Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Archive 155

7592:"You're never going to convince those people who edit bird articles not to use the language conventions their sources typically use." This is off-base for three reasons: 1) They're conventions learned in academia as adults, by people who know they are specialist style that applies only in specialist contexts. They're nothing at all like the ingrained-since-elementary-school visceral knowledge that misc. stuff is not capitalized for no apparent reason. I do not Drive in my Red Card to the Grocery Store, unless I'm borderline illiterate. Everyone BUT specialists win that "never going to convince us what we've been taught is wrong" argument, sorry. 2) All or nearly all (maybe some don't publish?) such specialists do in fact regularly drop the capitalization, when they submit articles to journals that don't permit the capitalization, which is all but ONE non-ornithology-specialized bio/sci journal, and even some ornithology journals, and virtually all the newspapers, general-audience magazines, whatever else they might write for less academically. The entire idea that they can't/won't adapt to a style guide here that calls for lower case is 7673:: Exactly, on both points. The capitalization of common names of organisms is "wrong" because of what we were taught, to about 99.9% of editors and readers here. It was only taught as "correct" to specialists in a very small number of biological fields (some of them far narrower than birds. LC: 1, UC: 0. Next, all of the pro-caps camp learned their upper-casing in higher education as adults; it is not ingrained as part of their basic written langauge processing. LC: 2, UC: 0. Next, all of the pro-camps camp are well aware that their convention is not acceptable outside very narrowly tailor specialist publications; they don't get to use the caps when writing for general biological or science journals, nor for newspapers. LC: 3, UC: 0. Ergo, this "specialist outrage and alienation" is POV-pushing fiction made up by people who just don't want to admin that WP is just like any other venue that isn't an an ornithology journal. LC: 4, UC: 0. I could go on. Oh, actually, I will. Did you know that not all ornithology journals, even 8073:

trivial issue. Indeed, all this is surely incredibly off-putting for any disinterested passer-by. I would also make the general point that I'd don't buy the MOS trump claim. Sure, the wording at WP:CONSENSUS suggests that might be a valid position, but as someone else has pointed out above, it needs to be proven first that the MOS really reflects a higher-level or broader consensus. My experience has been that many things are agreed by one or two obsessive editors here (I don't mean that pejoratively), who then suddenly descend on multiple pages to declare that things must be done their way across the site, even when that contradicts what a more active and much broader consensus has explicitly decided, or tended to do quietly, in a specific context. Even if we can show that MOS can claim ranking rights, as also noted, does it have to, especially over something as esoteric as species capitalisation or indeed when it comes to enforcing 100% site-wide consistency on any matter?

7424:. What has happened in this case is that proponents of a particular style quirk have failed to gain consensus on it, because their reasons are weak and sometimes downright false. This happens all the time, too. There is not one single rule in MOS that doesn't have its detractors, somewhere. Just yesterday someone came by and tried to change italicization of major works of art to be double quotation mark style, as just one recent example. There is also probablh not one single rule that doesn't have detractors who can cite sources (from one specialized context or another) "proving" their way is "right"; style conventions very frequently conflict, and MOS has to settle for advising the variant that best serves our largest readership, not the one most pleases a tiny handful of specialists. (Ideally they actually coincide, e.g. formatting units like 9445:) I didn't make this problem up, Peter. Removing or seriously fixing this poorly-thought-out sentence will have *no effect at all* on capitalizing IOC names in orn. article. Your idea that "the Dog" is different from "a dog" or "some dogs" is not widely recognized (here or anywhere) Its implication that, say, Golden Eagle would become "golden eagles" simply because it was plural, or "a golden eagle" simply because it meant a particular one that bit my ear, would not be agreed to by much of anyone, either, regardless how they felt about the IOC convention. The birders by and large would capitalize ALL of these, and insist on it. Anyway, the important part here is that I laid out a bunch of reasons why I proposed what I did, and you did not address any of them, only asserted that there's no problem. 9046:

other thing I do, and raising nonsensical objections that are not actually based on anything but your own wishful thinking and vague feelings and "confusions" about things. I'm not the one forking this discussion to other pages like WT:CONSENSUS. And, no, I won't stop asking people if they have objections in an effort to determine if there are objections. I really think you need to think about how much time and effort you spend telling other people how to edit and write here, and what effect this has on perception of your own contributions in recent memory. Finally, there is absolutely no "contention" about whether WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is policy, nor that guidelines can link to policies where it seems relevant to do so. So, please refrain from any further weird revertwarring.

114:, it came to my attention that, as currently written, the line "A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities." (line A) contradicts the line just before it, "An en dash is used for the names of two or more people in an attributive compound." (line B). Line A is easily read to imply that entities such as Comet Hale–Bopp (one of our examples here) should be hyphenated, not dashed, contrary to what line B says. They are properly dashed, though. In a few cases, such as the examples accompanying line A (McGraw-Hill, Guinea-Bissau, etc.), there is properly a hyphen, not an endash. What seems to distinguish line A's category is that these are no longer simply seen as named after two entities, but as entities with a single name. -- 8127:

again leading from the off with accusatory language, this time about "rants" and "terrible idea". This page has virtually drowned in a sea of words and impenetrable, mostly one-sided, argument over the past week, which is disruptive to the project, to this page and, indeed, to your ultimate objective. As it happens, I would tend to agree that excessive capitalisation is to be avoided and that there should be, up to a point, as much site-wide consistency as possible, but I'm not going to weigh in substantively to back you on that and, as suggested, I suspect disinterested parties are not going to be inclined to join in at all. Either take a break or post something concise and polite.

9830:

articles because failing to do so over-emphasizes birds. That's an argument to stop capitalizing birds, not to capitalize everything else! If stabbing yourself in the hand hurts, don't stab yourself in the eyes and knees, too, just to even it out. It's also ignores the reason WP:BIRDS insists on the capitalization: IOC bird vernacular names are not the same as common names of other species, because the IOC one is an "official" international "standard" . If, as Peter does here, one wants to ignore that and capitalize everything in a bird article on the basis that IOC bird names AREN'T special and different, one is also gutting the reason for ever capitalizing birds to start with.

7752:

consistently against this capitalization nonsense would never happened. It's still happening even today (see the recent RM closure in favor of lower-casing bird common names), a discussion in which MOS regulars were entirely absent, bird project regulars were present and vocal, and the anti-capitalization position was successfully enumerated by "average readers". There is no consensus at MOS or on WP generally that "consistency is overrated"; consistency is actually the main point of the MOS and of many of our other guidelines, because consistency helps both readers and editors in many ways. Your general take on perfection and rules applies to

6248:

evidence that good editors have more important things to do than discuss minutiae. As to the question of where there is the broadest consensus, that is found in the practices of Knowledge editors, not in any written policy. Micro-consensuses are actually all the consensuses we have and it's exactly spot on that the consensus at MoS is the consensus of a relatively small number of self-appointed experts. That is not a criticism, though, since no page like this could function if everyone with an interest participated. But policy reflects practice on Knowledge and MoS editors help provide some consistency, which is one value among many. --

7109:): "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." And: "Knowledge has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community." 8096:. Writing one's own anti-MOS pseudo-guidelines isn't the process. PS: Various of these related pages have recent posts by me, because a) they're all cross-involved in the same serious problems, b) some editors at them refuse to recognize consensus at one as applicable to the others, necessitating separate but rather redundant discussions, and c) I've been followed by a few editors from page to page who have reverted almost every single change I make, demanding independent discussions of even the most trivial suggestions (and then mostly refusing to actually engage in the discussions, violating the 961:

fundamental issue, whatever language we use to describe it, seems to be that where the two names have in some mysterious way become one, we would use a hyphen. Until then, we use an endash. It might help if one of the people who regularly stick up for making a rule out of such distinctions – a minority practice among publishers as a whole, especially non-book publishers – and have helped foist it on Knowledge, explained how, exactly, they think the distinction works and how the MOS might best be worded for clarity and to avoid confusion and apparent contradiction.

5779:

authoritatively treats style here, that we've all somehow not noticed. The Good Article and Featured Article processes generally require compliance with MOS, not with some alternative to MOS - not a wikiproject one, not a personal one, not a competing WP-wide one. Trovatore's second objection seems to mean "my views haven't gained much traction at MOS so I don't like it". On it's face it's meaningless; every policypage on WP represents the views of the comparably small number of editors interested specifically in writing it. This is just as true of

3711:, official naming principles: "It frequently happens that a comet is found by (a) discoverer(s) --- whether a single individual, two individuals working together, or a team --- who cannot detect cometary activity with the equipment that he/she/they possess. Such an object may therefore be assumed to be a minor planet and so designated when two or more nights' worth of observations are available to the Minor Planet Center (or posted, for example -- prior to being designated -- on the MPC's NEO Confirmation webpage, if unusual motion is detected)." 435:, which related more specifically to the hyphen/endash point, shuffled text around and added the confusing and confused claim about "a compound which qualifies another noun", when we are actually taking about names and proper nouns. Nor did it do anything to solve the actual underlying problem with this part of the MOS, which is its apparent internal contradiction. That's what's already being discussed, and it doesn't help to have the current text being shuffled around as that discussion takes place. 31: 7475:, etc., explicitly refer to MOS for such style matters for a reason - they are style matters and this is our style guide. If you don't like something in the style guide, work to gain consensus to change it. You don't burn down Congress/Parliament, or declare your own independent republic and army, because you disagree with a law they passed, you work to make legislative changes within the system. If you'd rather take the revolutionary insurrection approach, please see 9343:. The first case is going to make most readers mentally rebel less than half-way through it, and make many come to the conclusion that it was written by an idiot. The second is most likely to inspire belief in a typographical error (which is already the frequent interpretation of non-birders at our bird-related articles), but otherwise possibly lead the reader to suspect that a special convention is in play, and this is precisely what WP:BIRDS says is true. 8208:. Knowledge is a general-English publication and should follow general-English rules. It's my understanding that the ornithological practice of capitalizing common names was a shorthand way of indicating which bird was a member of the species White-throated Sparrow and which was simply a sparrow that happened to have a white throat. That issue does not come up so often in an encyclopedia. There is no reason to deviate from standard English rules. 5799:: Various guidelines, especially among the naming conventions pages, as well as wikiproject-authored wannabe guidelines, frequently attempt to contradict the MOS. They POV-fork on a rather frequent basis when editors with an axe to grind, a peeve to pet, fail to win consensus here. The most obvious way to put a stop to this is to close the gaping loophole in MOS's wording that encourages this nonsense. It's not even an change in policy in any way; 7071:

need not be neutral," but if they say they're not adhering to the MoS, no one bats an eyelid. That's the key difference here, not whether they are called a WikiProject. I agree with your point about pragmatism, but better still would be just to leave things alone. Adding SPECIESVAR would be instruction creep too. The MoS already says: "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Knowledge."

224:"key" or "landmark" papers. Ultimately, I think the source material (particularly for technical matters) should guide naming conventions on Knowledge. In the EBV field there is a diversity of naming, so my attempted compromise solution has been to look for precedents in the lit. that jibe with the Knowledge guidelines, good grammar (to the best of my knowledge), and that allow for some sort of consistency in the naming of pages. It's tough. 8147:, just the opposite, the danger is that they may prevent other views from being heard, and consensus from being achieved, resulting of course in each side then claiming victory. Resisting some tactics (there is no other word for them) without falling for them is hard work, but they do give some indirect indication of the validity of the arguments, in the same way as in the story of the preacher who wrote in the margin of his sermon notes 6267:. This debate is academic, however. The matter here, in this little proposal, is whether any other guideline on the system is more authoritative on style than MOS. Clearly the answer is "no". If you and Trovatore want to engage in existential navel contemplation about what consensus "really" means or whatever, here fun with that, but it's not germane to the discussion of closing this silly loophole in MOS's lead wording. 3423:, without anything to qualify. Wilkes-Barre Township is then named after Wilkes-Barre. That's like Lennard-Jones: that starts out as such, and then something is named after it/him, Lennard-Jones potential, which then preserves the hyphen. Although "Lennard-Jones" of course does qualify "potential", it does so as a single term, whereas in "Comet Hale–Bopp" "Hale" and "Bopp" do so as two terms joined together. -- 10122:"Official names are recognized by official scientific organizations. Most are continent-wide. ... What people in rural Arkansas call a bird is not capitalized unless they use an official name. I think that non-bird species should not be capitalized unless they are capitalized on their own pages. Capitalizing all species names makes no sense to me in instances when there are no official names for them. 7984:"The role of the MOS is to help editors and through that to make for the best reader experience." Absolutely. Helping editors requires consensus. Consensus does not consist of a dominant majority bullying a minority into conformity. It requires respect for different views and some degree of tolerance of difference where the minority cannot be persuaded that the majoritarian view should prevail. 649:

make which one is used? Do reader or writers for than matter gain more insight into a subject if the "correct" one is used? Do we lose some understanding if the incorrect one is used? I do not see any reason to worry about this minutia but maybe there is a good reason to spend so much time on dashes. Can someone explain to me why we need to spend so much time and space on this?

9823:

mentioned in this article". So, yes, it means that common names of arthropods and mammals are also being capitalized in any ornithology article, just to make all common names in it upper case. It's an insistence on dogged consistency at all (and pretty real and serious) costs, from people normally critical of MOS for being dogged about consistency; ironic and not a good situation.

6029:

addressed your claim that MOS somehow doesn't represent consensus because of who edits it most: I'll repeat it for you here: "On it's face meaningless; every policypage on WP represents the views of the comparably small number of editors interested specifically in writing it. This is just as true of WP:Verifiabilty and of WP:Consensus as WP:Manual of Style." It

4458:

as a single entity name, not a "Wilkes and Barre" or "Wilkes vs Barre" Township, then we can leave the hyphen. Or we can leave it just because there's no precedent nor guideline to do otherwise. This is nothing like Hale–Bopp, where half of reliable sources style it with the en dash for the same reasons that we do, IAU's recommendations notwithstanding.

369:

this page reflect consensus." This applies especially to issues that are under active discussion here and where there are differing views. Please also take care about dubbing the people around here as "anti-Wikipedians", as this sort of language escalates the kind of tension that can arise here, which we're all doing our level best to avoid. Regards, --

7820:

As things are now, they may go and make more localized decisions that lead to ongoing conflict, which is what we have gotten into with birds. Whatever the decision on birds is, it should be taken by the widest possible set of editors who care about style issues, and should be cast in concrete here at MOS, so that the answer becomes clear to all.

5282: 5598:) ends with this statement: "Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here; the rules and examples presented above illustrate the broad principles that inform current usage." Many editors already find the Manual to be too large, so I recommend that any mention of a guideline on this matter be added to the article " 1207:

can't come up with any logical explanation for McGraw-Hill within the framework given, so I'm assuming it was an error, and since the present name of the company has no hyphen or dash, according to its article, the example seems to have lost its purpose in any case (but please restore it if you think it will help our deliberations).

8747:

at first to imply something like that, which is jarring and distracts the reader into questioning why this construction was used and what it's implying. This wording should be as "transparent" as possible; people should just parse it and absorb the guideline, not scratch their heads over the wording choices made in the guideline.

5763:, with an edit summary of "that the MOS represents a broader consensus than other guidelines is not clear at all. The MOS mostly represents the views of a small core of people interested specifically in the MOS". I have since restored the policy citation, since it's applicable to the text before the "other guidelines" change. Per 10268:

until he got to the Saints. (Then he improbably ended up as a highly-rated starter on the top-rated offensive line in the league, which is what makes his story interesting.) I personally find all those earlier sections distracting, and I would seriously consider consolidating everything before New Orleans into one section. --

6046:

to gain consensus to add them here, instead of digging themselves into adversarial positions of bucking the system just to buck it. I don't know what sort of definitional games you're trying to play with "site-wide", but no one here has any patience for it and you've not raised a valid objection to the edit you reverted.

8261:

birds, so it should be an acceptable form for Knowledge" is a prescriptivist statement, just one with a justification. It seems to me that the entire MOS is, almost by definition, prescriptivist. As is WP:AT. So arguing against prescriptivism would seem to me to be arguing that the entire MOS should be done away with.

8435: 10249:, "the information should still be present in the main text," so that is most definitely their nature. I don't think it's ever valid to delete information from an article because it's already in the infobox. Ideally, the infobox should be a summary of the most important data found in the prose of the article. 8681:

implies something like ownership, despite our disavowal of it. The second case is a real failure though. We do not write in J. R. R. Tolkien's style. It might be amusing to write an example article in Tolkien's epic-mythology-influenced, high fantasy style, of course, but that's not why we're here. :-)

7539:

upon compromise, then you tell them what the guidelines are and recommend that they try to change policy. Making it more restrictive isn't going to fix the problem. People who capitalize common bird names aren't doing it because they see it in other articles, but because they were taught to capitalize them.

204:

regardless of sources. Let's not start this debate all over again. (It applies to en-dashes vs. hyphens, capitalization of the English names of species, logical quotation style vs. traditional US quotation style, and doubtless a number of other issues. In every case the second position has been upheld.)

1192:

McGraw-Hill example from the guideline while this discussion is still in progress? The edit summary says "see talk", but I'm missing the explanation, and it may be important, since you've pointed out that it's attributive, which would mean that it's a counter-example to this theory, hence important. --

9045:

trying to get rid of LOCALCONSENSUS policy. Please stop trying to make this and everything else be about birds. It's not; it's far more general. Speaking of what one might appreciate, and multiple venues, I'd really appreciate it if you'd refrain from following me from page to page reverting every

8814:

process and wikiprojects and whatnot, that were perhaps relevant to my other proposed change, about expanding the wording in this section to be more general, but were not relevant to the citation that was reverted. This was followed by personalized borderline attacks (by someone else) and a big wall

8746:

That's a different kind of "explanation". It takes a considerable amount of education (i.e. explanation) to even begin to understand the Theory of Special Relativity. The problem with the possessive constructions isn't that they reflect a situation of actual possession, it's the constructions seems

8087:

Re: "it needs to be proven first that the MOS really reflects a higher-level or broader consensus", see my response to Peter coxhead immediately above. If you have an actual crisis of faith in the process of discussions by interested editors on the talk pages of guidelines determining consensus, and

7819:

The proposal seems sound to me. Why not centralize style matters in one place, as we have mostly done already? Given that we have an MOS, shouldn't it be the place to codify our style decisions? If we state that it has precedence, then people who have style issues to resolve will know where to go.

7609:

project, or other group of editors, pitching a fit about it are some members (not everyone) in WP:BIRDS. I think this is clearly a personalities issue, and nothing more. I've lower-cased common names in the titles and content of hundreds of non-bird articles without a single objection/revert that I

7070:

Stfg, I think whether we call them a WikiProject or some other group of editors, the point is that, as a matter of fact, groups of editors (and individual editors) can and do decide to ignore the MoS. The GA criteria have been that way for years. They wouldn't be able to say "we have decided that GAs

6045:

of CONLEVEL, which was written in direct response to RFARB cases involving people (especially but not exclusively at wikiprojects) trying to POV-fork their own "rules" in contravention of site-wide guidelines. Much of MOS is made of things that originated at wikiprojects, as topical editors bothered

5645:

EEng, you left a dummy-edit summary on the MOS page commenting on my immediately prior edit: "How much nicer the world would be if people said, "The new wording seems to imply this is mandatory—restoring old sense of optional' rather than huffing and puffing about 'I see no consensus on the talkpage'

5318:

If the correct plural form of "person" is "people" rather than "persons" and the correct adjective form of the word "fiction" is "fictional" rather than "fictitious", why are the latter terms used in the end credits disclaimers of movies which usually state:"The PERSONS and events are FICTITIOUS "?

