texas are intended specifically for (and to appease the preferences of) Texans, etc. That's not what Wikipedia is about or is for. But C would produce a bit less inconsistency than D (the "do nothing" option), and would impose fewer (than opt. B) instances of unfamiliar terms (arguably non-English at all, using a pluralization scheme that doesn't pertain to this language) on our readers. So C is slightly better than nothing. But A is clearly the proper course of action at this site, even if Motswana/Batswana might make more sense in a blog written in southern Africa with a Batswana audience in mind. This case isn't really any different from Navajo; the fact that their own endonym is Diné, and this term can be found sometimes in English-language sources (mostly specialist or activist literature), does not impose on Wikipedia a requirement to use it broadly (and we have good reasons not to, starting with intelligibility to the average reader). Some occurrence of it will be sensible in an ethnological context, such as the Navajo article itself. But we should not and generally do not use it in more general articles, e.g. on the history of the American Southwest or on the present demographics of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. The same logic applies to Botswanan vs. Motswana/Batswana. What next? Shall we start writing about Ireland as Éire and the Irish as Éireannaigh?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you sure that these terms don't just fall under MOS:ENGVAR? I don't think that the concept of it not being Plain English applies here as readers can presumably infer that "Motswana" or "Batswana" refers to "Botswanan" in articles involving Botswana in some way, regardless if readers are familiar with the term. There are some cases where it is inappropriate, such as in articles that only briefly mention Botswanans (e.g."He later met the Motswana president" where this is the only mention of it in the article) and "Botswanan" should be used instead, but most readers can infer the meaning of it as a denonym of Botswana easily. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 02:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Elaborating on this, I don't think the terms differ significantly from English enough to justify using Botswanan in place of it. While foreign-language terms such as "à la" are generally avoided on Wikipedia per Plain English, descriptive terms that do not differ enough from English such as "jeepney" in Philippine English (see Template:Philippine English) seem to be an exception of this, which I believe these terms fall under; but this is ultimately up to an editor's judgement to decide. The question is whether or not these terms are covered by ENGVAR or not. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 02:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I've yet to see any indication this is an obscure word considering the various sources which I have listed above, which come from both in and outside Botswana. Likewise, Google Scholar hits for Botswanan (5,170 results) are not drastically higher than for Motswana (3,050 results). I want to be clear I do not intend on promoting endonyms above exonyms in all cases. But what I do want to ensure is a consistency across all Wikipedia articles while conforming to the correct variety of English. By looking at the vocabularies of South African and Motswana English, I have found that Botswanan is nonstandard and Motswana is the standard and commonly used form. ―Howard • 🌽33 22:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • A - A vote for Botswanan.Halbared (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Please remember that this is not a vote but a discussion based on existing precedents in the MOS. Per the page's editnotice, comments/opinions may be ignored if there is no rationale that addresses policies or guidelines. Thanks. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 21:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • D because RETAIN is a better rule than TIES in general. I understand (and feel) the impulse to avoid weird words that are not understood by most English speakers, but I have to admit that my sense of "weird" here is likely specifically Western; it's not a good look to allow (say) Irish-origin terms (e.g. Taoiseach) but not African. --Trovatore (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: I wasn't familiar with these terms prior to this discussion, but, as a westerner and a native English speaker, I don't find them surprising or difficult to understand. However, I do have some questions about nuance. According to Wiktionary, "Batswana" means "A member of the Tswana tribe of southern Africa, especially an inhabitant of Botswana; a Botswanan". Is it accurate that everyone from Botswana is Matswana, even members of minority ethnic groups? What about inanimate or abstract nouns? Is it correct to write the "Batswana economy" or "Matswana lakes"? pburka (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Great question! The demonyms for Botswana are:
      1. Motswana (singular)
      2. Batswana (plural)
      For example, 'He is a Motswana' and 'They are Batswana'.
      In contrast, Setswana refers to the language spoken in Botswana and can also describe something originating from or related to Botswana, such as 'a Setswana lake' or the 'Setswana economy' it's akin to saying 'the French economy'. However, the use of "Botswana" in this regard is still okay and more widespread e.g., 'the Botswana economy'.
      The largest ethnicity in Botswana is Tswana; however, not all Batswana (that is, citizens of Botswana) are ethnically Tswana. So you can still have have Kalanga Batswana, Afrikaner Batswana, etc. Aficionado538 (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    C: In Botswana, as well as in neighbouring countries with shared cultural and linguistic ties, the terms "Motswana" and "Batswana" are the standard and authoritative ways to refer to people from here. We do not use any other terms as they are nonstandard and foreign.
    I am inclined to vote in favour of Option C, because of MOS:TIES and for feasability's sake as juxtaposed to, say, options A & B.
    I also agree with the thoughtful point raised by @Sparkle & Fade, who rightly notes that readers are unlikely to encounter difficulty understanding these terms to begin with. They do not appear in isolation and are almost always accompanied by contextual clues that make their meaning apparent, even to those unfamiliar with Setswana.
    In the same vein, @Trovatore’s observation about the usage of “Irish-origin terms” on the Wiki (such as Taoiseach or Teachta Dála) that may confuse non-Irish speakers is a good one. Unlike such esoteric terms, "Motswana" and "Batswana" fit within a clear linguisti framework that allows for intuitive understanding. Through context, even readers encountering these words for the first time can readily grasp their meaning.
    Considering these factors—strong ties to national identity, the ease of comprehension and feasability—Option C stands out as the most fair, logical and respectful choice. Aficionado538 (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    " "Motswana" and "Batswana" fit within a clear linguisti framework that allows for intuitive understanding. Through context, even readers encountering these words for the first time can readily grasp their meaning." Would they, though? If I hadn't come across a discussion about this a few years ago, I would probably see these words and think that someone had vandalized the page in a manner similar to an old children's song ("Billy, Billy, bo-billy / Banana-fana fo-filly / Me my mo milly.") --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, readers encountering "Motswana" and "Batswana" for the first time can indeed understand their meanings intuitively.
    Even if someone has never seen the terms before, they are almost always introduced in a way that makes their meaning clear. For example, an article or discussion might say, "A Motswana is a citizen of Botswana," or "The Batswana people have a rich cultural heritage." These contextual cues make it pretty much easy to infer that "Motswana" is singular and "Batswana" is plural. Even in languages that don't use prefixes like "Mo-" and "Ba-" for singular and plural distinctions, people naturally pick up on patterns. If "Motswana" or "Batswana" appear a sentence, it doesn’t take much effort to deduce that they follow a singular/plural structure—just as English speakers recognize "goose/geese" despite these being irregular.
    English speakers frequently encounter non-English words and intuitively grasp them through context. Consider "alumnus/alumni" from Latin or "samurai" (which remains the same in singular and plural). Even unfamiliar terms like shiitake are understood quickly through how they are used in sentences. Wikipedia consistently uses the term Taoiseach to refer to the head of government of Ireland, despite it being unfamiliar to many English speakers at first glance. While an alternative, more immediately recognizable title such as "Prime Minister" could be used, Wikipedia prioritizes the official terminology used by the country itself. Readers encountering"Taoiseach" for the first time may not immediately grasp its meaning, as it does not resemble any commonly known English words, yet its use remains.
    These terms are directly related to Botswana, making them far more intuitive than "Taoiseach". Even if a reader is unfamiliar with them initially, their similarity to the country’s name provides a clear linguistic link, making their meaning easy to deduce. Given that Wikipedia does not replace (for the sake of example) "Taoiseach" with "Prime Minister", there is no justification for replacing "Motswana" and "Batswana" with Botswanan, a term that lacks local legitimacy. If Wikipedia trusts readers to understand "Taoiseach", a term with no obvious cognates, then it should certainly extend the same respect to the authentic demonyms of Botswana.