4792:

The rules and rationales that we have incorporated in the dash and hyphen guidance all comes from published grammar guides. I am against making up new rules to support odd cases. I think we can leave "Wilkes-Barre Township" as an odd case if you believe the current rules imply an en dash there even

3638:

Based on a quick look, your proposal is quite detailed and should cover it pretty well; the only thing which to me isn't good enough is the use of "substantively", as that opens a path for putting too many things under such a broad classifier. Of course, I'll have another look at it a bit later, and

2515:

The way I was taught the typographic use of a en dash, is that it's showing some sort of relationship between two things. Hence "Human–Computer Interaction" and use in page ranges. That makes sense to me as an explanation of the above examples as well. Well, except Minneapolis–St. Paul, that's an odd

581:

So I changed it, which you say is fine. I didn't "ride roughshod over it"; I didn't change any of the substance of the advice, just tried to improve the way it was worded. If someone disagrees that it was an improvement, that's fine. The implication of the original reasoning was that it didn't matter

218:

There was a pretty heated discussion on the Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) talk page about the en dash (primarily me ranting). What the argument arose from, was the fact that I had never recalled seing an en dash used in any of the scientific literature...until pointed out by several other wikipedians in a

10008:

step back from the "bird names issue", and consider carefully what kind of precedent this would set. "This section of the article is entirely about Canada, so it should be in Canadian English because of national ties, regardless of the rest of the article." Consistency of style (correctly applied of

8260:

I am curious how you define prescriptivism and descriptivism. Based on my understanding of the terms, a statement like "Some specialist sources capitalize the initial letters of names of birds" would be descriptivist, while "Since some specialist sources capitalize the initial letters of of names of

8042:

the debate for two months here at WT:MOS itself in early 2012 and still failed to gain consensus for their views among the rest of the editorial body. You can't say "there's no consensus because our views weren't represented" and then after we see that, yes, your views were represented, switch that

8006:

wasn't personalizing, a harmful attitude and language, for which there was no need? There's nothing even faintly pejorative about your second example of what I said. It makes no sense at all to criticize me for observing that members of a project were participating in a discussion actively (where

7891:

The argument from consistency cuts both ways. It can be equally argued that, as we have capitalisation well attested (outside of Knowledge, that is) for some species and varieties, and for good, clear reasons, but there seems no downside to capitalisation, it would be better to simply capitalise all

7695:

Your second point is also crucial: Of course they change it back. No one cares if Sam Ornithogist writes new material using capitalized names; it only matters if Sam and friends will revert war everyone else to keep the capital letters, and this is why the issue never, ever goes away, and will never

7119:

within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must , and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several members of a project is no more binding on editors than an advice page written by

7098:

Your opinion about what wikiprojects can or should do doesn't match policy nor the WikiProject Council's own guidelines, and is not relevant to whether MOS can cite the policy on which it bases its ability to supersede its own subpages, which is what we're talking about here. You have thus given no

4457:

I don't know of any guide that addresses the difference between a city name and a township name, but the logic and newly invented rules seem like a stretch, and there are exactly zero sources that do this for the example in question. If we can treat Wilkes-Barre Township like the city Wilkes-Barre,

1426:

But the constant attacks and attempts to dumb down Knowledge so it contains nothing an editor doesn't already know is a distraction from actually trying to clarify such issues. If we can't discuss this rationally, I think we should probably just remove the counter-example and leave McGraw-Hill as an

1130:

a correct substitute for an em dash (—), which basically denotes a parenthetical remark—like this one—where they are paired in the same way as parentheses. It can also be used for a parenthetical remark at the end of sentence without another em dash before the full stop—like this. Luckily, both of

697:

There is also always the solution, suggested by me and others in the past, of going back to what many publishers and readers, especially online, are quite happy with: which is to only ever use a hyphen for all such joins (including prefixes) and to not worry about hyphen/endash distinctions to start

566:

The revert wasn't "groundless". The grounds were that it restored what had been agreed by a prior consensus, until such time as a new consensus might be agreed. Had you made your proposal here, people would surely have given reasoned opinions of it. Please remember that the MOS represents a previous

526:

to work. Even on a site-wide guideline (so what? I didn't change the substance of any guidance), we first try to make things better by making things better. It's honestly the most effective way, and the secret of Knowledge's success. I won't respond any more on the topic since I know people like you

223:

rule, as it intuitively made sense to use the "consensus" or most-common form of the name to me. Eventually I changed my mind. What really turned me around was the recognition of the utility of the en dash, it's grammatical appropriateness, and (most importantly) the discovery of its use in several

9829:

an article, but this isn't really true. MOS's main point is site-wide consistency for both readers (especially) and editors (secondarily), out of which in-article consistency flows automatically. The real "WTF?" point for me is the idea that it must be done this way (capitalize everything) in bird

9822:

Stfg: On "how do you know", it's because Peter, like me, was both involved in the drafting of it. He's right; the ambiguity is accidental, but not frequently confusing. Your fears are correct: The "other categories" bit was definitely intended to mean "category of articles", not "type of creature

9397:

Most bird articles use title case for IOC names. It's irrelevant here as to whether they should or not. While they exist, it's better to use the same case, correctly of course, for the English names of other organisms to ensure consistency and so that bird names are not stressed over those of other

9293:

for purposes of this thread all of the questions and controversies raised by that, and just assume for a moment that it's accepted by the community this way. This "consistency within an article" rule forces the capitalization of all vernacular names at bird articles, even ones for which there is no

9269:

problem, and just ignorant to force capitalization of these, in cases where our article title is title-cased, because in many cases the languages from which they come would not permit this; most languages have considerably more stringent proper name rules than does English, and capitalize much less

8026:

organizations that do advocate it, and the big one, IOC, is NOT even a taxonomic nomenclature authority to begin with! I've clearly labeled links to all of these previous discussions. The capitalization is simply a somewhat familiar preference for ornithologists, and this is not enough to overrule

8013:

I have never made an argument that members of that or any other project should not have their views represented; the objection is a procedural and consensus one. You don't change consensus at MOS by ignoring it an creating competing "anti-MOSes" at every page you can think of to work in contrarian

7644:

I can speak from my own experience that trlkly raises a good point. Being ordered not to do what you've been taught is correct is a huge turnoff. However, in this case, we can cite style guides proving that using lowercase is correct in general-audience publications. They might find it easier to

7538:

I agree. We've already had this argument. You're never going to convince those people who edit bird articles not to use the language conventions their sources typically use. That's why we had to come up with a compromise in the first place. If the problem is that people are not following the agreed

7470:

policy exists to put a stop to. Editors are increasingly getting indef blocked for tendentious disruption along these lines, including in partiuclar editwarring in favor a style quirks (changing en-dashes to hyphens is a recent-ish example) on the basis that some external "standard" demands it and

6368:

I notice with disappointment that there are no examples given of cases where this "gameable and frequently exploited loophole" has been exploited. Given the proposer's involvement in some quite heated and controversial discussions recently, I think we should ask exactly which discussions they think

5400:

For reasons I won't go into specifically, it appears (incredible as it may seem) that I should have put a little winky ;) emoticon on my post just prior. See, Blueboar made an ironic and (I think) amusing point about people's positions being "definitive", and so I said he was "categorically" wrong,

5344:

Neither of your premises is true. 'Persons' is an entirely legitimate English plural, and is especially often found in legal contexts where clarity is key. Similiar, 'fictitious', 'fictional' and even 'fictive' are valid adjectives, with related and overlapping meanings. In particular, 'fictitious'

3741:

know what a dash is and how to use it in a sentence..... But you don't like how they represent it? If you are using a typewriter, you don't know what a dash is because you can't type it? If you are limiting yourself to ASCII characters for some reason, you don't know what a dash is? Even if you are

3396:

Makes sense, but again, why "Wilkes–Barre" shouldn't be treated as an adjective compound, qualifying "Township" as a noun, despite the fact "Wilkes-Barre" is also used as a non-attributive compound? Preserving the hyphen—by following the line of creation for these compounds—would also require some

2753:

I suggest that we need to clearly and unambiguously explain, in the description of the policy, what the distinguishing criteria is, because it is not obvious from the examples. Why is Hale–Bopp "the names of two or more people in an attributive compound" but Wilkes-Barre not? A rule of "named after

1495:

It seems that most people here think "attributive" is in fact irrelevant. So how about we delete that word, and simply say afterwards that if some term (such as Wilkes-Barre) is invariably written with a hyphen rather than a dash in sources, then we do so also? The other examples like Guinea-Bissau

1372:

I'd say leave well enough alone, unless you find a grammar guide that does a good job of it. Wilkes-Barre is a city, not much like Minneapolis–St. Paul, which is two cities. The distinction between Wilkes-Barre and Hale–Bopp is more subtle, but editors mostly know it when they see it, and there's

1263:

What is being attempted is to use hyphen and en-dash to mark in text tightness-of-binding distinctions that can be made in symbolic contexts by parentheses. However, any number of levels can be marked by nested parentheses, but only two by hyphen and en-dash. Since hyphenated proper names can arise

1206:

I'm inferring it from what's written in the guideline, which is supposedly based on a consensus that Knowledge editors reached. "Attributive" seems to be the key word, and I'm inferring what is meant by "attributive" based on the examples given and my knowledge of what attributive actually means. I

264:

In fact I think I know what it's supposed to mean. If the compound is "attributive", then it's dashed. That means if it qualifies another noun, as in the Hale-Bopp case, where it qualifies "Comet". (Presumably in the example with "just" Hale-Bopp, without the "Comet", the compound is still regarded

10267:

be in the section headings (and I don't have a strong opinion about that one way or the other). In this particular case, I question the necessity for most of the headings themselves. De la Puente was on many different team rosters, but usually on the practice squad, and he never played in a game

7872:

We do need to clarify things, so that either WikiProject Birds gets clear support and the repeated and vigorous attempts to stop them cease, or they get a clear message that, for the sake of consistency and "correctness", they must change. But this is not such a proposal. It's just another shot in

7756:

sides of the argument, and actually applies more to the pro-capitalization side, since it requires and enormous amount of time and energy to buck consensus across the entire project just to force every editor to always capitalize bird names in bird article. It takes essentially no effort at all to

7751:

problems immediately arise, with other editors fighting the correction on the basis that they and some other handful of editors have come to some "local consensus" that their style quirks trump standard English usage. If the average reader didn't care the 10+ years of average readers pushing back

6886:

MOS superseding its subpages comes from in policy; clearly many people have been very confused about this. I guess just to follow me around and reflexively blanket-revert me as much as possible, I've been reverted on this twice already by the same party for no expressed reason (only a false claim

6295:

Sorry you don't get the drift. To just state the facts, each and every last consensus anywhere on WP is a local consensus, and this page is no exception. Even bestowing the tepid honorific "guideline" doesn't make the consensus any broader. Perhaps this disappoints. Editors on MoS don't dictate to

6193:

that supports this claimed monopoly for MoS on any point that is argued to be a style point. On a given point, LOCALCONSENSUS does say that the broader-based consensus takes precedence. It does not say that the broader-based consensus on the point is automatically the one in the MoS, even if the

6082:

so, nothing in any policy you've quoted gives the MoS any monopoly on style questions (or, as far as I can tell, even mentions the MoS). Why does the MoS have a broader consensus on a particular style question than another guideline? Say it's a question about the style of how Elizabethan sonnets

4878:

Leaving it as an exception has one problem: It opens the door to creating more exceptions and such discussion is bound to happen. Take the reason for this thread's existence: That Epstein–Barr virus should have a hyphen (it really shouldn't, but quite understandable from the nominator's POV at the

1191:

Are any external style guides saying that, or are you inferring it from the examples to hand? If the former, could you give us some links? Then I'd say go for it. If the latter, I'd say it's original research, and from an anecdotal sample. And while I'm here, what is the rationale for removing the

1125:

I think you'll find the hyphen-minus (-) is different from an en dash (–), the latter being longer than the former. They do perform different tasks. They were indistinguishable on typewriters with fixed-width characters and, sadly, computer keyboard makers failed to differentiate them when other

648:

I have seen arguments over the years about em-dashes, en-dashes, hyphens, minus signs et al. I have not read all the walls of text about the arguments so maybe my question has already been answered somewhere but I have not seen it. For the reader or anyone for that matter what difference does it

10166:

Is this a real discussion? Capital letters should be used where use of lower case letters might reasonably result in confusion. If, in context, confusion is unlikely, then lc is fine. Where "proper names" are concerned, and the capitalization of the proper name is customary, then it ought to be

9354:

dispute about it and prevent the spread of its capitalization to other areas. We already know that most editors do not read MOS, including its instruction to not use this capitalization in other categories. Having actual articles wrongly capitalize the common names of mammals and trees and other

8680:

I don't buy it. Concision in articles is not the same need as concision in guidelines, which need to be more explanatory than brief. The section in question has more problems than one you're trying to address, but I don't think this helping. "That nation's English" is just odd. The possessive

8126:

Andrewa's post below was the first response to what I said above. If you want to respond in turn, to me or to them, please post below their, earlier response. I note as well that you've just opened yet another capitalisation-related section with a massive, bludgeoning and dense wall-of-text post,

8025:

for ten or so years of one project browbeating everyone on the system into submission, in ever forum possible, on a basis of blatant falsehoods – turns out, capitalization is NOT required by all ornithology journals, and is NOT a universal ornithological standard; it's NOT even consistent between

6610:

Here, of course; the place to discuss the content and meaning of any page on WP is on its talk page. And its not true that only people who like to work on MOS and believe in its purpose watchlist this page; a large proportion of watchers of it, maybe even a majority of them, are people who don't

4960:

Yeah, but unfortunately, the MoS as it stands is not good. This has been discussed in this thread before. The choice is between leaving it wrong, or keep trying to poke it. What about just not mentioning Wilkes-Barre Township? Because it was just an example, and appears to be an exception, not an

2568:

is the common name of a single comet. Why does a single comet have an en dash when a single city (Wilkes-Barre), also named after two people, have a hyphen? Do you intend to delete/replace the existing sentence and examples "An en dash is used for the names of two or more people in an attributive

989:

It does seem that McGraw-Hill is a poor example, partly because its name has now changed, and partly because it always seems to have been attributive in virtually the same way that Hale–Bopp is. Perhaps we should just follow the conventions used in the relevant literature in cases like this. (The

815:

Actually, is it even clear what the problem is? Is it that simply all compounds that are used attributively (whether or not implied) dashes and those are used substantively hyphenated. Or is it whether or not the entity is seen as one whole, no longer considered named after two distinct entities?

551:

All this patronizing lecturing doesn't advance the issue. I still don't know if anyone objects to my changes, and if so, for what reason. This is exactly the kind of behavior which makes "development especially challenging". It would be a whole lot less challenging if people only reverted if they

368:

this MOS guideline is a bit different from the average article. It has been struggled over for years, and hyphens and dashes are one area where development has been especially challenging. Please note the banner at the top of the project page itself, where it says "Please ensure that any edits to

10229:

I believe having the year ranges was fine, and there is not imperative to delete them. They serve as a navigational aid for the reader, as he reads the TOC and article. In fact, the reader may not look at the infobox. And infoboxes have all manner of acceptable "redundant" info -- that's their

9526:

argument. Butt he consistency clause I'm objecting to here, and JHunterJ's idea, too, would still force capitalization on every single case of #1 through #3 of my 5 cases above, in ornithology articles, all of which directly violate the V/RS/NOR principles calling for the caps to begin with. A

8621:

My reasoning below and the Manual of Style's imperative that Wikipedian writing be "concise" justifies that the "Strong national ties" section needs some concision. Knowing how contentious grammar can be—especially on an article anyone can edit and dozens of people warily watch—I have posted my

7560:

Consistency is overrated. The average reader doesn't care too much. It's okay for things not to be perfect. Trying to be perfect and stirring up strife is worse for the encyclopedia than going with the flow. Quite a few people I know who have an intellectual bent and could help the project won't

5778:

the MOS represents a broader consensus than other guidelines on style matters, which is the only thing under discussion here. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to point us all to the Knowledge Stylebook, or Knowledge Style Manual, or whatever alternative to the Knowledge Manual of Style that more

4367:

I got to reading the talk above and discovered that it had been moved without discussion to provoke a reaction. So I searched for any precedent for the en dash there, and couldn't find any. It seems to be only an effect of your newly made-up rules. Can you explain whether there's any basis in

1053:

I thought a hyphen and an en-dash were the same thing, and an em-dash was something slightly wider which some people insist on in some circumstances I can never remember, and which doesn't have a key for it. If "normal English punctuation" requires us to distinguish identical characters, and use

481:

The "quasi-procedural justifications" were a perfectly valid reason for reverting, without or without any fuller explanation of the problems with the content of the edit. If you'd made your proposal here, I and others could have responded substantively to that from the outset. However you try to

383:

Indeed. This is not a substantive entry for an individual topic, where of course not every change needs pre-approval or prior discussion and consensus, but a site-wide guideline page. There's a rather obvious difference in content and purpose, and hence in terms of the need for stability, as the

7905:

The role of the MOS is to help editors and through that to make for the best reader experience. This change does not achieve either. But if we can clarify the application of the MOS and other guidelines to the capitalisation of bird species, that would be real progress, and I think it should be

6617:

The proposed change is a clarification of existing policy, not a change to policy in any way. I think you and some others, above, are mistaking this for some kind of hierarchical power-struggle question; it's not. It's matter of basic reasoning and of preventing further strife from people who

6410:

issues in particular are exploits of this loophole. PS: I'm not sure what sort of aspersion you're trying to cast by criticizing my argument on the basis of my having been involved in debates you characterized as "heated and controversial", but that's three different fallacies at once (guilt by

1175:

with a hyphen, does anyone have any better suggestions than the one currently implied: that in the first case the compound is "attributive" (the qualified noun "comet" being understood), while in the second it isn't? And if not, does anyone object to this being clarified with the addition of an

1037:

Or not solved, because many people are used to using and seeing real dashes in certain situations and will try to insert them. There isn't really a problem anyway, because in the rules are clear for the great majority of cases and correspond to what most experienced writers will be used to. The

8489:

And see above, the idea that the capitalization is actually a standard in ornithology is a falsehood. It simply common in that field, and advocated by an organization that isn't even really a taxonomic nomenclature authority. I'll keep keep repeating and linking to that until it sinks in. See

8072:

I'd add that I'm not sure how these multiple wall-of-text posts that have suddenly taken over the MOS talk page (and others), especially given their often hectoring tone, are going to help either resolve the issue, such as it is, or get wider input and consensus on what is, after all, a pretty

7252:

I can see personal attacks but not assuming bad faith. Ultimately, he's just discussing your edits. You have made changes before discussion was complete. The way consensus works is that we make the decision, and then decide together how to change it. The onus is always on the person making the

6262:

Ring Cinema, if I understand correctly, says that those who care about so-called "minutiae", like style in encyclopedic writing, are not "good editors". The evidence of broad consensus for MOS is that virtually everyone follows it here on virtually every point except rank noobs and those with

6247:

SMcCandlish, if I understand correctly, says that MoS is a broader consensus because there isn't an alternate style manual. I'm not clear what to make of that assertion since the processes here don't allow an alternative. It's not evidence of a broad consensus that MoS has no competitors; it's

3323:

Okay, now I'm totally confused as well. Either we don't understand something and/or something is wrong. Well, something is certainly wrong with the MOS, that's why this whole big thread started in the first place, but there are apparently still things we need to find out before we can properly

960:

I think we're in danger of drawing a false distinction in terms of meta-language here. Hale-Bopp and McGraw-Hill are both proper names of things – of a comet and a publishing house respectively. In so far as they qualify those latter terms, they are also attributive and adjectival phrases. The

9841:

would not be capitalized, too. There is no difference codified here for "short vernacular names". The very fact that short, common ones no one in their right mind would capitalize are in fact being forced to be capitalized by this consistency-within-same-article provision, is why I think it's

8722:

Do you think "That nation's English" is odd because of its grammar or because of how you believe it implies ownership? We do not generally disavow ownership on Knowledge; if we did, then we would disavow capitalism and thus our commitment to a neutral point-of-view on economics. Rather, we,

682:

I suppose we spend the time and space here, at a central point, so that editors don't end up spending even more time and space debating the point on many diverse articles. Also, it's fun to apply one's mental capabilities to something that doesn't really matter (hence chess, crosswords, etc.)

6028:

a site-wide guideline, is absurd on its face. This pseudo-rationale has been raised before and rightly ignored before. You don't get to declare any or every policy and guideline on the project invalid just because they don't reflect your views, sorry. You seem to have missed that I already

1833:

Okay, so we say "An en dash is used to indicate separateness of the names, but a hyphen is used to indicate unity." instead. The current text, as explained above, is unclear and appears to directly contradict itself. First it says "An en dash is used for the names of two or more people in an

1795:

At first look there's a comforting conceptual simplicity in what you propose: "An en dash is used to indicate a symmetrical relationship, but a hyphen is used to indicate a unity." But thinking it through, symmetry is not essential; separateness in the entities is what counts more. Consider:

1422:

McGraw-Hill is an oddity, but I think is universally hyphenated. It's an idiosyncratic exception that's being treated as a double-barreled name; there's no real reason for it, AFAICT. Guinea-Bissau is irrelevant: That's not a union of Guinea and Bissau, but rather the Guinea of Bissau vs.

203:

should apply, and that the relative usage of en-dash vs. hyphen in reliable sources should determine usage here. In the other corner are those who would answer that COMMONNAME does not apply to style issues, and that in the interests of consistency Knowledge should apply its own style rules

412:

In this case, someone who would prefer to keep a problem rather than solve it, because by keeping it we achieve "stability". Or simply someone who doesn't get (or who opposes) the idea that "everyone can edit". Sadly, there seem to be more and more such people around, not only on this page.

9031:

is beyond me, but go ahead and try. MOS citing the policy from which it derives its authority to supersede its own subpages doesn't "imply" anything about "local decisions", other than that POV-forking policy pages in an effort to evadee consensus is not permitted. MOS isn't saying that.

8953:

It's misleading because it implies that local decisions are invalid, when the MoS itself says that articles need not be consistent across the project. There are discussions going on at the consensus page to decide how to proceed with that wording. I've also been looking around at how other

8014:

material, which is precisely what's been going on here. It's not even consistent. There is no conspiracy (or if there is, it's sure disorganized) against MOS; it's pretty random but of-a-single-mind editors making piecemeal changes at all of these pages, such that they even conflict with

7961:

The problem is that editors like SMcCandlish (I'm only personalizing this here because he was the person made the edit that started this off) simply don't see how harmful their attitudes and language are to the Knowledge project as a whole. There just is no need for this kind of language:

3437:

That totally makes sense, but the small trouble is Wilkes-Barre city was founded in 1769 and formally incorporated in 1806, while Wilkes–Barre Township was settled in 1758 and incorporated in 1790 – that makes it unclear which name was created first? In order for Wilkes-Barre to act as a

9758:

Thanks. But still, for example, bird articles mention the birds' diets, which include crustaceans, insects, small mammals, fish and reptiles. I would find it silly if these would have to be capitalized in ornithological articles that capitalize the birds' common names. So I'm arguing that

9273:

Worse, because lower case in article prose (with sentence case in titles) is the norm, this rule would impose lower case automatically even on non-English common names that should be capitalized because of the rules of the language to which they belong (e.g., all nouns are capitalized in

4290:

I'm referring to what seems to be an odd, unfamiliar, or novel set of rules. And can you say what might change if we used these new rules? If there are differences, we'd need to look at them. If there are not, let's leave the rules at what we had a large majority of users supporting.

9616:(my bold italics). The emphasized words already preclude Dogs, Cats and Cougars. Sure, not many users read MOS, but then they don't read that sentence either. For the benefit of those who do find their way to this paragraph, it would be enough to modify the offending sentence to read: 6891:

have been authorized for dealing with MOS and AT disputes. Either raise a substantive disagreement (could there possibly be one?!) for why a guideline should somehow not cite the WP policy from which it derives a not very well understood authority, or stop your revert-warring, please.

3859:

It is my understanding that a compounded proper name uses the hyphen when the name formed is chosen by the primary parties being joined—the en-dash is used when the compound is chosen by a third party. Married names are always hyphenated unless it is preferred to omit it; for example:

7885:

And that of course includes being ordered not to correct what you've always been taught is incorrect. This insight (and others in the post and the one to which it was replying) represent progress in my opinion. We can and must understand where the angst is coming from, and rise above

7969:"bird project regulars were present and vocal" – of course they were, and a good thing too. We need more participation in MOS-related discussions, not less. By all means encourage those with different views to participate, but don't imply it would be better had one group been absent. 8723:

following our anyone-can-edit philosophy, do not allow editors to claim ownership of articles. Finally, even if the possessive implied "something like ownership," it would not imply ownership because things like each other are not each other; e.g., red cars are not red giant stars.

8801:

actually comes from in policy; clearly, many people have been rather confused about this. SlimVirgin reverted me on this twice for no clear reason, only a false claim that this citation was "under discussion", which it was not, and still is not despite me opening a discussion for

7605:. And they just stopped, no fuss, no muss, except for articles on two types of insects, sometimes, but I see no evidence they actually editwar to keep the caps and the project has no local consensus on the matter, and same goes for a few plants pages in particular categories. The 9696:

How do you know? It's ambiguous as to whether it refers to ornithological articles or to common names of birds. I most strongly oppose the notion that the presence of a capitalized bird name in an article should force the capitalization of an arthropod name (for example) as well.

3109:

compound" (my emphasis). "Hale–Bopp" is attributive (adjective qualifying a noun) in that it describes/qualifies "Comet". Ie the name is Comet Hale–Bopp, not just Hale–Bopp. In the case of Wilkes-Barre, that hyphenated term is the complete name, it is not a qualifier for another

728:

I wasn't asking why the time is spent here, I was asking about overall time spent on this issue. I guess N-HH answered the question, editors think it is unprofessional to have the "wrong" dash but it does not look like it really makes any difference, people just love to argue.

7471:

that MOS has "no consensus" to go against these "reliable sources". It's a ridiculous argument that's been debunked 1,000 times. Reliable sources on facts about our article topics are not magically also reliable sources on how to style prose in a general purpose encyclopedia.

4729:

only if it existed before. That's why we've spent so much time trying to figure out whether the hyphen existed before, or, in other words, whether the township predates the city or vice-versa. All that is inline with the need to provide some kind of a rationale, if you agree.

937:

So should we not assume that the text is intended to say what it appears to be saying - that such compounds take a dash if they're "attributive"? Thus the clarification would involve merely defining "attributive", doing it in such a way that the definition includes cases like

6829:

And I repeat: Why/how could you think that a policy stating that wikiprojects cannot make up their own rules in conflict with wider policies and guidelines, somehow means "policies and guidelines other than MOS" because it didn't mention MOS by name? To use your favorite

4410:

the earlier rename? In other words, why the hyphen is correct in "Wilkes-Barre Township", and why the en dash is incorrect? In the discussion above we've examined more than a few logic paths ending up with en dash being correct, so please correct us where we were wrong.

859:

The difficulty with the latter is that that rule is pretty subjective, but that need not be a problem for the MoS. It could be worded as "A hyphen is used in proper names when the entity is seen as one whole and is no longer considered named after two distinct entities.".

9992:

Actually, I never mentioned "cougar" if you look at my comment. If writing in a style which requires the English names of species to be in title case, which I do on a regular basis outside Knowledge, I would avoid using e.g. "Cats" to mean "several members of the species

9846:

on this and stop capitalizing anything but bird names in bird articles. I don't distinguish IOC and non-IOC common names in English (though we should), but I definitely do not tolerate forcing incorrect capitalization of foreign ones any time I encounter that. <shrug:

1224:"Attributive" is something of a red herring; it's incidental to the intended distinction. Using hyphens or en-dashes in the problematic cases being discussed here has to do with the "binding strength" of the two symbols: hyphens bind more tightly than en-dashes. Thus in 10027:

example is perhaps too ambiguous. What I'm getting at is that, since there's no exception for "common names that are short" or "common names that are a bit more common than some not-so-common-ish ones" or whatever, nor an exception for plurals, the offending sentence

3382:", "Wilkes-Barre Township" is derived from an originally non-attributive compound, whereas this is not the case for Hale–Bopp. Could preserving the hyphen from an originally non-attributive compound be the rationale for using a hyphen in Wilkes-Barre Township? -- 6023:

The idea that WP's site-wide style guideline, that anyone can edit and which is one of the most-watchlisted policypages on the entire system, with very, very high levels of participation on its talk page (see the enormousness of the archives) is somehow how not

1021:

So why don't we make this easy? Every dash used on Knowledge looks like this, -. It is easy because you just have to type it on the keyboard and most readers (the people we are creating this for) probably could care less what it looks like. Problem solved.

8954:

wikiprojects approach this kind of style issue, and in all the ones I've looked at they make the decisions themselves, based on the specialist sources. So what WikiProject Birds did was fine and quite normal. It's just that some people here disagree with them.

7384:

WikiProject Birds are doing a good job, including their decision to capitalise common names. They should be supported. If the MOS says otherwise, it's the MOS that should change. If the MOS is not sufficiently clear, as seems to be the case, then it should be

3927:

Dashes for dummies says that a compound formed by an en-dash indicates the "existence of tension", which can be created when a name is decided without collaboration. I have seen no exceptions to this as a rule and I am confident a contrary example will not be

6208:

Why/how could you think that a policy stating that wikiprojects cannot make up their own rules in conflict with wider policies and guidelines, somehow means "policies and guidelines other than MOS" because it didn't mention MOS by name? To use your favorite

3252:

I would interpret the MOS guidelines as indicating that Wilkes-Barre Township should be an en dash instead of a hyphen. That could mean my interpretation is wrong, or that the guideline should be changed, or that it is a sufficiently rare example that we can

3104:

Actually I found the answer to my question (what's the difference between Hale–Bopp and Wilkes-Barre) in MOS already - I just wasn't paying attention. It says (above the Hale–Bopp example) that an en dash is used "for the names of two or more people in an

9723:

Sorry, should have written that this is how the text is usually interpreted; I can now see that it's ambiguous. But it certainly does NOT mean that the presence of a capitalized bird name in an article forces other capitalizations. I take it to mean that

830:

It's the latter surely. All the examples listed are names of things and proper nouns, whether it's McGraw-Hill or Hale–Bopp. The problem is that there is no obvious logic to that distinction, or at least no obvious logic than can be applied consistently.

5904: 5345:

means 'made-up' whereas 'fictional' means 'to do with works of fiction' (if I recall correctly). But in any case, there's no centralised standard for English writing - who would you expect to rule that a particular usage was definitively right or wrong?

9411:

There are some articles that have so many uses of title case for English names that no-one has yet wanted to convert them. If an extra item is added to such an article, it's better to be consistent. For example, there are eight long articles in the set

9728:(i.e. articles in the "ornithological category") should capitalization be used. The wider interpretation would allow all bird names to be capitalized in all articles. I'm sure that even SMcCandlish and I can agree that there's no consensus for this! 2768:

These are good points. I can't quite wrap my head around "Wilkes-Barre". Maybe "Hale–Bopp" is dashed because it is short for "Comet Hale–Bopp" and "Wilkes-Barre" is no such shortening? I'm not really sure, but I can't think of any other good reason.

9405:

The Red-crested Mattressthrasher, which nests usually in the western death shrub, feeds principally upon the great monster scorpion and the lesser wamprat, and is predated in turn by the mountain yeti, and, near human settlements, by feral dogs and

9400:

The Red-crested Mattressthrasher, which nests usually in the Western Death Shrub, feeds principally upon the Great Monster Scorpion and the Lesser Wamprat, and is predated in turn by the Mountain Yeti, and, near human settlements, by feral dogs and

1251:

Cities can acquire double-barrelled names in several ways. They can be named after two people or two cities can merge. We want the first case to bind the names more tightly than the second case, so a city named after two people uses a hyphen (hence

9256:

This sentence was somewhat controversial, and long-debated, when first proposed in 2012, but I will not make any kind of "it doesn't have consensus" long-after-the-fact whine here. It simply has unintended consequences, and they're rather severe:

5259: 9340:

The Red-crested Mattressthrasher, which nests usually in western death shrubs, feeds principally upon the great monster scorpion and the lesser wamprat, and is predated in turn by the mountain yeti, and, near human settlements, by feral dogs and

9335:

The Red-crested Mattressthrasher, which nests usually in Western Death Shrubs, feeds principally upon the Great Monster Scorpion and the Lesser Wamprat, and is predated in turn by the Mountain Yeti, and, near human settlements, by feral Dogs and

5446:

Since we haven't had a good knock-down–drag-out hyphen–dash battle for a while, the evil part of me hankers to put the cat among the pigeons. How should we describe a relationship that's similar to that between a father and a son? Would it be a

1373:

not usually much disagreement that the former is more strongly bound into a single city name and the latter is the names of co-equal discoverers of the comet. Many sources use en dash in Hale–Bopp; none do for Wilkes-Barre, as far as I know.

7769:

and write as they like. If that editor editwars against other editors following MOS, by reverting their lower-casing, he or she will rightly eventually get blocked. No one has to convince bird editors to stop capitalizing. Policy at both

7193:

I'm very disappointed that SMcCandlish seems to be returning us to the bad old days of aggressive editing and counter-editing of the MOS and its subpages. I thought we'd managed to get away from all that and have more civilized discussions.

1126:

fonts came along and the world got lazy. Microsoft Word automatically converts hyphens to endashes when surrounded by a space on both sides, but most other applications don't, so the subtlety has become lost to many. A hyphen, however, is

10332:

infoboxes already reflect it, and the information is therefore redundant. It's akin to our MOS discussions as to whether material should be deleted from elsewhere if it is already in the infobox. And this is our MOS for section headings.

9099:"? My general feeling is that if something or someone wasn't noteworthy, we simply wouldn't be talking about them on Knowledge, so there should be no need to mention awards in some attempt to assert noteworthiness or other forms of glory. — 2930:

But comets carry a dash regardless of whether the people worked together to discover it or did so independently. This to indicate that it has been named after multiple people, and not one person carrying a double name (like Lennard-Jones).

3713:

So -- and --- are their best notion a sentence-level dash, it seems. On that page the word dash doesn't appear; nor is there an en dash or an em dash character. But we do find their infamously stupid principle for use of hyphens close by.

5939:– It was largely cleaned up to agree with MOS:LIFE as of 2012-02-29. But as of 2014, it is severely out-of-line with MOS and flagged as disputed, especially for adding a new "exception" to capitalize some insect categories when there 265:

as attributive because the noun is still understood.) But if the compound is the whole name, then it's hyphenated. The union of two cities seems to be an example of a different sort, that perhaps ought to have a separate bullet point.

5587:

Your first sentence expresses a hankering for a battle, but Knowledge in general and its Manual of Style in particular need a peaceful atmosphere, where competing options can be examined and discussed calmly instead of being used in

9898:

Thanks for filling me in on the background. Well, idealistically I agree with you, but as said above, I think we need to find a pragmatic way, otherwise the MOS will just end up being what everybody should have done but nobody did.

6550:-genuflection. It comes off as extremely snide. It's okay for us to disagree and debate here, but this "oh I'm so fallible and so terribly interested in your views" sarcasm is obnoxious and a strong impediment to civil discourse. 7598:

3. We already have absolute proof that biological topic specialists will adapt immediately and without fuss to Knowledge setting a lower-case common names standard, because it's already happened in just about every field but birds

10182:

Hmm, but I have a large collection of print and online style guides, and not one of them has any such rule as "Capital letters should be used where use of lower case letters might reasonably result in confusion", in any wording.

1091:

since it has a dual role. In Wikitext, the hyphen-minus and en dash are the same width as each other, with the em dash being slightly longer; but when displayed on a finished page, the hyphen-minus is about half the width of the

4504:

So, in "Wilkes-Barre Township" we're simply preserving the hyphen from an originally non-attributive compound? In other words, "Wilkes-Barre" is a standalone term no matter which way it's used, and not an attributive compound?

3796: 10138:

I don't agree with the "official" stuff, but clearly there's some disagreement that we should be capitalizing, even in bird articles, non-bird common names for which there is not even an off-WP standard that suggests doing so.

2595:

That's a good catch, just corrected the proposal above according to your suggestions regarding Minneapolis–St. Paul. Regarding the Hale–Bopp comet and comparison with Wilkes-Barre, well, that's probably because the comet has

1556:

No one disagrees or knows a counterexample? This MOS line style still needs to be clarified, so I'll do that if no one voices any disagreement. The latter explanation seems to be the best one we've been able to find, I think.

552:

disagreed, and explained why they disagreed. That way we wouldn't waste time on non-issues and meta-issues, problems would be fixed without fuss, and discussion would be focused on such genuine problems as really require it.

10405:

is already clear that information should not be only within an infobox but also within the main body of the article, since reusers of WP articles regularly omit them. MOS isn't missing or failing to address anything here.

9036:

is saying that. This doesn't have anything go do with articles; Knowledge-namespace pages are not articles. MOS does not have to be put on hold because some people are discussing something on another page. MOS referring to

8971:

Also, I think the "going twice" approach isn't helpful, and I'd appreciate it if that could stop (also the postings in multiple venues; all it does is wear people down, but that's not what creating/gaining consensus means).

7043:

capitalizing bird species, though FA does require MOS. Is the world going to end because of it? I'd have thought that some kind of SPECIESVAR, requiring only that articles were self-consistent, would be quite enough for WP.

1957:

But how is "Comet Hale-Bopp" not a "compounded proper name" of single entity? Fine, there are exceptions to any rule, but how is anyone meant to work out what they are, how frequent they are or how the distinction is drawn?

882:

is considered to be named after two distinct entities, by those who know it is so named. (People who don't know might think anything.) And they are both seen as one whole. So why does one have a dash and the other a hyphen?

8834:

process, unless someone raises a genuinely substantive rationale (could there possibly be one?!) for why a guideline somehow cannot cite the WP policy from which it derives a not very well understood scope, I'm going with

6511:

that you want closed, which is the topic of this section, which you named and started. I just wanted to be sure that this was the case, because I think that anyone examining the diff will wonder what you are on about. But

1834:

attributive compound.", with Comet Hale–Bopp as an example, but then it says "A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities.", even though the name of a single entity was dashed just before. --

9086:

While we're on the topic of "rave reviews", is there any explicit guidance on Knowledge about phrases such as "Jason W. Peacock is an award-winning janitor at the ..." and "she appeared in an award-winning production of

4855:

Well, I'm fine with leaving "Wilkes-Barre Township" as an exception, though it leaves a bit of a bitter taste in my mouth after spending so much time discussing about a likely en dash. :) Of course, we should also hear

3055:

I'm rather fond of en dashes but this discussion is troubling, and I can only think of a question to illustrate the difficulty: "Are there any Minneapolis–St. Paul bus routes in the Minneapolis-St. Paul transit system?"

2553:". Ie it is a single urban area that includes the two named cities and 180 others cities/towns. Perhaps Minneapolis–St. Paul is a good example (named after two separate cities), but it is poor and misleading description. 9182: 9393:

capitalization of vernacular names just to ensure consistency, and this is, fairly obviously, not the purpose of the sentence you propose removing. It could perhaps be qualified. Removing it would cause real problems.

8294:

Agree totally. We need to step back and have a rational and respectful discussion. And it may not be easy as there have been a lot of (dare I say) feathers ruffled. But we must try, and thank you for being part of it.

6296:

other editors and, as I've pointed out, it is better to reflect good practices than to attempt to claim "authority". Claims of authority are fallacious on their face in this context and an authoritarian's fantasy. --

9441:"fairly obviously, not the purpose of the sentence you propose removing"? Obvious to you, but it's not even clear to WP:BIRDS, where it's not even clear to people there whether to capitalized non-IOC common names! ( 7878:

The argument from "correctness" is a fallacy. The rules it quotes were abandoned by linguists many years ago for the purposes for which they are being used here. The problem is, as observed by another editor above,

6998:

is to stress that groups of editors can't decide not to be neutral, for example, or to override a wiki-wide RfC, but that can't be extended to guidelines like the MoS, parts of which may have very little consensus.