    Oh, and the claim that "Motswana" and "Batswana" might look like random syllables strung together (as in a children’s rhyme) simply overlooks the way humans process language. Vandalism typically consists of outright gibberish without clear meaning, whereas "Motswana" and "Batswana" consistently appear in contexts i.e., in articles with strong national ties to Botswana where their meanings are evident. Unless a reader completely disregards context clues, they are unlikely to mistake these terms for non-sense. Aficionado538 (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, you seem to have missed the context clues that the children's song is not random, so the context clues here would probably be missed by others.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We should stop trying to argue from personal experience and restrict our arguments to based on what reliable sources say. ―Howard • 🌽33 18:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option C. In articles without strong ties to the country/ies, where the word is presumably not very important to comprehension of the article, we would be confusing more people than we are educating. In articles with strong ties, we want to be correct. --GRuban (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • C: Motswana in articles with strong national ties to Botswana or South Africa, otherwise Botswanan It seems straight forward. I would have gone for A as SMcCandlish above but I think there is a case for Motswana in the strong ties case.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Meh. We should not use what (in English) amount to regional colloquialisms when they are not intelligible to the majority of our readers; ENGVAR is not license to confuse just to try to make a sociopolitical point. To revisit a point above more clearly: We do not use Diné (outside narrow contexts in the article on the subject) to refer to the Navajo, despite the fact that it's their name in their own language, some of them prefer it in English, and plenty of people in the Four Corners region are aware of it. We don't because hardly anyone else is. These are directly parallel cases.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You seem to forget that:
      • these aren't "colloquialisms". These are formal words used in countries to describe people from a country/ethnic group and not some slang terms;
      • these terms are in fact English terms as said countries have their own form of English i.e., South African English and as pointed out earlier by a user on this RfC, the Dictionary of South African English (as well as other foreign dictionaries) lists Motswana and nothing else as the terminology used;
      • the point you make about Diné doesn't really hold the same weight with "Motswana" and "Batswana" as the suffix "-tswana" will easily give readers a hint that these are the gentilic terms to refer to citizens of Botswana or people of Tswana ancestry as these words are virtually always used in the context of someone or people from Botswana.
      Aficionado538 (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Question (for my own education): is “Motswana” restricted to a particular ethinic group within Botswana… or is it applied to any citizen of that nation. For example, would someone of European ancestry who emigrated to Botswana be a Motswana? Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      According to the Historical Dictionary of Botswana and the DSAE, Motswana refers to "a citizen of Botswana," and OED says it can refer to "a native or inhabitant of Botswana." ―Howard • 🌽33 18:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • B per MOS:TIES. Botswanan is simply wrong and as jarring to those familiar with the subject as Switzerlandish or Walesian would be. That some sources use the incorrect form merely points up that they do not have a properly constructed MoS like we do, but luckily we have MOS:TIES. We also have many discussions of this over the years at Talk:Botswana and eg at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa/Archive 1#Botswanan. John (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Why should MOS:TIES be used to justify using Motswana exclusively across all articles? American English dictionaries only include Botswanan (MW, AHD, NOAD) so this appears to be an Engvar issue. The only American English source I could find which recommends Motswana is the CIA World Factbook. ―Howard • 🌽33 19:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Interestingly enough, Encyclopaedia Britannica (which is owned by the same company who owns MW) says "country’s whole population is characterized as Batswana (singular Motswana) whatever their ethnic origin." ―Howard • 🌽33 19:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Adjust MOS:SIC