698:

with. Sadly, it's never going to fly because too many people on these pages think it's "unprofessional" while others seem to quite like these endless navel-gazing disputes about how to apply the rules in each case.

6925: 1387:

The problem is that the current wording is unclear (see the link at the beginning of this post), no matter the rules, and so has to be changed. However, for it to be changed, we must be clear on what the rule is.

7115:: "The best advice pages do not conflict with the site-wide pages and avoid unnecessary duplications with site-wide pages. However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting 1898:

Indeed – exactly as was pointed out at the start of the thread all those weeks and bytes ago. It's amazing how long it can take for some things to sink in. As I recall saying at some point, it would be useful if

7892:

such. But better still is the current situation, with consistency encouraged within individual articles and groups of articles, but neither prescibed nor proscribed universally. This is part of the concept of a

8279:

What I'm saying is that we might get more people to accept standard English rules in ornithology articles if we demonstrate that it's not just MoS regulars throwing their weight around because we feel like it.

1813:

We all want a guideline that is optimal for editors to understand. May I ask for a short statement as to what is unsatisfactory or difficult about the current text? That would help us to know where it stands.

9313:

factors at any such article. One can unflatteringly suspect that a few opponents of bird capitalization may take a perverse delight in this, because it is highly likely to increase the frequency and heat of

6674:

No, LOCALCONSENSUS does not in fact say that it is not permitted to make a guideline that conflicts with the MOS. It doesn't say anything about the MOS. It talks about site-wide versus local consensus.

5308: 5277: 596:

Just to clarify, what I said is fine to change is consensus; it isn't OK to change text that was hammered out in a consensus-building process, without first changing the consensus by means of discussion.

7582:

If people are making mistakes in capitalization, just fix them and move on. We don't need to assume that there is a problem with the guidelines. Get this--most people who edit here have never read them.

3589:

older term of the two), while "Wilkes-Barre" stays with a hyphen (as it isn't an attributive but a standalone term). In other words, complete name of the city is "Wilkes-Barre" so it goes with a hyphen.

7972:"They have no business trying to change MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS, WP:NCFAUNA, WP:NCFLORA, etc., to disagree with MOS so they can get their way". But it's ok for "MOS editors" to make changes so they can get 7778:

already tells them to stop forcing everyone else to capitalize. They have no business trying to change MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS, WP:NCFAUNA, WP:NCFLORA, etc., to disagree with MOS so they can get their way.

5699: 339:

No they don't. Pages on which anti-Wikipedians try to enforce an ad hoc "no change without discussion" policy are the ones that have the most problems, because the normal channel by which problems are

9380: 8311:

As for the MoS being just a guideline, no it's not. It's a set of rules that people can and have be punished for disobeying. We have to take that into account with any wording that is put in place.

3657:

Well, instead of "substantively (on its own)" we could write "on its own", though that makes the current phrasing about the attributive use of the originally substantive "Lennard-Jones" less clear. --

1240:

The distinction for comets is irrelevant, because the naming authority only uses one element of a hyphenated name. Thus if Lennard-Jones and Hale had jointly discovered a comet, the name would not be

311:

Sorry, can you actually suggest that directly on the talk page rather than actually editing the MOS and posting a link to that edit? The MOS needs to be stable and changes need to be discussed first.

4188:

People, could you chime in and respond. Is my latest proposal finally good (then please support), or are there still things that have been overlooked so far (then I'd like to know that very much)? --

10290:

All of that is an article content discussion, not an MOS discussion. Pburka is correct on the general principle, but it can't be used to demand that the data at issue be in headings in particular.

7221: 6947: 6888: 3485:

Hmm, maybe, but did they also receive their current names when they were founded? And what was the rationale for calling "Wilkes-Barre" just that when there was already a "Wilkes–Barre Township"? --

1442:

And what about Wilkes-Barre? Would you put that in the same "eccentric" category, or do you think its exclusion from the dash rule is connected with the fact that the compound is not "attributive"?

8168:

A bit late for that. MOS controversies have a tendency to run long, get subtopic-divided sometimes, and eventually spin off proposals that represent congealed ideas from the rambling discussions.

5548:

you'll see MOS does give advice (much like yours) for a different but comparable situation, along with the appropriate punctuation if the editor chooses to ignore the advice. Just through I'd ask.

10176: 2787:

says that all comet names are spelled with a hyphen. But some editors think they can spell better than the naming authority for all celestial bodies, and they insisted on dashing Hale-Bopp..... --

1148:

It is sad that there is this problem with typing endashes, but it is not relevant for the issue at hand: The rule that describes the few cases when a hyphen should be used instead of an endash. --

8845:"BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for 147:

In an earlier discussion about en-dashes vs. hyphens, there was some agreement that the wording of this section of the MoS needed to be clarified, but nothing happened – partly, I think, because

133:. Lines A and B, to me, seemed to suggest contradictory ways of writing "Epstein Barr virus": hyphenated as a single entity, or en dashed as an attributive compound named after Epstein and Barr. 2754:

discoverers, use en dash, else hyphen" or "if the term is a common name for which there is a different formal designation, use en dash, else hyphen" does not sound like a good clear rule to me.

9420:

English name in all eight articles should be converted to sentence case (which has to be done one-by-one because some contain proper names) or any added item should use the same capitalization.

7993: 7207: 4559:

Early spellings/stylings include "township Wilkesbarre", Wilkes-barre, Wilkes-Barre, Wilkes Barre, etc. So, I don't have any good rationale, but the hyphen is what they have standardized on.

1315:

is one town named after two people or a merger between two towns, without context or clarification, when it could easily be put down to a typo or some editor misunderstanding the distinction.

6642:

already makes it clear that a few editors can't go off to a wikiproject, or some other guideline, to make up a contradictory "mini-consensus" amongst themselves that conflicts with MOS. This

6129:

in style guidance, with an imagined right to tell established style guidance to go to hell if it conflicts with what you want to do and consensus isn't going your way. Technically speaking,

5977: 5829: 467:

you're providing reasons, good. If you'd done that to start with, rather than inventing quasi-procedural justifications for your action, then we would have made progress far more pleasantly.

1232:

the en-dash is intended to show that it is named after two people called "Hale" and "Bopp". "Lennard" and "Jones" are bound more tightly than "Hale" and "Bopp". This makes excellent sense,

7829: 2459:: Looking good to me, the examples are better and it's more easily understandable. Also, the numbers are now spelled out. :) However, let's wait to see the feedback from more editors. — 9416:

which naturally use title case for English names, because this is the BSBI standard (I, predictably, believe that they should use title case, but that's absolutely not the issue.) Either

5737: 5713: 5179: 3500:

I agree, and I've already asked myself the same two questions, but unfortunately was unable to provide good answers. Any historians around, please, to help us resolve this dilemma? :) —

1054:

special keys absent from English-language keyboards, with certain rules half the English-speaking world never knows about, then "normal English punctuation" isn't part of normal English.

9936:(being advanced - I bet you guessed it already - by a WP:BIRDS member, who was promoting common name capitalization everywhere, something members of that project say they're not doing). 5803:

already invalidates such attempts to ignore site-wide consensus in favor of little "micro-consensuses". All the change would do it put an end to a lot of perennial strife and bickering.

5185: 7928:

policy. It's a policy that specifically says wikiprojects cannot make up their own rules that conflict with wider consensus at policies and guidelines. You know this already. Playing

7133:

Again, this is an interesting side discussion, but does not address why you are reverting MOS citing a policy it relies on. Please explain how blocking that could possibly make sense.

5296: 5265: 494:. That is not how the editing process works, not least because if everybody went about it that way, especially for unclear issues and especially on site-wide guidelines, it'd be chaos. 7602: 10000:

The key issue here, to repeat myself, is that the MOS always supports (correct) consistency within an article while allowing a considerable degree of inconsistency between articles.

5354: 9478:. If not its removal, then an expansion to "Use a consistent style for common names of any given class of things within an article." Or something like that, only better phrased. -- 9359:

or monkey-see-monkey-do effect to directly and broadly inspire capitalization of all sorts of other things. Those of us who do lots of style cleanup regularly see it all the time.

5313: 5264:

A Request for Comment has been made regarding the appropriate level of generality of article title disambiguation for articles under WikiProject Comics. Please join the discussion

10117: 2632:

An en dash is used to indicate a conjunction of separate entities or concepts; a hyphen is used to indicate unity of a single entity or concept formed by combining multiple names.

2351:

An en dash is used to indicate a conjunction of separate entities or concepts; a hyphen is used to indicate unity of a single entity or concept formed by combining multiple names.

1260:). However, this leads to an inconsistency between cities named after two people, which use a hyphen, and theorems, laws, comets, etc. named after two people, which use an en-dash. 431:

of the two I reverted together removed an entire sentence, claiming it was repetition when it wasn't, since it included the suggestion of using alternative, more common words. The

6149:

you to spell it a way you don't like,. You will, however, get into trouble if you keep changing it to upper case, and reverting others changing it to lower case per consensus at

9329:

This problem directly leads to editors falsely assuming such capitalization of non-birds is a "standard" here and applying it elsewhere to other organisms and even non-organisms.

5292: 2977:) or part of the name is removed. This is to prevent confusion with the hyphens for multiple discoverers. This is sourced from reliable sources in the Singer Brewster article. -- 163:

don't see "McGraw" and "Hill" as the origin of "McGraw-Hill", so a hyphen appears appropriate to me. However, it might be that someone more familiar with the publishing industry

9759:

capitalization may (if agreed elsewhere) depend on the phylum/class/order/family of the critter being mentioned, but definitely not of the p/c/o/f of the article's main subject.

6037:

in more detail than MOS does, it's still necessary to get consensus at MOS to go along with it, or it simply isn't a style guideline here and MOS will, as a patter of policy at

5200: 1268:

Personally, I don't think it's worth making the hyphen/en-dash distinction in proper names of this kind; it just causes too much hassle. However, if we do make the distinction,

219:

minority of papers. From my count, a hyphen is used in EBV ~98% of the time in article titles archived on PubMed. I was fighting very hard for the hyphen w/o knowing about this

6622:

style guide on Knowledge, is about style, and other guidelines (besides MOS's own subpages) are not. To the extent they sometimes wander a little bit into style territory, as

5359:

Well... from my experience, the editors here at our MOS page frequently make such definitive rulings... of course, half of us will rule that a particular usage is definitively

7686:"The convention is followed by many of the big ornithological journals". Did you know that the IOC isn't even a taxonomic nomenclature authority, as WP:BIRDS also well knows? 1907:

who then contributed to the drafting of the current detailed section, could actually weigh in and help out. Those people would include your interlocutor here, among others.

611:

Again, there is no attempt to "change the consensus", just to better express what the consensus is. That oughtn't to require long process, or we'll never achieve anything.

3378:

It just struck me: whereas Hale–Bopp is attributive even when used without "Comet", this is not the case for Wilkes-Barre, just like Lennard-Jones, right? Now, just like "

5932: 1264:

by more than two joining processes as shown above (one person with a double-barrelled name, two people, two cities) it's never going to work without some inconsistencies.

9153:

Right. The article can mention notable awards, but simply stating "award-winning" is PEACOCK/UNDUE. Virtually everyone over the age of 4 has won some kind of "award".

5866:, a naming (article titles) convention, into an article content guideline in direct conflict with MOS; this has been answered with a more reasonable counter-proposal at 4879:

time). I'm uneasy with leaving it an exception for this reason, not so much as the time we've spent analyzing it. Maybe if we find a rationale for it as an exception? --

10239: 7120:

any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional

666:

Yes, for readers who understand normal English punctuation, the distinctions signaled by punctuation are useful and make it easier to understand the material quickly.

10363:

This isn't a discussion for MOS unless there's guidance in MOS for this situation or you are lobbying for such guidance to be included in MOS. Keep the discussion at

8916:

I would oppose that link being added. I think you should gain consensus for anything in this area before making the edits, given how contentious the thing has become.

8857:. BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing." 5291:

A revised Request for Comment has been made regarding the policy compliance of title disambiguation for articles under WikiProject Comics. Please join the discussion

2233:

It looks good to me, too. Removing the "single entity", which is too broad and ambiguous to be useful, is probably a good step. Tony, tell us what you're thinking.

8460:. Why discount them? We are a general encyclopedia, certainly, but we draw on specialised sources too, and hold them in high regard. My point is that there's no such 7966:"this capitalization nonsense" – whatever capitalization of the IOC names of birds is, it's not "nonsense". It's simply following one valid style rather than another. 6314:

among other pages. This debate does not need to get mired in further discussion of your approach to that (including this dispute you seem to want to raise with the

738: 6083:

are to be indented, and a broader group of people have participated in a guideline specific to sonnets than have participated in it at the MoS? Just because it's a

8631:"Some articles about modern writers or their works therefore are written in the subject's style—especially if the writings are quoted. For example, the articles on 7022:

says is: "unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy

6328:. No one said anything about anyone dictating anything to anyone. The only claims of authority being made are those being made by propoonents of the fantasy that 9027:. You can't keep reverting and vaguely objecting to others' edits without policy-based reasons. What kind of policy-based reason you're going to come up with for 8611: 8088:

think that MOS somehow cannot represent consensus because... (well, I'm not sure...), maybe you need to propose some new system of guideline consensus-building at

1900: 10093: 9679: 9466: 9436: 8064: 7247: 6530:

Actually, I pointed you to several other discussions on this page that are evidientary of the problem. Please read more carefully. PS:, I just going to go with

1047: 692: 233: 176: 4322: 3904: 3357: 1367: 10160: 8907: 6915: 6355: 6305: 6290: 784: 675: 10427: 10342: 9505: 9067: 8922: 8541: 7717: 7156: 7005: 6669: 3164: 1524:

So, should we just delete the paragraph and just say that there are a few casewise-determined cases where a hyphen is used where one would expect an endash? --

1451: 10311: 9997:" because of its potential for ambiguity. It's just a matter of good writing. This is all I meant. It's an irrelevant side point, which I should have omitted. 7411: 6855: 6824: 6790: 6776: 6736: 6722: 6694: 6257: 6234: 6203: 6184: 6096: 6069: 6018: 6004: 5845: 5381: 3671:

Hm, I've been thinking about it further, and it might be just fine as-is. Only if we could somehow bring your new proposal to attention of more editors... —

1116: 918: 770: 10210: 9548: 9487: 9174: 9144: 8581: 8567: 8357: 8320: 8304: 8289: 7860: 7257: 2451: 2242: 756: 10204: 9127: 8996: 8978: 8936: 8770: 8704: 8515: 8447: 8385: 8189: 7953: 7514: 7367:

editors to produce consistent articles and thus give the best reader experience... always our bottom line. But we need to be clear on its purpose, and ours.

6571: 6525: 6491: 6463: 6434: 6378: 3961: 2986: 2828: 2810: 2796: 2715: 2485: 1382: 142: 10018: 9797: 9737: 9706: 9651: 8255: 8217: 8082: 7802: 7639: 7298: 6605: 5231: 5173: 3937: 3126: 2778: 1551: 1533: 1519: 1505: 1490: 1353: 1327: 1307:, namely, the combination of the names of separate entities? I think the hyphen/dash distinction is too subtle for anyone to make any assumptions whether 955: 932: 892: 825: 306: 288: 274: 213: 194: 10258: 9642:"other categories" here means "other categories of article" referring back to the previous "ornithological articles", not "other categories of organism". 9118:

is usually referred to as justification for removing "award-winning" and variants on same from sentences identifying the subject of an article, and such.

7867:

The proposal seems unsound to me. There is nothing wrong with what WikiProject Birds is doing, and yet this seems to be a proposal to subtly undermine it.

7661: 5867: 3812: 3782: 3760: 3318: 3266: 3219: 3079: 2905: 2763: 2617: 1031: 721: 658: 10277: 9957: 9919: 9868: 9637: 8983:

Local consensuses contrary to the broader guidelines are invalid, unless the local group can "convince the broader community that such action is right".

8473: 8371: 8136: 8121: 7915: 6973: 6937: 5690: 3353: 3203: 3065: 2582: 1397: 1281: 582:

whether or not it was an improvement, it was that attempted improvements are not welcome here per se, which is obviously not a helpful attitude to take.

246:

So, what about adding "... if these are no longer seen as named after two entities." to the sentence about the hyphens? Any problems with saying that? --

10379: 8409: 7761:. If some editor personally would rather cut their own throat than lower-case a bird name (or whatever style matter they will never, ever give up on), 7077: 7053: 5855: 5634: 5616: 4902: 4873: 4802: 4626: 4568: 4518: 4467: 4424: 4377: 4342: 4300: 4273: 4247: 4197: 2506: 2162: 1566: 1216: 1201: 999: 984: 620: 606: 591: 576: 561: 536: 517: 476: 458: 422: 378: 356: 334: 255: 9413: 9108: 7587: 5890: 4993: 4924: 4888: 4743: 4680: 4229: 3684: 3666: 3652: 3633: 3619: 3605: 3580: 3563: 3545: 3527: 3513: 3451: 3432: 3414: 3391: 3373: 3347: 3333: 3030: 2940: 2468: 2227: 1810:

No symmetry, but separate entities invoked. Reversibility is one "test", but it's not always the case. Ontological separateness is what really counts.

1538:

I was thinking, what about an endash is used to indicate a symmetrical relationship, and a hyphen to indicate the unity of the two? This would explain

1436: 1143: 1063: 8270: 5557: 5535: 5497: 5483: 5468: 5429: 5410: 5395: 3727: 2525: 2194: 2180: 1893: 1875: 1857: 1843: 1777: 1584: 1542:

vs. Hindi-Urdu. It would also explain Wilkes-Barre (1 city) vs. Minneapolis–St. Paul (2 cities). It would also explain names such as Lennard-Jones. --

1185: 809: 8491: 8163: 8022: 3853: 2434: 2416: 2148: 1930: 1157: 869: 854: 5897: 5894: 5248: 9901:

I don't understand the argument about cougar either, as it's the common name of one species. It's easier to understand with cats, since apart from

8532:

Yes, a good addition to the lede, reflecting the current consensus of Knowledge (notwithstanding the local consensus within the Birds project). --

8482:

in detail. Specialist sources on, say, zoology are not reliable sources on English language writing and usage for a general audience, anymore than

5661: 2404:

I'm not sure the words "separateness" and "unity" made the distinction clear, so I've suggested alternate wording for the introductory line, too.

1981: 1952: 123: 8880: 8204:

Regardless of whether SmC's wording is inflammatory, the answer, "Should the common names of bird species be capitalized? No they should not" is

5669:

It's hyphens. Constructions like "father-and-son-like relationship" are quite common (in not-so-great-styled writing ;-), and always use hyphens.

3899:

respectively. I believe the term: "attributive compound" was an effort to imply the compound was attributed, or given – requiring an en-dash. The

1939:

exceptions. If it would be clearer, perhaps add "However,"? "However, a hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities."

407: 7668: 7342:

our job to promote any variety of English as the standard. Not only is that contrary to policy, it also reflects an obsolete view of linguistics.

1827: 1077:

give a hyphen, and none that will give a dash. The two that produce a hyphen are (i) in the main keyboard, immediately to the right of the digit

8859:

I've done my part, and two days later the opposition to this simple citation addition has still failed to engage in their part of the D in BRD.

8003: 6994:

for an example. GAs are expected to comply with five of the MoS subpages (LEAD, W2W, etc), but not with the main MoS. The point of that part of

159:

article explains the origin of the name from two people, an en-dash is clearly appropriate. "McGraw-Hill" still seems to me a problematic case.

10364: 9297:

Worst of all, it causes, at ornithological or other capitalized articles, the absurd result of capitalizing things like a passing reference to

6630:; it has big fat hatnotes that do this, unmistakeably. Despite this, because of the loophole in the wording of the MOS lead, people are still 6588:

take precedence on style matters, if only because it's easier to find all the rules if they're in one place, the question of whether or not it

148: 199:

Well, that has been the fiercely (sometimes viciously) debated issue on more than one occasion. In one corner are those who would answer that

10068:

articles (among many others) have been the loci of intense but severely misguided pro-capitalization activism. The concerns I'm raising are

9294:

such standard for capitalization, even against the standards of the other, non-IOC organization the common name in question was sourced from.

8490:

WP:BIRDS admitting all of these things – it's not my assessment, but their own! – at well-labelled discussion archives I've been cataloguing

5150: 1571:

I don't think you have a mandate to make changes. Could you print here the current and your proposed new texts first, for our consideration?

796:

If I might try to continue the more substantial discussion at the bottom of the thread where we can find it, can anyone do a better job than

7835:"Localized decisions that lead to ongoing conflict" is precisely the problem. The NCCAPS, NCFAUNA, NCFLORA and MOS:CAPS guidlines all even 7269:, a guideline, is optional, and even if you're following it, the reversions require policy-based (or in articles, RS-based) rationales, not 7420:

and gaining consensus, based on reason and evidence, that MOS needs to be changed to account for some particular style convention. MOS is

6504: 6447: 6400: 5923: 5885: 5878: 5205: 5004:

An en dash is used to indicate a conjunction of separate entities or concepts when used attributively, even when it is done so implicitly:

4057:

An en dash is used to indicate a conjunction of separate entities or concepts when used attributively, even when it is done so implicitly:

1904: 8740: 8674: 7099:

actual basis for your revert. Please do so, or undo it. PS: Since you seem unaware of them, here are the relevant policy and guideline:

5124: 4970: 4182: 1358:

So does anyone have any idea how to sort out this mess (with minimal change to the substantial consequences of the guidance, I suppose)?

7689:

The entire basis for the capitalization being pushed here, that's it supposedly a universal, official taxonomic standard in ornithology

7442:

When these failures to gain consensus occur, they do not, through some mystical process, reverse themselves into reasons that consensus

6402:. See also several other threads I've started immediately above; they're all about various other guidelines PoV-forking from MOS. The 3585:

Great find, thank you! With such historical data available, "Wilkes–Barre Township" should have an en dash (as an attributive compound

9514:

of the IOC birdcaps here is that IOC is an overwhelmingly reliable source on this and the convention is virtually universal . It's a

8605: 5541: 4671:

But, as discussed above, 'preserving a hyphen' gets into trouble because the township predates the city. How can it be 'preserving'? --

3494: 2338: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 10216: 7112: 3571:. This would appear to mean that Wilkes–Barre Township should have an endash. Does it also mean Wilkes-Barre should have an endash? -- 9408:. (Plural uses of English names referring to species as a whole are best avoided; there's a difference between "the Dog" and "dogs".) 5441: 5211: 9398:

organisms. In my view (and the MOS in cases of allowed variation, e.g. ENGVAR, citation style), there's no case for inconsistency.

7402:

And if we do that, I think we can call it progress, and hopefully reduce the angst and all get back to improving the encyclopedia.

1289:"We want the first case to bind the names more tightly than the second case, so a city named after two people uses a hyphen (hence 9784:, a section of a featured article, lists species that the bird predates, and it does so by capitalizing the first word only, e.g. 9442: 5574: 3969: 2551:

the most populous urban area ... composed of 182 cities and townships ... its two largest cities, Minneapolis, ... and Saint Paul

491: 8043:"there's no consensus because our views are different". You can't declare a consensus only when if favors your own preferences. 6887:

that this citation was under discussion, which it was not). This kind of editwarring is not acceptable and is a example of why

6033:

clear that MOS represents a broader consensus on style questions. If some other guideline wants to treat a particular question

8717:

Concision and explanation are not mutually exclusive; e.g., E=mc^2 elegantly explains why antimatter produces an enormous bang.

8089: 7883: 6444: 6325: 5900: 5881: 4613:

Hm, but we should provide some kind of a rationale behind it, if you agree, just so it serves well as an example in the MOS. —

9588: 9527:

clause limiting to the consistent-withn-article rule to a given class of things or whatever, only help with cases #4 and #5.

9286: 9227: 8823:

for an any reasoned objection to the citation, and got another off-topic flood of repetitive posts that avoided the topic.

8601: 8392:

For completeness and for those who may one day scan this archived discussion, I should say that the text I quoted comes from

6638:

advice (we're not talking about any non-style, article titling material that is clearly NC/AT territory, only style, here).

5335: 3908: 2877:"was named Wilkes-Barre after John Wilkes and Isaac Barré, two British members of Parliament who supported colonial America." 2248: 8030:

policy. The claim that MOS isn't really a consensus is nonsense (and yes that word does need to be used when it's apt, per

7976:

own way. Bird project members have the same rights as any other editors. (And I see no evidence that "they" tried to change

6141:), and you know the whole project is against you on that, you're not going to get blocked or topic banned for writing it as 6087:

question, you think MoS gets to take priority even in that case? I see no support in any policy you've quoted for that. --

5753: 428: 9289:(IOC) common names of bird species is that the list is seen by members of that project as a published, universal standard. 8796: 6263:

particular pet peeve axes to grind. If you think micro-consensuses are all we have, you've clearly not read and understood

5874: 5745: 5721: 1023: 730: 650: 7026:

does not apply to articles within its scope". (My italics). It kinda pains me to point that out, but that is what it says.

797: 487: 483: 294: 10133: 9081: 6592:

is relevant. Of course any debates held here will be disproportionately attended by people who prefer this page. Where

6443:

on my part. But Let's try to focus on the topic at hand (I have restored the heading of this section, which you deleted,

5987:

style question than another guideline that treats that particular question. A guideline does not have to be about style

3338:

Is Wilkes-Barre simply an exception, or is there a rule to it? Can anyone say something that might help clear this up? --

1345: 105: 6446:

I hope that this was simply an accident on your part... if not some explanation is due IMO). Do you really want to cite

1478: 130: 111: 2864:"was discovered independently on July 23, 1995 by two observers, Alan Hale and Thomas Bopp, both in the United States." 8987:. Reverting without discussion approach wasn't helpful either, and I'm sure we'd appreciate it if that could stop. -- 6117:(plug in any value, e.g. "indent Elizabethan sonnets" or "present common names of organisms") they raise the issue at 10418: 10302: 10195: 10151: 10084: 9948: 9859: 9670: 9539: 9457: 9371: 9165: 9058: 8898: 8871: 8761: 8695: 8558: 8506: 8180: 8112: 8055: 7944: 7851: 7793: 7708: 7630: 7505: 7289: 7238: 7147: 6964: 6906: 6846: 6815: 6767: 6713: 6660: 6562: 6482: 6425: 6346: 6281: 6225: 6175: 6060: 5968: 5820: 5760: 5757: 5681: 5141: 2866:

That means they haven't made it a joint venture, and instead worked without knowing each other, so the title gets an

800:

at explaining the apparent contradiction (and in the process, perhaps explaining what an "attributive compound" is)?

432: 427:

Who says I'd rather keep the problem for the sake of stability? And who says your edits solved anything anyway? The

6626:

does for example, when it gets into why or why not to capitalize or italicize in animal-related article titles, it

6101:

Are you sure you understand how en.wiki operates? If you don't think MOS is a a site-wide consensus, go delete the

3903:

example uses a hyphen because the city was formed by a chosen merge of the two formerly independent cities whereas

3841: 2784: 6497: 5648:

My wording is pretty standard, and I didn't think for a minute you'd be offended. I'm sorry to have offended you.

8651: 7040: 6991: 3920: 5884:, where the NC-related discussion on this stuff is now centralizing. This has mostly been reverted, 2014-04-04. 4216:. Please comment, so all that work isn't wasted; maybe we were plain wrong there, but however let's discuss. — 10328:

The reason this is an MOS issue is that the assertion is that section headers should not have this information

8776: 7684: 7458:

behavior that makes it seem like they have consensus in a particular topic area. That's precisely the kind of

5733: 5709: 5595: 3356:

is simply a small mistake in an article title, not an exception. Went ahead and boldly renamed the article to

2742:. When we talk about Comet Hale–Bopp are we referring to the comet or the discoverers? If we have examples of: 47: 17: 7648:

But yes, the "just correct it and move on" is also a good solution. It's only if people change the lettering

6924:

You've just linked to Wikiproject Deletion Sorting. The relevant shortcut is AC/DS, or even better, a link to

5401:

you see, and ... It was all in good fun -- not in any way a comment on anyone's actual positions on anything.

2879:

That means they were pushing into the same direction, "modifying" each other all the time etc. So, it gets a

262:

But I've no idea what the present wording is supposed to mean either, so the addition won't make it any worse.

7601:

When MOS really firmly settled on lower case in 2012, a large number of projects were capitalizing like mad:

5591: 3912: 2702:'s suggestions, so "Minneapolis–St. Paul" is described as "an urban area named by its two largest cities". — 347:, and then we can have a discussion. Otherwise you're just making things worse with your groundless reverts. 10009:

course) within an article should be sacrosanct. (See, you've got me being dogmatic about the MOS now. :-) )

9825:

There's an assertion latent in all of this that MOS's main point, throughout all it advises, is consistency

7102: 5584:

contains four braces (curly brackets), and as a result the wikified arrows in watchlists are not functional.

878:

is presumably considered to be named after two distinct entities, by those who know it is so named, just as

9928:

is not a disambiguation page. But cats are not an necessary example here, "Cougars" do just fine. See its

8345: 8007:

you've been suggesting there was no consensus, just some MOS regulars), especially if you then immediately

5169: 4989: 4920: 4869: 4739: 4622: 4514: 4420: 4338: 4269: 4225: 3680: 3648: 3601: 3569: 3541: 3509: 3447: 3410: 3369: 3314: 3215: 3026: 2901: 2711: 2613: 1101: 10263:

The dates are still in the text (as well as the infobox); the question raised here is whether they should

8927:

OK, I agree with the addition, for the reasons given. What are the reasons for reverting the addition? --

8376:

It happened to me, actually. I got brought up on AN/I for using American punctuation instead of British.

7687: 7116: 2801:

They IAU, however, does not distinguish between endashes and hyphens, so that's unfortunately useless. --

8222:

Very important point and thank you for making it so clearly, but a misconception. Modern linguistics is

1477:

Or a maybe a combination of these? In any case, the current wording is unclear, as has been experienced

167:

be aware of the two entities, and would use naturally use an en-dash. Can this subjectivity be avoided?

9932:

archives for unbelievably self-righteous and certain yet unbelievably wrong arguments for capitalizing

9788:, even in the middle of a sentence. So it's, ahem, neither fish nor fowl, as it were. Whatever next? -- 9301:

or any other non-bird species name, even in mid-sentence (e.g. "its main predator in the region is the

8616: 8591: 8326: 3916: 3900: 3865: 2873: 2550: 1974: 1923: 1539: 1416: 977: 847: 714: 510: 451: 400: 327: 38: 10167:

capitalized in the names of just about anything at all. (Net result of reading masses of text above)

7331: 6755:, and remove the page from lists of guidelines. Then enjoy your lengthy block for POINTy disruption. 5983:

My objection makes perfect sense. It is not clear that the MOS represents a broader consensus on any

5736:. Some of the past discussions that led to decisions on aspects of style guidance are recorded at the 5712:. Some of the past discussions that led to decisions on aspects of style guidance are recorded at the 5129:

Can we stick an RfC fork in this and see if it's done baking yet? This has been really dragging out.

1472:

d) or because they are seen as single entities no longer named after which they were originally named?

6752: 6439:

I suspect I want to reject all four accusations of logical fallacy, and also the implied breaches of

5788: 5331: 5260:

RfC: Proposed rewording for instructions for disambiguation at the WikiProject Comics Manual of Style

1670:

An en dash is used to indicate a symmetrical relationship, but a hyphen is used to indicate a unity.

1070: 923:

Okay, it is clear that it is not yet clear what the rule we are supposed to be clarify is exactly. --

762: 8810:, asking for an explanation of the reverts, and was instead met with convoluted arguments about the 8628:"Articles on topics strongly tied to an English-speaking nation should use that nation's English..." 8393: 3568:

Wilkes–Barre Township apparently used to include Wilkes-Barre (City) and only later were they split

1510:

But then, when is it enough? Is one example of a dash already sufficient for us to dash the term? --

9584: 9351: 9282: 9223: 9042: 9038: 8984: 8027: 7929: 7925: 7467: 7446:

reached, that MOS must change to support them, simply because the losers go off and write up their

7106: 7019: 6796: 6639: 6158: 5800: 1228:

the hyphen is intended to show that this is named after a single person called "Lennard-Jones". In

1027: 734: 654: 8600:

regarding the MOS:IDENTITY issues that article raises. Comments there would be most appreciated.

5186:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Titles#MOS:QUOTEMARKS vs WP:QUOTEMARKS, WP:QUOTEMARK, MOS:QUOTEMARK

2286:

An en dash is used to indicate separateness of the names, but a hyphen is used to indicate unity.

2067:

An en dash is used to indicate separateness of the names, but a hyphen is used to indicate unity.

1469:

c) because these are more strongly bound together (and if so, how to decide which should be used)?

155:

is right that the key difference is whether the separate entities are seen as distinct. Since the

10127: 10014: 9733: 9647: 9501: 9432: 8597: 7989: 7203: 3379: 3017:

Oh, I wasn't aware of that, sorry. Thanks for the explanations, will remember for the future. —

2974: 1349: 1277: 209: 172: 7561:

because they find the place way too contentious. Our primary focus should be content, not rules.

5287:

proposed rewording for instructions for disambiguation at the WikiProject Comics Manual of Style

1481:, and therefore must be changed. This can only be done, however, if we know how to change it. -- 8572:

Ah, sorry. I refer to the proposed addition of ", and (on style matters) other guidelines". --

7678: 7476: 7463: 7451: 5943:. This is nuts. It also has no business being hidden in MOS:CAPS, where it conflicts with both 5780: 5350: 5304: 5273: 3861: 2447: 156: 9318:

disputes raised by random editors/readers. But this result is not desirable (and it would be

9253:; this has nothing to do with the usual reasons that issues with this section are brought up. 6113:. If someone thinks that something at MOS conflicts with how people in their field prefer to 4406:

Please don't get me wrong, but I'll respond with a counterquestion. So, are there any guides

3751:

The only thing I can gather from your post is that you really dislike IAU's spelling rules. --

527:

are inaccessible to the light, but I remain in diametric disagreement with you on this point.

10415: 10299: 10192: 10148: 10081: 9945: 9856: 9667: 9536: 9454: 9368: 9162: 9104: 9055: 8895: 8868: 8854: 8758: 8692: 8637: 8555: 8503: 8243: 8177: 8154:

Hang in there. I actually see some progress. The trick will be not to allow it to be buried.

8109: 8052: 7941: 7848: 7790: 7705: 7627: 7502: 7488: 7335: 7286: 7270: 7235: 7144: 6961: 6903: 6843: 6812: 6764: 6710: 6657: 6559: 6479: 6422: 6343: 6301: 6278: 6253: 6222: 6172: 6057: 5965: 5817: 5678: 5219: 5215: 5138: 5108: 3808: 3756: 3160: 2982: 2824: 2792: 2481: 2223: 1432: 1337: 1059: 229: 138: 3438:"single-term" qualifier, Wilkes-Barre should've been coined earlier, if I'm not mistaken? — 10338: 10235: 8381: 8316: 8285: 8213: 7657: 6601: 6440: 5612: 5327: 5323: 5188:

on confusion between similar shortcuts redirecting to two distinct guidelines within MOS.

4238:

I don't understand this. Can you point to any grammar guides that do anything like this?

4173:

Feel free to copyedit my suggestion to bring its style in line with the rest of the MOS. --

3933: 3262: 3122: 2970: 2759: 2578: 2564:...(discovered by Hale and Bopp)." Yes the comet was named after two people, but generally 1501: 1447: 1363: 1212: 1181: 1043: 995: 951: 914: 888: 805: 688: 616: 587: 557: 532: 472: 418: 352: 302: 270: 220: 200: 182: 5165: 4985: 4916: 4865: 4735: 4618: 4510: 4416: 4334: 4265: 4221: 3676: 3644: 3597: 3537: 3505: 3443: 3406: 3365: 3310: 3211: 3022: 2897: 2707: 2609: 2516:

one. Arguably that the combination of the two cities represents their close relationship.

2464: 897:

Nobody got any ideas? Maybe I was right the first time, and we decided to use the dash in

8: 10273: 10215:

A colleague editor has deleted (twice, so I thought I would open up discussion here) the

10023:

Okay, we've had a minor miscommunication here, and I apologize for my role in that. The

9250: 9033: 9020: 7330:

I think that's what I'm coming around to too, for many reasons. It's not just birds, see

7274: 6995: 6990:. Groups of editors can indeed decide not to apply the MoS (as can individuals); see the 6987: 6786: 6732: 6690: 6311: 6199: 6157:

articles and force other people to use your style quirk on the basis of some personal or

6092: 6014: 6000: 5784: 5075: 4908: 4128: 3061: 2860: 2739: 2654: 2373: 2306: 2086: 1689: 1412: 1112: 902: 9781: 7334:. What the proponents of compulsory non-capitalisation don't seem to realise is that we 6392: 5915: 2738:

Yes C/1995 O1 is its official name, but its common name and the title of the article is

775:

Maybe you could try to make useful comments instead of ranting about "grammar nazis". --

10123: 10056:, as long as we're still running with this "special bird capitalization" business, and 10010: 9729: 9643: 9606: 9497: 9483: 9428: 9306: 9243: 9140: 8992: 8932: 8782: 8577: 8537: 8443: 8367: 7985: 7980:, for example; the page history shows who made the only recent changes to its meaning.) 7825: 7771: 7417: 7199: 6879: 6834:

to show that MOS is excluded from LOCALCONSENSUS. Everyone but you knows that it isn't.

6781:

I don't have to test anything. The burden of proof is on you. You have not met it. --

6745: 6513: 6318: 6264: 6118: 6104: 6038: 5531: 5479: 5425: 5377: 4798: 4564: 4463: 4373: 4296: 4243: 3957: 2238: 1378: 1273: 990:

official company name, the official comet name as listed by astronomical bodies, etc.)

671: 205: 181:

I'm not familiar with previous discussions about this, but ... is there any reason why

168: 10116:

I am not the first to suggest there's a problem here. E.g. this comment at WT:BIRDS,

9842:

nonsense and has to be removed. My present solution, in the interim, has been to just

9315: 9278: 9041:

policy, more to the point, doesn't have to be put on hold because you're busy over at

8234:

are completely in step with this more recent approach. It is not Knowledge's place to

6468:

That's a user-talk matter; it's not germane to MOS. I'll bring it to your talk page.

6411:

association, ad hominem, and confusion of correlation and causation); not impressive.

6133:

provides such an escape value as a last resort. Even if you're of the camp that, say,

5910:

Editor in a related debate exploiting the loophole to engage in the pretense that the

5840:

I was asked for examples so here are some. Just current/recent stuff, not historical:

3401:"Wilkes-Barre", meaning that the latter compound is older. Hope it makes sense. :) — 3397:

history to be involved, as it would mean that "Wilkes-Barre Township" has been coined

2218:

Definite improvement. Unless there's s.t. specifically wrong, I say we go for it. —

1903:

who initially insisted that WP apply this minority-practice distinction at all and/or

1248:. So by using an en-dash in Knowledge, we are making a distinction which isn't needed. 10172: 10053: 9132: 9123: 8839:

policy and I'm putting the citation back in. If you want to revert it, let me quote

8736: 8728:

Haha! I never knew the part about modern authors was false. I propose we delete it!

8670: 8662:

I replaced the wordy " that " and "the X of Y" with the more concise " " and "Y's X".