    With regards to MOS:SIC:

    When applied to linked titles appearing between <ref>...</ref> tags, title parameters in citation templates, or similar text that is linked, the syntax of the template may be adjusted to {{sic|nolink=y}} (producing [sic] in the resulting linked text).

    {{Sic}} contains a {{COinS safe|n}} warning that it "should not be used in citation templates such as Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2, because it includes markup that will pollute the COinS metadata they produce; see Wikipedia:COinS."

    Should the abovementioned MOS:SIC text not rather be changed to:

    When applied to text that is linked, the syntax of the template may be adjusted to {{sic|nolink=y}} (producing [sic] in the resulting linked text; for example in the link: [sic] template).

    waddie96 ★ (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds reasonable. Gawaon (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BOLD change implemented. WP:BRD if necessary. Reference made here in edit summary. waddie96 ★ (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done waddie96 ★ (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Chinese political ideology templates

    There's some disagreement over how to structure and categorize the various political movements across several related templates. Please see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Political_ideology_templates Manuductive (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we add Manual of Style: as an alias for the namespace MOS:?

    Or more likely the other way around. I do agree a single namespace for all manual of style pages is useful for consistency, searching, etc. It should not just be used for shortcuts but also for actual manual of style pages (and proposals). Aasim (話す（はなす）) 15:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree. Actually, narrowing the breadth of the generic "WP:" space wouldn't be a bad thing. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. The MOS is already gargantuan enough to warrant its own namespace, and sometimes I'm left scratching my head trying to find a particular section that has a WP: shortcut aliased to it instead of an MOS: one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we just talking about creating a Manual of Style alias namespace or actually moving the Manual of Style pages into that namespace? I'd support creating that namespace if we are actually moving the pages there. If not, that seems pointless as no one is going to use the longer name over "MOS". Gonnym (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We can move all MOS pages into their own namespace. It would also help with a lot of manual of style pages that are not part of the formal MoS but are followed by a lot of users anyway. [2] seems like enough to fill a namespace. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 19:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pages not part of the MoS should not be moved. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing (failed proposal) for example, is badly titled as it isn't a MoS page. Gonnym (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems unnecessary complexity. There is zero advantage in having yet another namespace alias. Subpages work perfectly and scale nicely even for truly gargantuan things like WP:AN and subpages. If we do not want pages that behave differently, we do not need a new namespace. —Kusma (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Usage of quote-page paramenter

    I strongly support the use of the quote parameter when adding a citation to an article. I recently noticed that some of the citation templates have a field:

    |quote-page=

    I am intrigued by this option, and thought I would begin using it.

    In my typical usage I often cite a single page as support for the claim, so the cited page(s) will be identical to the page number for the quote, but I can imagine a situation where I want to cite a source for the claim as a range of pages, then identify the single specific page for the specific quote.

    However, I tested this on an example User:Sphilbrick/Cite_quote_example and the rendering:

    Rabinowitz, Harold; Vogel, Suzanne (2009). The manual of scientific style: a guide for authors, editors, and researchers (1st ed.). Amsterdam Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Academic Press. p. 363. ISBN 978-0-12-373980-3. p. 363: The primary designation system for bright stars, called Bayer designations… The Greek letters are assigned in order (α,ß,γ,δ etc.) according to brightness.

    Simply has "p. 363" in two different places. If I saw this in another article I think it was a malformed citation. I don't know exactly what I was expecting but I thought there would be some indication that one of the page ranges would be related to the overall reference in the other would be related to the specific quote.

    Am I missing something? This parameter seems potentially useful but useless in my example. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong venue. You should post this at Help talk:Citation Style 1. Gonnym (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC on "Author (year)" in-text citing

    NB: this message was cross-posted on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, and here.

    Hi everyone! This is a shameless spam message to inform you about an RfC regarding narrative citation.

    Specifically, see here: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Proposal

    I think it's quite strange that Wikipedia has existed for 24 years, yet there still isn't a policy section about this. Input is appreciated. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally, we avoid having policy restricting editors if we don't have to. On Zhuangzi (book), I have parentheses for the number of each chapter being discussed, etc. etc. This seems totally reasonable and uncontroversial, as do the examples you present. Remsense ‥ 论 07:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RSK language code

    Hello, I am not sure if this is the most appropriate place for my question. I noticed that the language code RSK in infobox templates leads to Ruthenian language instead of Pannonian Rusyn language (see Novi Sad for example). Do we maybe have some different language code for Pannonian Rusyn or the fact was simply not updated since the language received it's code recently? MirkoS18 (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is determined by the ISO 639 standard.[3] The two relevant codes afaik:
    Type: language
    Subtag: rsk
    Description: Ruthenian
    Description: Rusnak
    Added: 2022-02-25

    Type: language
    Subtag: rue
    Description: Rusyn
    Added: 2009-07-29
    Which would be most appropriate for further named varieties, I wouldn't have any idea. Remsense ‥ 论 07:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see! Thanks for clarifying. Maybe we actually need disambiguation page for Ruthenian language page in a sense where it is related to historical/wider language, and the term when it is used to name Pannonian Rusyn. I think the code RSK in fact relates to Pannonian Rusyn and not to the wider concept used in academia. RUE would not be the right choice as it is northern version of the language which is more closely related to Ukrainian.--MirkoS18 (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:MOS
    No tags for this post.