8469: 8464:

either way, and both forms are well attested. Your ngram seems to indicate that too.

8405: 8353: 8300: 8251: 8159: 7977: 7911: 7484: 7480: 7447: 7407: 7253:

changes, yet you are acting like the onus is on the person reverting your changes. —

6623: 6521: 6459: 6407: 6403: 6388: 6374: 5948: 5911: 5863: 5859: 5346: 5300: 5269: 5120: 5095:

If this substantively used compound is later used attributively, the hyphen is kept:

4966: 4898: 4884: 4676: 4193: 4178: 4161:

If this substantively used compound is later used attributively, the hyphen is kept:

3877: 3837: 3662: 3629: 3615: 3576: 3559: 3523: 3490: 3428: 3387: 3343: 3329: 3075: 2936: 2806: 2774: 2502: 2443: 2430: 2334: 2190: 2158: 2144: 1889: 1853: 1839: 1773: 1562: 1547: 1529: 1515: 1486: 1393: 1153: 928: 865: 821: 780: 340: 284: 251: 119: 8018:. It just a worthless situation. No bad faith assumptions are needed on either side. 6109:

tag from it. Of course MOS takes priority over other guidelines on style question;

3828:– What about making the hyphen the default, and the endash to indicate opposition? 3708: 2969:

If a discoverer has a hyphenated surname, the hyphen is replaced with a space (i.e.

1131:

these dashes are readily available using the Wiki markup links below the edit box.

10409: 10293: 10254: 10186: 10142: 10075: 10003: 9939: 9850: 9661: 9658:

Yes. JHunterJ's proposal is akin to making it mean what Sftg thought it did. :-)

9530: 9448: 9362: 9323: 9319: 9156: 9100: 9049: 8889: 8862: 8850: 8750: 8684: 8632: 8549: 8497: 8171: 8103: 8046: 7999: 7935: 7842: 7782: 7699: 7621: 7584: 7494: 7280: 7254: 7227: 7136: 6953: 6895: 6837: 6806: 6758: 6702: 6649: 6553: 6471: 6414: 6335: 6297: 6270: 6249: 6216: 6164: 6049: 5957: 5809: 5672: 5227: 5132: 5052:; Bissau is the capital, and this distinguishes the country from neighboring Guinea 4105:; Bissau is the capital, and this distinguishes the country from neighboring Guinea 4031:; Bissau is the capital, and this distinguishes the country from neighboring Guinea 3888: 3876:

is hyphen-less—and they have the additional option of choosing an ampersand; as in

3804: 3752: 3206:, for example? Hm, shouldn't "Wilkes-Barre" have an en dash when used that way? — 3156: 2978: 2820: 2788: 2477: 2263:; Bissau is the capital, and this distinguishes the country from neighboring Guinea 2219: 2041:; Bissau is the capital, and this distinguishes the country from neighboring Guinea 1644:; Bissau is the capital, and this distinguishes the country from neighboring Guinea 1428: 1055: 225: 134: 5046:

A hyphen is used when such a compound used substantively (on its own) by default:

4099:

A hyphen is used when such a compound used substantively (on its own) by default:

1466:

b) because it is not in an attributive phrase attributive (whether implied or not)

10334: 10231: 9356: 9310: 9115: 8973: 8917: 8711:

I hope my suggestion didn't seem like something one was supposed to "buy". : -->

8642: 8434:. It is an ornithology convention, not followed by general writers of English. 8377: 8312: 8281: 8266: 8209: 8038:), not just on its face, but in this particular case because the WP:BIRDS people 8031: 7653: 7360: 7072: 7000: 6597: 6535: 6531: 5656: 5608: 4260:

Are you referring to Wilkes-Barre vs. Wilkes–Barre Township or something else? —

3929: 3777: 3722: 3592:

That's how it looks to me. Of course, I could be easily plain wrong there. :) —

3258: 3197: 3118: 2755: 2699: 2574: 2521: 2175: 1947: 1870: 1822: 1579: 1497: 1443: 1359: 1208: 1177: 1039: 991: 947: 910: 884: 801: 751: 684: 612: 583: 553: 528: 468: 414: 363: 348: 298: 266: 9346:

The principal motivation for including any mention at all of the birds thing in

8596:

This has been raised in passing here before, but I've started a conversation at

4325:

article back to Wilkes-Barre Township? Why a hyphen instead of an en dash, I'd

2442:: I think it fits established conventions better, and would aid in consistancy. 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

10375: 10269: 9915: 9793: 9702: 9633: 8836: 8235: 8132: 8078: 8035: 7924:"There is nothing wrong with what WikiProject Birds is doing" except violating 7762: 7611: 7459: 7262: 7123: 7049: 6933: 6800: 6782: 6728: 6686: 6631: 6195: 6122: 6121:

and get consensus for a change. You (and SlimVirgin) are sorely confusing the

6088: 6010: 5996: 5630: 5553: 5493: 5464: 5406: 5391: 5244: 5196: 5083: 5034: 4139: 4087: 3952:

in a dictionary instead of making up weird theories about what it might mean?

3849: 3057: 2639: 2412: 2358: 2294: 2074: 1968: 1917: 1677: 1427:

eccentric exception, with a link to this discussion rather than to the MOS. —

1323: 1197: 1139: 1105: 971: 841: 708: 602: 572: 504: 486:; instead of explaining any proposed changes and awaiting comments, you simply 445: 394: 374: 321: 190: 10226:

He asserts the years should be deleted, as they are already in the infobox.

6948:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Remedies

6387:

exploiting the very loophole I'm talking about, engaging in the pretense that

5933:

Knowledge:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Animals, plants, and other organisms

2537:, Hindi and Urdu are separate literary registers and/or languages) and unity ( 9843: 9523: 9479: 9262: 9261:

Many articles include vernacular ("common") names in other languages; it's a

9136: 9024: 8988: 8928: 8840: 8831: 8811: 8803: 8573: 8533: 8479: 8439: 8363: 8097: 7881:

Being ordered not to do what you've been taught is correct is a huge turnoff.

7821: 7775: 7766: 7748: 7455: 7339: 7266: 7217: 7213: 6154: 6130: 6041:

supersede it. This is an ineluctable fact. Ensuring that is pretty much the

5944: 5764: 5527: 5475: 5421: 5373: 5087: 5038: 4977: 4794: 4560: 4459: 4369: 4292: 4239: 4143: 4091: 3953: 3884: 3742:

clearly using a dash, and using it correctly? I don't get your argument......

3254: 2888:

How about that? I know it's pushing it quite far, but to me that's the only

2857:

Regarding "Hale–Bopp" vs. "Wilkes-Barre", it's probably something like this:

2643: 2362: 2298: 2234: 2078: 1681: 1374: 1168: 1038:

ambiguity we're talking about here affects only a very limited set of cases.

898: 879: 667: 7039:

All the same, I do think we need some pragmatism here. At present there are

7018:

Hi SlimVirgin. Hang on a minute: the GA criteria aren't a Wikiproject. What

6332:

conflicts with MOS and has "authority" over it (there is no such conflict).

6009:

As for the MoS being a site-wide consensus, that's the point in dispute. --

2815:

Please cite a source for this statement. Even non-reliable sources will do.

10246: 10168: 9519: 9355:

non-birds, just to be "consistent", is a terrible idea, guaranteed via the

9119: 8846: 8732: 8666: 8659:

I made the first sentence a categorical imperative because it describes one

8465: 8401: 8349: 8296: 8247: 8231: 8227: 8155: 7907: 7472: 7416:

The process you think doesn't exist already exists. It's called coming to

7403: 6517: 6455: 6396: 6370: 6329: 5919: 5116: 5115:

and includes some style formatting, compared with the previous proposal. --

5112: 4962: 4894: 4880: 4857: 4672: 4205: 4189: 4174: 4025:

A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities.

3658: 3625: 3611: 3610:

Yeah, looks like it. So how would you suggest to phrase this in the MOS? --

3572: 3555: 3551: 3519: 3486: 3424: 3420: 3383: 3339: 3325: 3071: 2932: 2802: 2770: 2498: 2426: 2330: 2256:

A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities.

2186: 2154: 2140: 1885: 1849: 1835: 1769: 1558: 1543: 1525: 1511: 1482: 1415:(hyphen, a single language, sometimes called Hindi, sometimes Urdu) vs the 1389: 1172: 1149: 1087: 924: 875: 861: 817: 776: 567:

consensus, which it's fine to change, but not OK to ride roughshod over. --

280: 247: 152: 115: 9628:

This way, we don't have to conflate cats and dogs with the birds issue. --

5903:, though I also enumerated the various reasons why the edits were bad at 2033:

A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities.

1636:

A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities.

10402: 10250: 10049: 9929: 9596: 9515: 9266: 9235: 8223: 7758: 7645:

swallow if they can be shown that it's not a whim or personal preference.

6611:

like MOS or some aspect of it they have filed to get consensus to change.

5319:

Why the need to be so ungrammatical? --Marce 11:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

5223: 5161: 4981: 4912: 4861: 4731: 4614: 4506: 4412: 4330: 4261: 4217: 3873: 3869: 3672: 3640: 3639:

will try to provide some suggestions for improving that specific area. —

3593: 3533: 3501: 3439: 3402: 3361: 3306: 3207: 3155:

The full comet name is "C/1995 O1 (Hale-Bopp)", not "Comet Hale-Bopp". --

3018: 2893: 2703: 2605: 2460: 9496:

I would support expansion along the lines you suggest, but not removal.

1935:

I don't see a problem: it says "by default", which indicates that there

8262: 8100:

process). Not sure you're pointing fingers in the right direction here.

5846:

Knowledge:Naming conventions (flora)#Scientific versus vernacular names

5649: 5506:

address such complex (convoluted) constructions, the advice I think we

5415:

Well, I will grant that the MOS applies to the text of an article, and

3770: 3715: 2557: 2517: 2185:

Then tell what's wrong! Let's correct it and build something better! --

2168: 1940: 1863: 1815: 1572: 744: 8546:

Which part is the good addition? This thread is getting fragmentary.

384:

banner here makes clear. I have no idea what an "anti-Wikipedian" is.

10371: 10365:

Talk:Brian de la Puente#Deletion of year ranges from section headings

9911: 9789: 9698: 9629: 8325:

Again, thank you for making your point so clearly. The box currently

8128: 8074: 7045: 6929: 6194:

point is a style point. In fact, it doesn't even mention the MoS. --

5626: 5570: 5549: 5489: 5460: 5402: 5387: 5240: 5192: 3997:

used for the names of two or more people in an attributive compound.

3845: 2565: 2494: 2408: 2004:

used for the names of two or more people in an attributive compound.

1961: 1910: 1607:

used for the names of two or more people in an attributive compound.

1460:

Can we find a solution? Is the use of a hyphen instead of an endash:

1319: 1193: 1135: 964: 834: 701: 598: 568: 497: 438: 387: 370: 314: 186: 9605:. Use a consistent style for common names within an article. Create 9242:. Use a consistent style for common names within an article. Create 8806:

purposes, and thus this new thread, too. I initially brought it up

7757:

just do what MOS advises, and stop capitalizing things that are not

7677:

ones require (or even permit? not sure yet) the capitalization? Ex:

4156:(a township founded before the city and named after the same people) 9347: 9188: 6741:

The most obvious way to test this theory of yours is to remove the

6546:-nice on its face: Please stop engaging is such florid, unctious ] 6150: 5936: 5862:, 2014-04-05, tries in several ways to usurp MOS guidance and turn 5700:

Proposal to close easily gameable and frequently exploited loophole

4321:

Ok, for the beginning, could you please explain why did you rename

1085:. These give the same character, which strictly speaking is called 9183:

Remove "Use a consistent style for common names within an article"

8145:

help either resolve the issue,... or get wider input and consensus

7603:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Animals/Draft capitalization guidelines

6507:

as the prime and only example you offer of someone exploiting the

2734:

Regarding the Hale–Bopp comet and comparison with Wilkes-Barre ...

1496:

probably don't even belong in that section, as Kwami pointed out.

1332:

Personally, I would have thought Wilkes-Barre (hyphenated) was an

9906: 8340:(my emphasis and italics). Do you have any cases of people being 1097: 1093: 761:

this is all really lame and of concern only to grammar nazis. --

9557:(ec*2) The whole paragraph in which that sentence appears reads: 8650:

This guideline justifies no national ownership of articles; see

8344:

the MOS? That would seem an overreaction to me, and contrary to

6986:

Hi SMcCandlish, I reverted your addition of the footnote citing

4204:

Yeah, it would be great to see more opinions on this proposal.

3911:

by the legislative act of a third party. Other examples include

2533:: I agree in principle with the distinction between separation ( 10061: 10037: 10033: 9834: 9833:

I also have no idea where he gets the idea that in this scheme

9302: 9298: 6134: 5870:, 2014-04-05, that sticks to naming conventions subject matter. 5599: 5239:

I didn't know that RFCs were capable of experiencing pleasure.

9305:(Mountain Lion)", a result guaranteed to sharply increase the 5868:

Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (flora)#Alternative proposal

1081:; (ii) in the numeric keypad on the right, directly above the 7338:, and that means we're not going to be 100% consistent. It's 4893:

Does anyone have a suggestion how to deal with this, then? --

3624:

I've taken a crack at it and have made a suggestion below. --

6727:

The burden of proof is 100% on you. You have not met it. --

5856:

Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (flora)#Proposed rewording

5759:. All of this was almost immediately reverted by Trovatore 5180:

MOS:QUOTEMARKS vs WP:QUOTEMARKS, WP:QUOTEMARK, MOS:QUOTEMARK

4208:

and I have been discussing some parts of the proposal for a

3305:

Totally agreed. Any comments from other editors, please? —

10065: 10045: 10041: 9567:

are given in lower case, except where proper names appear (

9206:

are given in lower case, except where proper names appear (

7273:(or worse yet "I don't like you") obstructionism. See also 6646:. The change I'm proposing is a similar reminder of this. 5941:

isn't even a consensus to do so at the projects in question

5212:

Template talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation

2748:

hyphen, Wilkes-Barre, one city named after Wilkes and Barre

2556:

Not shown in the proposed change, but immediately above in

9195:

Use a consistent style for common names within an article.

7614:

but a dozen or so birds editors, and so far as I can tell

6596:

we go to establish that the MoS trumps these other pages?

5000:

Anything wrong with changing it instead to the following?

10024: 9925: 9838: 7696:

go away until there's one standard applied consistently.

6682:

You have not established the factual basis of that claim.

6369:

this change would affect, and what that effect would be.

5363:, while the other half will rule that it is definitively 5314:

Question about ungrammatical movie end credits disclaimer

3896: 3892: 3324:

rewrite it. Any suggestions on how to figure this out? --

2745:

en dash, Hale–Bopp, one comet discovered by Hale and Bopp

2541:

is one individual), but I see problems with the examples:

9609:

from alternative capitalization forms of article titles.

9246:

from alternative capitalization forms of article titles.

8478:

All of this has been covered many times before, e.g. at

522:

No, that's exactly how the editing process works, or is

8338:

is a part of the English Knowledge's Manual of Style...

6795:

No one on Knowledge believes that but you. I'm citing

6074:

What you have not established is that it's a site-wide

5419:

to WP:Categories. But otherwise I am not wrong. :: -->

3982:

An en dash is not used for a hyphenated personal name.

1989:

An en dash is not used for a hyphenated personal name.

1986:

Is there still anything wrong with my suggestion above?

1592:

An en dash is not used for a hyphenated personal name.

1100:— you can enter both of these characters into Wikitext 6383:

Careful what you wish for. Here's a recent example of

5774:: Trovatore's objection doesn't actually make sense. 2136:

The en dash in all of the compounds above is unspaced.

1739:

The en dash in all of the compounds above is unspaced.

129:

I can attest to the confusion caused by line A in the

10058:

that most editors are going to find this unacceptable

6399:

because they're not MOS subpages, as a technicality:

6153:. Neither you nor any wikiproject has some right to 5922:

because they're not MOS subpages, as a technicality:

5524:

Their relationship was like that of a father and son.

3518:

Is there a specific place where we could ask this? --

2344:

For the sake of consistent formatting, may I suggest:

2153:

Does the silence mean that it is correct this way? --

8362:Last time I asked, there were no examples of that. 6878:

NB: As an independent matter, I added a citation to

6679:claim that the MoS represents site-wide consensus. 5893:, again without consensus or discussion, 2014-03-07. 4961:

indicator of another rule we haven't figured out. --

3915:

where both cities orchestrated the merge opposed to

2476:

for sroc's change, for the reasons given by Dsimic.—

6615:

There is no policy question to ask and settle here.

5844:Someone's put bird common name capitalization into 4976:Anyway, not many people seem to care about. Maybe 1256:) but a union of two cities uses an en-dash (hence 10048:, etc., in ornithology articles, right along with 9414:List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland 6213:to show that MOS is excluded from LOCALCONSENSUS. 5756:, and added a citation to policy on the matter at 5062:, an urban area named after its two largest cities 4115:, an urban area named after its two largest cities 3868:. Companies follow the same standard which is why 2569:compound..."? The "proposed change" didn't say so. 482:rationalise this, the bottom line is that someone 8023:User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names 7212:I'm very disappointed that you're engaging in an 6509:easily gameable and frequently exploited loophole 6452:easily gameable and frequently exploited loophole 5514:them - by engaging in some judicious rewriting. 5502:Perhaps... but, I think, still valid. If the MOS 1236:you consider more evidence and more cases. Thus: 151:said he would look at it, but he left Knowledge. 7113:Knowledge:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages 6644:is not permitted, as a matter of official policy 5918:wikiproject essay are immune to MOS concerns at 5891:WP:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Organisms 5518:practice would be to not write a sentence like " 5214:about whether the rules for valid parameters in 343:is closed off. If you object to my changes, say 10217:year ranges from section headings in an article 10060:. I pick these examples for a reason. Both the 9443:WT:BIRDS#Question on common name capitalization 9187:I propose removing the following sentence from 7196:etter still would be just to leave things alone 6618:cannot quite follow WP policy processes. MOS, 6516:and am very interested in other views on that. 5901:Knowledge talk:Article titles#Bird species name 5882:Knowledge talk:Article titles#Bird species name 3891:were chosen by a third party; for example: the 3801:Pocket Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus 3360:– maybe we'll draw more attention that way. — 1176:explanation of what is meant by "attributive"? 743:The wrong dash? You mean an em not an en dash? 5889:Similar but even more radical changes made to 3923:which were both named by a census designation. 3202:That makes sense, thanks, but then what about 2253:Per the above discussion, I suggest changing: 10211:Deletion of year ranges from section headings 8849:: instead, provide a reason that is based on 6699:Interesting fringe view. Have fun with that. 6310:See your talk page. You are misinterpreting 4152:(one city named after Wilkes and Barre), but 3988:with a hyphen: named after John Lennard-Jones 3532:Unfortunately, I really don't have a clue. — 3070:Why would the second one be with a hyphen? -- 2668:an urban area named by its two largest cities 2425:Yes, I think that looks better. Thank you. -- 1995:with a hyphen: named after John Lennard-Jones 1862:Exactly what is wrong with the current text? 1800:US–Australia cultural and linguistic exports. 1598:with a hyphen: named after John Lennard-Jones 279:So, how do you think we could rephrase it? -- 9427:Summary: there's no case for inconsistency! 8149:logic weak at this point, speak a bit louder 5877:without discussion or consensus, 2014-03-12. 5520:They had a father-and-son–like relationship. 5156:If you ask me, an RfC might help. But just 5058:, a single city named after two people, but 4980:is willing to provide some more feedback? — 4111:, a single city named after two people, but 4037:, a single city named after two people, but 2269:, a single city named after two people, but 2049:, a single city named after two people, but 1652:, a single city named after two people, but 9602:do not apply this style to other categories 9389:Clearly it would be wrong to encourage the 9240:do not apply this style to other categories 5928:See also problems with MOS's own subpages: 5896:, and mostly reverted it again, 2014-04-05. 5111:and the then superfluous second mention of 5107:This only removes mention of the anomalous 3797:the hyphen is also used in English spelling 1768:Does anyone have suggestions or remarks? -- 7440:; but often they don't. That's just tough. 7359:In a project as vast as ours, and with no 7277:, another policy, not guideline or essay. 6503:to this discussion is that you have cited 5748:, and (on style matters) other guidelines. 8486:is a reliable source on animal taxonomy. 8400:, which was last edited some months ago. 5522:" in the first place, and instead write " 2497:. People, please join this discussion! -- 1411:Here's another example to consider: The 1167:So to come back the question of why it's 185:wouldn't apply to questions like this? -- 9091:" and "the Emmy-winning television show 6137:should be capitalized in running prose ( 5068:, an individual named after two families 4213: 4121:, an individual named after two families 4047:, an individual named after two families 3975: 2683:(an individual named after two families) 2549:is not "a union of two cities" - it is " 2395:(an individual named after two families) 2325:, an individual named after two families 2279:, an individual named after two families 2105:, an individual named after two families 2061:, an individual named after two families 1708:, an individual named after two families 1664:, an individual named after two families 1419:(dash, dispute between Hindi and Urdu). 1096:– which is itself half the width of the 6145:when adding new material. Now one can 5880:. This was objected to as far away as 5873:Controversial pro-caps changes made to 5704:The lead of MOS presently closes with: 5474:Reword to "Paternalistic relationship" 2677:(one city named after Wilkes and Barre) 2389:(one city named after Wilkes and Barre) 2319:(one city named after Wilkes and Barre) 14: 9095:" and "the Academy Award winning film 8090:Knowledge talk:Policies and guidelines 7103:Knowledge:Consensus#Level of consensus 6326:Knowledge talk:Policies and guidelines 6125:ability of projects or anyone else to 5991:to represent a broader consensus on a 260:Only that I've no idea what it means. 131:Talk:Epstein–Barr virus#Requested move 112:Talk:Epstein–Barr virus#Requested move 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 9510:I don't see how this would work. The 9338:is in virtually every way worse than 9287:International Ornithological Congress 8826:Given this clear failure to actually 6584:While I certainly agree that the MoS 2892:reasonable explanation. Thoughts? — 2099:(1 city named after Wilkes and Barre) 1702:(1 city named after Wilkes and Barre) 7175:Unproductive, personalized arguments 5624:<stares in stunned disbelief: --> 5206:RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation 3554:, but there has been no response. -- 3257:without worrying about changing it. 1073:, there are only two keys that will 25: 9277:The principle rationale behind the 901:just because it is a shortening of 23: 9591:-published common names of birds ( 9230:-published common names of birds ( 8430:I don't believe there is any such 7691:is a blatant falsehood, twice over 7222:subject to discretionary sanctions 5899:Centralized discussion, again, at 5459:--? Inquiring minds want to know. 1806:Our China–Siberia border crossing. 1244:(1st = hyphen, 2nd = en-dash) but 1069:If you have a keyboard that looks 24: 10447: 10032:in fact require us to capitalize 8011:in the course of criticizing me. 7332:Talk:Crowned crane#Other examples 5592:Knowledge:Manual of Style#Hyphens 5582:compound-adjective–like situation 5442:compound-adjective–like situation 4329:like to know the logic behind? — 2440:Support removal of Capitalization 1589:Sure. This is what I'm proposing: 8602:The Blade of the Northern Lights 7363:, the MOS is very important, to 6628:already explicitly defers to MOS 6454:that you wish to close? Really? 5573:, there are a few problems with 5453:father-and-son–like relationship 5101:, named after John Lennard-Jones 4167:, named after John Lennard-Jones 2785:International Astronomical Union 29: 10136:) 03:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC) 8652:Knowledge:Ownership of articles 7683:. WP:BIRDS even says so, too: 7652:that this should even come up. 7491:, and other instructive pages. 7454:editing practices to engage in 7422:entirely composed of such cases 5012:the Seeliger–Donker-Voet scheme 4793:though that is unprecedented. 4065:the Seeliger–Donker-Voet scheme 4005:the Seeliger–Donker-Voet scheme 2012:the Seeliger–Donker-Voet scheme 1615:the Seeliger–Donker-Voet scheme 1270:there are bound to be anomalies 9135:may be the one you are after. 9019:SlimVirgin, again, please see 6395:are immune to MOS concerns at 5575:your post of 05:16, 1 May 2014 5074:, an alternative name for the 5008:the Seifert–van Kampen theorem 4907:Unfortunately, I'd say this a 4061:the Seifert–van Kampen theorem 4001:the Seifert–van Kampen theorem 2600:as it's official name, making 2008:the Seifert–van Kampen theorem 1803:A Hanoi–Da Nang train journey. 1611:the Seifert–van Kampen theorem 18:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style 13: 1: 9199:in the paragraph that reads: 8807: 8452:Ah, but those who follow the 8246:as it is currently attested. 7450:rule on another page and use 6832:the burden of proof is on you 6803:, and just moving on, sorry. 6211:the burden of proof is on you 5875:WP:Naming conventions (fauna) 5767:, let's discuss that change. 5027:(discovered by Hale and Bopp) 5016:the Alpher–Bethe–Gamow theory 4127:(an alternative name for the 4080:(discovered by Hale and Bopp) 4069:the Alpher–Bethe–Gamow theory 4020:(discovered by Hale and Bopp) 4009:the Alpher–Bethe–Gamow theory 3938:19:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 3913:Winston-Salem, North Carolina 3528:08:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 3514:20:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 3495:20:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 3452:23:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC) 3433:11:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC) 3415:16:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC) 3392:15:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC) 3374:15:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC) 3348:13:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC) 3334:07:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC) 3117:the answer, but it is there. 2653:(an alternative name for the 2372:(an alternative name for the 2305:(an alternative name for the 2085:(an alternative name for the 2027:(discovered by Hale and Bopp) 2016:the Alpher–Bethe–Gamow theory 1931:15:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC) 1894:14:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC) 1876:13:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC) 1858:12:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC) 1844:09:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 1828:09:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 1778:16:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 1688:(an alternative name for the 1630:(discovered by Hale and Bopp) 1619:the Alpher–Bethe–Gamow theory 1585:02:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 1567:12:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC) 1552:12:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC) 1368:20:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC) 1354:23:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 1328:22:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 1282:18:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 1217:18:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 1202:16:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 1186:10:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 1158:11:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 1144:00:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 1117:00:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 1102:using a variety of techniques 1064:21:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 1048:10:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 1032:20:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 1000:10:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 985:10:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 956:09:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 933:11:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 919:20:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 893:20:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 870:18:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 855:17:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 826:16:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 810:16:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 785:18:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 771:15:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 757:14:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 739:12:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC) 722:12:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC) 693:11:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC) 676:17:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 659:11:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC) 621:20:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 607:17:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 592:16:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 577:15:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 562:14:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 537:20:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 518:17:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 484:asked you for your suggestion 477:16:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 459:15:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 423:15:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 408:15:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 379:14:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 357:14:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 335:12:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC) 307:11:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC) 289:10:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC) 275:09:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC) 256:08:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC) 234:23:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC) 214:18:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC) 195:18:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC) 177:17:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC) 143:13:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC) 124:10:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC) 7747:trlkly: The problem is that 6324:, which belongs probably at 5732:Discuss style issues on the 5708:Discuss style issues on the 5386:That's categorically wrong. 3976:most recent above discussion 3854:09:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 3842:Israeli–Palestinian conflict 3813:15:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 3783:15:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 3761:14:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 3728:11:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 3319:14:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 3267:13:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 3220:18:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 3165:14:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 3127:12:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 3080:21:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 3066:20:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 3031:18:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 2987:09:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 2941:08:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 2906:03:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 2829:11:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 2811:17:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 2797:16:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 2779:16:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 2764:13:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 2716:23:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 2618:23:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 2583:13:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 2526:19:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC) 2507:08:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 2486:18:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC) 2469:03:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC) 2435:16:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC) 2417:14:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC) 2339:14:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC) 2243:06:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC) 2228:06:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC) 2195:09:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC) 2181:09:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 1848:Any other critical notes? -- 1534:15:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC) 1520:09:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC) 1506:09:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC) 1491:19:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC) 1452:20:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 1437:07:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 1398:09:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 1383:06:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 909:is an attributive compound? 7: 9782:Bald Eagle#Diet and feeding 9618:Use a consistent style for 9082:An award-winning discussion 8815:of text about...everything 8641:, use British English with 8094:this is the process we have 6634:the system to POV-fork the 6542:, and what you're doing is 6078:. Secondarily, even if it 5184:Please see a discussion at 3883:Conversely, compounds like 3872:is properly hyphenated and 2163:10:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC) 2149:22:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 1982:12:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC) 1953:00:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC) 1880:What did I say just above? 106:Hyphens instead of endashes 10: 10452: 10428:21:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC) 10205:02:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC) 10177:23:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC) 10161:00:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC) 9068:07:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC) 8797:Simplified Manual of Style 8795:over its subpages and the 8781:I added a citation to the 7618:plants and insects editor. 6496:And I have replied there. 6450:as a prime example of the 6111:it is WP's style guideline 5746:Simplified Manual of Style 5740:. In case of discrepancy, 5722:Simplified Manual of Style 5720:over its subpages and the 5716:. In case of discrepancy, 5396:17:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC) 5382:14:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC) 5355:11:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC) 5309:23:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC) 5278:21:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC) 5249:17:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC) 5232:17:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC) 5201:12:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC) 5174:18:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC) 5151:02:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC) 5125:10:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC) 4994:04:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC) 4971:14:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC) 4744:16:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 4725:Exactly, something can be 4681:14:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 4627:06:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 4569:06:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 4519:06:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 4468:05:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 4425:05:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 4378:05:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 4343:03:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 4301:03:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 4274:01:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 4248:01:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 4230:01:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 4198:13:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC) 4183:10:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC) 3962:05:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 3948:Have you tried looking up 3901:Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 3866:Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis 3685:08:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC) 3667:15:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC) 3653:17:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC) 3634:10:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC) 3620:10:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC) 3606:07:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 3581:00:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC) 3564:11:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 2874:Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 2452:21:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC) 1299:, for the same reasons as 10380:09:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC) 10343:02:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC) 10312:01:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC) 10278:21:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 10259:20:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 10240:20:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 10094:01:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC) 10019:20:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 9958:01:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC) 9920:17:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 9907:other species called cats 9869:15:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 9798:13:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 9738:11:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 9707:10:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 9680:15:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 9652:10:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 9638:10:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 9587:prefer to capitalize the 9565:Common (vernacular) names 9549:15:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 9506:10:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 9488:10:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 9467:15:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 9437:10:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 9403:is greatly preferable to 9381:10:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 9226:prefer to capitalize the 9204:Common (vernacular) names 9175:23:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 9145:22:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 9128:17:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 9109:17:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 8997:17:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 8979:16:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 8937:16:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 8923:15:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 8908:15:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 8881:09:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 8791:"In case of discrepancy, 8771:07:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 8741:05:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 8705:04:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 8675:03:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 8612:18:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 8582:16:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 8568:12:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 8542:11:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 8516:12:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 8474:02:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 8448:02:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 8410:02:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 8386:01:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC) 8372:02:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 8358:02:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 8330:Knowledge:Manual of Style 8321:00:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 8305:02:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 8290:00:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 8271:07:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 8256:02:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 8218:00:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 8190:12:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 8164:11:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 8137:10:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 8122:12:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 8083:10:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 8065:12:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 7994:09:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 7954:11:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 7916:06:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 7861:11:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 7839:. It's just ridiculous. 7830:04:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 7803:04:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 7718:11:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 7662:04:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 7640:14:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 7588:02:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 7515:02:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 7412:18:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 7299:08:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 7258:02:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 7248:00:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 7208:17:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 7157:00:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 7078:17:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 7054:16:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 7006:15:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 6974:00:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 6938:14:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 6916:14:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 6856:14:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 6825:12:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 6791:08:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 6777:08:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 6753:Knowledge:Manual of Style 6737:02:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 6723:00:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 6695:21:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 6670:14:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 6606:14:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 6572:12:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 6526:11:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 6492:02:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 6464:15:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 6435:09:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 6379:09:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 6356:07:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 6306:04:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 6291:09:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 6258:07:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 6235:14:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 6204:00:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 6185:03:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 6097:21:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 6070:09:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 6019:07:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 6005:07:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 5978:04:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 5830:07:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 5234:(word added 17:38 UT) 5218:should also apply to the 5210:Please review the RFC at 4925:00:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC) 4903:14:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 4889:12:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC) 4874:07:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC) 4803:15:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC) 3546:04:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 2382:(a union of two cities); 492:pointed them to that edit 10219:. For example, "Team X 8793:this page has precedence 8462:standard rule in English 8432:standard rule in English 8230:, and the principles of 7837:conflict with each other 6797:Argument from repetition 5742:this page has precedence 5728:This should really read 5718:this page has precedence 3550:I asked the question at 2560:is "En dash is used ... 9029:not linking to a policy 8819:the citation. I asked 8598:Talk:Justin Vivian Bond 8484:Chicago Manual of Style 8342:punished for disobeying 8328:at the very top of the 7214:assumption of bad faith 7117:ownership over articles 6889:discretionary sanctions 5744:over its subpages, the 5691:23:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC) 5662:09:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC) 5635:17:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 5617:15:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 5558:17:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 5536:13:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 5498:11:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 5484:11:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 5469:05:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 5430:11:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 5411:04:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 5099:Lennard-Jones potential 4165:Lennard-Jones potential 4041:, a union of two cities 3986:Lennard-Jones potential 3380:Lennard-Jones potential 2698:Corrected according to 2273:, a union of two cities 2053:, a union of two cities 1993:Lennard-Jones potential 1656:, a union of two cities 1596:Lennard-Jones potential 1226:Lennard-Jones potential 766:aka The Red Pen of Doom 110:From the discussion at 8785:policy so people know 8777:Linking to WP:CONLEVEL 8240:standard English rules 8143:They are not going to 8092:. But at this point, 7765:; the editor can cite 7680:Journal of Ornithology 6882:policy so people know 6538:doesn't require being 5750: 5726: 5371:in either case. :: --> 5080:Hindi–Urdu controversy 5060:Minneapolis–Saint Paul 5031:Hindi–Urdu controversy 4136:Hindi–Urdu controversy 4113:Minneapolis–Saint Paul 4084:Hindi–Urdu controversy 4039:Minneapolis–Saint Paul 3978:, I suggest changing: 3917:Minneapolis–Saint Paul 3909:Home Rule Municipality 3862:Hillary Rodham Clinton 3419:Yes, it starts out as 2636:Hindi–Urdu controversy 2535:Hindi–Urdu controversy 2355:Hindi–Urdu controversy 2291:Hindi–Urdu controversy 2271:Minneapolis–Saint Paul 2071:Hindi–Urdu controversy 2051:Minneapolis–Saint Paul 1674:Hindi–Urdu controversy 1654:Minneapolis–Saint Paul 1540:Hindi–Urdu controversy 1417:Hindi–Urdu controversy 1305:Minneapolis–Saint Paul 1258:Minneapolis–Saint Paul 9726:only in bird articles 9350:was to fence off the 9281:essay insisting on a 8638:The Lord of the Rings 8622:proposed edit below: 8346:WP:dispute resolution 7932:is not constructive. 6139:I got bit by a Cougar 6035:of style on Knowledge 5730: 5706: 5488:Cop-out–like answer. 5109:Wilkes-Barre Township 4323:Wilkes–Barre Township 4212:time, as you can see 4154:Wilkes–Barre Township 3905:Wilkes–Barre Township 3358:Wilkes–Barre Township 3354:Wilkes-Barre Township 3204:Wilkes-Barre Township 2665:a union of two cities 1338:Double-barrelled name 42:of past discussions. 10230:nature. Thoughts?-- 9333:A construction like 8851:policies, guidelines 8394:this version of the 3803:and other books). -- 3255:ignore the guideline 2971:105P/Singer Brewster 2661:Minneapolis–St. Paul 2547:Minneapolis–St. Paul 2493:improved wording by 2380:Minneapolis–St. Paul 2313:Minneapolis–St. Paul 2093:Minneapolis–St. Paul 1696:Minneapolis–St. Paul 7594:totally implausible 6946:Fixed. The link is 6189:You have not cited 5836:Some cases in point 5082:(a dispute between 5076:Hindustani language 5033:(a dispute between 4138:(a dispute between 4129:Hindustani language 4086:(a dispute between 2655:Hindustani language 2638:(a dispute between 2374:Hindustani language 2357:(a dispute between 2307:Hindustani language 2293:(a dispute between 2087:Hindustani language 2073:(a dispute between 1690:Hindustani language 1676:(a dispute between 1413:Hindi-Urdu language 1295:? Shouldn't it be 1071:something like this 942:even when the word 10054:Red-throated Loons 9626:within an article. 9581:Przewalski's horse 9285:to capitalize the 9220:Przewalski's horse 8633:J. R. R. Tolkien's 8617:Minor Copy-Editing 8592:Justin Vivian Bond 8458:writers of English 7600: 7275:WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY 7041:plenty of bird FAs 6499:The issue that is 5837: 5789:WP:Manual of Style 5066:John Lennard-Jones 4119:John Lennard-Jones 4045:John Lennard-Jones 3878:Black & Decker 3836:. use a hyphen in 3795:rules. (note that 3709:the IAU's own site 2681:John Lennard-Jones 2539:John Lennard-Jones 2393:John Lennard-Jones 2323:John Lennard-Jones 2277:John Lennard-Jones 2103:John Lennard-Jones 2059:John Lennard-Jones 1706:John Lennard-Jones 1662:John Lennard-Jones 1242:Lennard-Jones–Hale 157:Epstein–Barr virus 10378: 9909: 9352:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 9283:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 9039:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 8985:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 8977: 8921: 8488: 8028:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 7930:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 7926:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 7597: 7468:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 7320: 7319: 7224:for such things. 7107:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 7076: 7020:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 7004: 6640:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 6505:this edit of mine 6161:micro-consensus. 5835: 5801:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 5752:I made this edit 5596:10:48, 1 May 2014 5340: 5326:comment added by 5254: 5199: 3970:Proposed change 2 3921:Dallas–Fort Worth 3838:Dallas-Fort Worth 3799:, or so says the 2604:just an alias. — 2415: 2315:(two cities) vs. 1980: 1929: 1463:a) a few oddities 1423:Guinea-Conakry. 1326: 1142: 983: 853: 767: 720: 516: 457: 406: 333: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 10443: 10426: 10368: 10310: 10203: 10159: 10092: 10007: 9956: 9900: 9867: 9787: 9678: 9627: 9594: 9582: 9578: 9574: 9570: 9547: 9465: 9407: 9402: 9379: 9342: 9337: 9326:if intentional). 9233: 9221: 9217: 9213: 9209: 9173: 9066: 8976: 8920: 8906: 8879: 8769: 8755: 8703: 8689: 8608: 8566: 8514: 8487: 8188: 8120: 8063: 7952: 7859: 7801: 7787: 7716: 7672: 7638: 7513: 7499: 7439: 7435: 7431: 7427: 7297: 7246: 7232: 7171: 7170: 7155: 7141: 7127: 7075: 7003: 6972: 6958: 6926:the specific one 6914: 6900: 6854: 6823: 6775: 6750: 6744: 6721: 6707: 6668: 6654: 6570: 6514:I could be wrong 6490: 6476: 6433: 6419: 6354: 6340: 6323: 6317: 6289: 6275: 6233: 6183: 6169: 6144: 6140: 6108: 6068: 6054: 5976: 5962: 5828: 5814: 5689: 5659: 5654: 5339: 5320: 5253: 5216:Citation Style 1 5189: 5149: 5100: 5081: 5073: 5067: 5061: 5057: 5051: 5032: 5026: 5022: 5017: 5013: 5009: 4368:guides for it? 4166: 4155: 4151: 4137: 4126: 4120: 4114: 4110: 4104: 4085: 4079: 4075: 4070: 4066: 4062: 4046: 4040: 4036: 4030: 4019: 4015: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3987: 3907:was formed as a 3780: 3775: 3725: 3720: 3201: 2682: 2676: 2662: 2652: 2637: 2563: 2548: 2540: 2536: 2405: 2394: 2388: 2381: 2371: 2356: 2324: 2318: 2314: 2304: 2292: 2278: 2272: 2268: 2262: 2178: 2173: 2104: 2098: 2094: 2084: 2072: 2060: 2052: 2048: 2040: 2026: 2022: 2017: 2013: 2009: 1994: 1977: 1971: 1964: 1959: 1950: 1945: 1926: 1920: 1913: 1908: 1873: 1868: 1825: 1820: 1707: 1701: 1697: 1687: 1675: 1663: 1655: 1651: 1643: 1629: 1625: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1597: 1582: 1577: 1340:, rather than a 1316: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1292: 1259: 1255: 1247: 1243: 1231: 1230:Comet Hale–Bopp 1227: 1171:with a dash and 1132: 1108: 980: 974: 967: 962: 850: 844: 837: 832: 768: 765: 754: 749: 717: 711: 704: 699: 513: 507: 500: 495: 454: 448: 441: 436: 403: 397: 390: 385: 367: 330: 324: 317: 312: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 10451: 10450: 10446: 10445: 10444: 10442: 10441: 10440: 10424: 10407: 10308: 10291: 10213: 10201: 10184: 10157: 10140: 10090: 10073: 10001: 9954: 9937: 9865: 9848: 9785: 9780:There's worse. 9676: 9659: 9625: 9621: 9617: 9592: 9580: 9576: 9572: 9568: 9545: 9528: 9463: 9446: 9404: 9399: 9377: 9360: 9339: 9334: 9231: 9219: 9215: 9211: 9207: 9185: 9171: 9154: 9093:Fred the Parrot 9084: 9064: 9047: 8904: 8887: 8877: 8860: 8779: 8767: 8751: 8748: 8701: 8685: 8682: 8643:Oxford spelling 8619: 8606: 8594: 8564: 8547: 8512: 8495: 8494:for some time. 8186: 8169: 8118: 8101: 8061: 8044: 8021:Bullying? See 7950: 7933: 7857: 7840: 7799: 7783: 7780: 7714: 7697: 7666: 7636: 7619: 7511: 7495: 7492: 7477:WP:BATTLEGROUND 7464:WP:BATTLEGROUND 7452:WP:FAITACCOMPLI 7437: 7433: 7429: 7425: 7361:editorial board 7321: 7295: 7278: 7244: 7228: 7225: 7218:personal attack 7176: 7153: 7137: 7134: 7121: 6970: 6954: 6951: 6912: 6896: 6893: 6852: 6835: 6821: 6804: 6773: 6756: 6748: 6742: 6719: 6703: 6700: 6666: 6650: 6647: 6568: 6551: 6488: 6472: 6469: 6431: 6415: 6412: 6393:WP:BIRDS#Naming 6352: 6336: 6333: 6321: 6315: 6287: 6271: 6268: 6231: 6214: 6181: 6165: 6162: 6142: 6138: 6116: 6102: 6066: 6050: 6047: 5995:style point. -- 5974: 5958: 5955: 5916:WP:BIRDS#Naming 5838: 5826: 5810: 5807: 5781:WP:Verifiabilty 5702: 5687: 5670: 5657: 5650: 5544:for the string 5444: 5367:... but we are 5328:Fandelasketchup 5321: 5316: 5289: 5262: 5251: 5208: 5182: 5147: 5130: 5098: 5079: 5071: 5065: 5059: 5055: 5049: 5030: 5024: 5021:Comet Hale–Bopp 5020: 5015: 5011: 5007: 4164: 4153: 4149: 4135: 4124: 4118: 4112: 4108: 4102: 4083: 4077: 4074:Comet Hale–Bopp 4073: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4044: 4038: 4034: 4028: 4017: 4014:Comet Hale–Bopp 4013: 4008: 4004: 4000: 3985: 3972: 3778: 3771: 3723: 3716: 3195: 3113:I'm not sure I 2975:Singer-Brewster 2861:Comet Hale–Bopp 2740:Comet Hale–Bopp 2680: 2674: 2669: 2666: 2660: 2650: 2635: 2562:Comet Hale–Bopp 2561: 2546: 2538: 2534: 2392: 2386: 2379: 2369: 2354: 2322: 2316: 2312: 2302: 2290: 2276: 2270: 2266: 2260: 2251: 2249:Proposed change 2176: 2169: 2102: 2096: 2095:(2 cities) vs. 2092: 2082: 2070: 2058: 2050: 2046: 2038: 2024: 2021:Comet Hale–Bopp 2020: 2015: 2011: 2007: 1992: 1975: 1969: 1962: 1948: 1941: 1924: 1918: 1911: 1871: 1864: 1823: 1816: 1705: 1699: 1698:(2 cities) vs. 1695: 1685: 1673: 1661: 1653: 1649: 1641: 1627: 1624:Comet Hale–Bopp 1623: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1595: 1580: 1573: 1336:surname, as in 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1290: 1287:Why do you say 1257: 1253: 1245: 1241: 1229: 1225: 1106: 1084: 1080: 978: 972: 965: 903:Comet Hale–Bopp 848: 842: 835: 763: 752: 745: 715: 709: 702: 511: 505: 498: 488:edited the page 452: 446: 439: 401: 395: 388: 361: 328: 322: 315: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 10449: 10439: 10438: 10437: 10436: 10435: 10434: 10433: 10432: 10431: 10430: 10422: 10391: 10390: 10389: 10388: 10387: 10386: 10385: 10384: 10383: 10382: 10352: 10351: 10350: 10349: 10348: 10347: 10346: 10345: 10319: 10318: 10317: 10316: 10315: 10314: 10306: 10283: 10282: 10281: 10280: 10212: 10209: 10208: 10207: 10199: 10164: 10163: 10155: 10114: 10113: 10112: 10111: 10110: 10109: 10108: 10107: 10106: 10105: 10104: 10103: 10102: 10101: 10100: 10099: 10098: 10088: 10072:hypothetical. 10071: 10059: 10031: 9998: 9975: 9974: 9973: 9972: 9971: 9970: 9969: 9968: 9967: 9966: 9965: 9964: 9963: 9962: 9961: 9960: 9952: 9924:On wikipedia, 9883: 9882: 9881: 9880: 9879: 9878: 9877: 9876: 9875: 9874: 9873: 9872: 9863: 9828: 9809: 9808: 9807: 9806: 9805: 9804: 9803: 9802: 9801: 9800: 9769: 9768: 9767: 9766: 9765: 9764: 9763: 9762: 9761: 9760: 9747: 9746: 9745: 9744: 9743: 9742: 9741: 9740: 9714: 9713: 9712: 9711: 9710: 9709: 9689: 9688: 9687: 9686: 9685: 9684: 9683: 9682: 9674: 9623: 9619: 9613: 9612: 9611: 9610: 9597:ornithological 9573:mountain maple 9559: 9558: 9554: 9553: 9552: 9551: 9543: 9513: 9508: 9491: 9490: 9472: 9471: 9470: 9469: 9461: 9424: 9423: 9422: 9421: 9409: 9387:Oppose removal 9375: 9331: 9330: 9327: 9316:WP:BIRD#Naming 9295: 9292: 9279:WP:BIRD#Naming 9275: 9271: 9236:ornithological 9212:mountain maple 9184: 9181: 9180: 9179: 9178: 9177: 9169: 9148: 9147: 9130: 9083: 9080: 9079: 9078: 9077: 9076: 9075: 9074: 9073: 9072: 9071: 9070: 9062: 9030: 9008: 9007: 9006: 9005: 9004: 9003: 9002: 9001: 9000: 8999: 8962: 8961: 8960: 8959: 8958: 8957: 8956: 8955: 8944: 8943: 8942: 8941: 8940: 8939: 8911: 8910: 8902: 8875: 8829: 8822: 8818: 8794: 8789:the provision 8788: 8778: 8775: 8774: 8773: 8765: 8730: 8729: 8725: 8724: 8719: 8718: 8714: 8713: 8708: 8707: 8699: 8664: 8663: 8660: 8656: 8655: 8648: 8647: 8646: 8629: 8618: 8615: 8593: 8590: 8589: 8588: 8587: 8586: 8585: 8584: 8562: 8529: 8528: 8527: 8526: 8525: 8524: 8523: 8522: 8521: 8520: 8519: 8518: 8510: 8421: 8420: 8419: 8418: 8417: 8416: 8415: 8414: 8413: 8412: 8390: 8389: 8388: 8309: 8308: 8307: 8277: 8276: 8275: 8274: 8273: 8197: 8196: 8195: 8194: 8193: 8192: 8184: 8152: 8141: 8140: 8139: 8116: 8095: 8069: 8068: 8059: 8041: 8017: 8010: 7982: 7981: 7970: 7967: 7959: 7958: 7957: 7956: 7948: 7919: 7918: 7902: 7901: 7896:rather than a 7888: 7887: 7875: 7874: 7869: 7868: 7864: 7863: 7855: 7838: 7818: 7816: 7815: 7814: 7813: 7812: 7811: 7810: 7809: 7808: 7807: 7806: 7805: 7797: 7755: 7734: 7733: 7732: 7731: 7730: 7729: 7728: 7727: 7726: 7725: 7724: 7723: 7722: 7721: 7712: 7692: 7676: 7646: 7642: 7634: 7617: 7608: 7595: 7571: 7570: 7569: 7568: 7567: 7566: 7565: 7564: 7563: 7562: 7549: 7548: 7547: 7546: 7545: 7544: 7543: 7542: 7541: 7540: 7527: 7526: 7525: 7524: 7523: 7522: 7521: 7520: 7519: 7518: 7509: 7489:WP:GREATWRONGS 7466:behavior that 7445: 7426:43 cm 7423: 7393: 7392: 7391: 7390: 7389: 7388: 7387: 7386: 7375: 7374: 7373: 7372: 7371: 7370: 7369: 7368: 7350: 7349: 7348: 7347: 7346: 7345: 7344: 7343: 7318: 7317: 7316: 7315: 7314: 7313: 7312: 7311: 7310: 7309: 7308: 7307: 7306: 7305: 7304: 7303: 7302: 7301: 7293: 7271:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 7250: 7242: 7198:– absolutely. 7178: 7177: 7174: 7169: 7168: 7167: 7166: 7165: 7164: 7163: 7162: 7161: 7160: 7159: 7151: 7131: 7130: 7129: 7110: 7087: 7086: 7085: 7084: 7083: 7082: 7081: 7080: 7061: 7060: 7059: 7058: 7057: 7056: 7032: 7031: 7030: 7029: 7028: 7027: 7011: 7010: 7009: 7008: 6981: 6980: 6979: 6978: 6977: 6976: 6968: 6941: 6940: 6919: 6918: 6910: 6885: 6875: 6874: 6873: 6872: 6871: 6870: 6869: 6868: 6867: 6866: 6865: 6864: 6863: 6862: 6861: 6860: 6859: 6858: 6850: 6827: 6819: 6771: 6717: 6664: 6645: 6637: 6629: 6621: 6616: 6612: 6582: 6581: 6580: 6579: 6578: 6577: 6576: 6575: 6574: 6566: 6545: 6541: 6534:here, because 6486: 6429: 6386: 6366: 6365: 6364: 6363: 6362: 6361: 6360: 6359: 6358: 6350: 6285: 6245: 6244: 6243: 6242: 6241: 6240: 6239: 6238: 6237: 6229: 6179: 6148: 6128: 6114: 6112: 6064: 6044: 6036: 6032: 6027: 6007: 5972: 5953: 5952: 5942: 5926: 5925: 5914:guideline and 5908: 5905:that talk page 5887: 5871: 5853: 5851: 5839: 5834: 5824: 5805: 5804: 5793: 5792: 5777: 5743: 5719: 5701: 5698: 5696: 5694: 5693: 5685: 5666: 5665: 5642: 5641: 5640: 5639: 5638: 5637: 5605: 5604: 5603: 5589: 5585: 5567: 5566: 5565: 5564: 5563: 5562: 5561: 5560: 5540:If you search 5457: 5456: 5455: 5454: 5443: 5440: 5439: 5438: 5437: 5436: 5435: 5434: 5433: 5432: 5398: 5315: 5312: 5288: 5281: 5261: 5258: 5257: 5256: 5238: 5207: 5204: 5181: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5145: 5105: 5104: 5103: 5102: 5093: 5092: 5091: 5069: 5063: 5053: 5044: 5043: 5042: 5028: 5018: 4999: 4997: 4996: 4958: 4957: 4956: 4955: 4954: 4953: 4952: 4951: 4950: 4949: 4948: 4947: 4946: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4942: 4941: 4940: 4939: 4938: 4937: 4936: 4935: 4934: 4933: 4932: 4931: 4930: 4929: 4928: 4927: 4828: 4827: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4823: 4822: 4821: 4820: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4816: 4815: 4814: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4764: 4763: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4757: 4756: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4748: 4747: 4746: 4702: 4701: 4700: 4699: 4698: 4697: 4696: 4695: 4694: 4693: 4692: 4691: 4690: 4689: 4688: 4687: 4686: 4685: 4684: 4683: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4636: 4635: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4630: 4629: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4572: 4571: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4391: 4390: 4389: 4388: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4233: 4232: 4201: 4200: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4147: 4122: 4116: 4106: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4081: 4071: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4042: 4032: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4011: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3971: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3943: 3942: 3856: 3840:but a dash in 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3786: 3785: 3764: 3763: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3737:Sooo, the IAU 3732: 3731: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3622: 3590: 3566: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3336: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3111: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2871: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2746: 2737: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2678: 2667: 2664: 2658: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2571: 2570: 2554: 2543: 2542: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2488: 2471: 2454: 2420: 2419: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2390: 2377: 2346: 2345: 2327: 2326: 2320: 2310: 2281: 2280: 2274: 2264: 2250: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2137: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2100: 2090: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2055: 2043: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2018: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1987: 1846: 1808: 1807: 1804: 1801: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1703: 1693: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1658: 1646: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1621: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1590: 1536: 1522: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1470: 1467: 1464: 1455: 1454: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1271: 1266: 1265: 1261: 1249: 1235: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1120: 1119: 1082: 1078: 1051: 1050: 1024:69.255.176.248 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 946:gets omitted. 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 731:69.255.176.248 726: 725: 724: 680: 679: 678: 651:69.255.176.248 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 293:Somewhat like 244: 243: 242: 241: 240: 239: 238: 237: 236: 166: 162: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 10448: 10429: 10420: 10417: 10414: 10412: 10404: 10401: 10400: 10399: 10398: 10397: 10396: 10395: 10394: 10393: 10392: 10381: 10377: 10374: 10373: 10366: 10362: 10361: 10360: 10359: 10358: 10357: 10356: 10355: 10354: 10353: 10344: 10340: 10336: 10331: 10327: 10326: 10325: 10324: 10323: 10322: 10321: 10320: 10313: 10304: 10301: 10298: 10296: 10289: 10288: 10287: 10286: 10285: 10284: 10279: 10275: 10271: 10266: 10262: 10261: 10260: 10256: 10252: 10248: 10245:According to 10244: 10243: 10242: 10241: 10237: 10233: 10227: 10224: 10222: 10218: 10206: 10197: 10194: 10191: 10189: 10181: 10180: 10179: 10178: 10174: 10170: 10162: 10153: 10150: 10147: 10145: 10137: 10135: 10132: 10129: 10125: 10124:Natureguy1980 10119: 10115: 10097: 10095: 10086: 10083: 10080: 10078: 10069: 10067: 10063: 10057: 10055: 10051: 10047: 10043: 10039: 10035: 10029: 10026: 10022: 10021: 10020: 10016: 10012: 10011:Peter coxhead 10005: 9999: 9996: 9991: 9990: 9989: 9988: 9987: 9986: 9985: 9984: 9983: 9982: 9981: 9980: 9979: 9978: 9977: 9976: 9959: 9950: 9947: 9944: 9942: 9935: 9931: 9927: 9923: 9922: 9921: 9917: 9913: 9908: 9904: 9897: 9896: 9895: 9894: 9893: 9892: 9891: 9890: 9889: 9888: 9887: 9886: 9885: 9884: 9871: 9870: 9861: 9858: 9855: 9853: 9845: 9840: 9836: 9831: 9826: 9821: 9820: 9819: 9818: 9817: 9816: 9815: 9814: 9813: 9812: 9811: 9810: 9799: 9795: 9791: 9783: 9779: 9778: 9777: 9776: 9775: 9774: 9773: 9772: 9771: 9770: 9757: 9756: 9755: 9754: 9753: 9752: 9751: 9750: 9749: 9748: 9739: 9735: 9731: 9730:Peter coxhead 9727: 9722: 9721: 9720: 9719: 9718: 9717: 9716: 9715: 9708: 9704: 9700: 9695: 9694: 9693: 9692: 9691: 9690: 9681: 9672: 9669: 9666: 9664: 9657: 9656: 9655: 9654: 9653: 9649: 9645: 9644:Peter coxhead 9641: 9640: 9639: 9635: 9631: 9622:common names 9615: 9614: 9608: 9604: 9603: 9598: 9590: 9586: 9566: 9563: 9562: 9561: 9560: 9556: 9555: 9550: 9541: 9538: 9535: 9533: 9525: 9521: 9517: 9511: 9509: 9507: 9503: 9499: 9498:Peter coxhead 9495: 9494: 9493: 9492: 9489: 9485: 9481: 9477: 9474: 9473: 9468: 9459: 9456: 9453: 9451: 9444: 9440: 9439: 9438: 9434: 9430: 9429:Peter coxhead 9426: 9425: 9419: 9415: 9410: 9396: 9395: 9392: 9388: 9385: 9384: 9383: 9382: 9373: 9370: 9367: 9365: 9358: 9353: 9349: 9344: 9328: 9325: 9321: 9317: 9312: 9308: 9304: 9300: 9296: 9290: 9288: 9284: 9280: 9276: 9272: 9268: 9264: 9260: 9259: 9258: 9254: 9252: 9248: 9247: 9245: 9241: 9237: 9229: 9225: 9205: 9200: 9197: 9196: 9192: 9190: 9176: 9167: 9164: 9161: 9159: 9152: 9151: 9150: 9149: 9146: 9142: 9138: 9134: 9131: 9129: 9125: 9121: 9117: 9113: 9112: 9111: 9110: 9106: 9102: 9098: 9094: 9090: 9069: 9060: 9057: 9054: 9052: 9044: 9040: 9035: 9028: 9026: 9022: 9018: 9017: 9016: 9015: 9014: 9013: 9012: 9011: 9010: 9009: 8998: 8994: 8990: 8986: 8982: 8981: 8980: 8975: 8970: 8969: 8968: 8967: 8966: 8965: 8964: 8963: 8952: 8951: 8950: 8949: 8948: 8947: 8946: 8945: 8938: 8934: 8930: 8926: 8925: 8924: 8919: 8915: 8914: 8913: 8912: 8909: 8900: 8897: 8894: 8892: 8886:Going twice. 8885: 8884: 8883: 8882: 8873: 8870: 8867: 8865: 8858: 8856: 8852: 8848: 8842: 8838: 8833: 8827: 8824: 8820: 8816: 8813: 8809: 8805: 8800: 8798: 8792: 8786: 8784: 8772: 8763: 8760: 8757: 8754: 8745: 8744: 8743: 8742: 8738: 8734: 8727: 8726: 8721: 8720: 8716: 8715: 8710: 8709: 8706: 8697: 8694: 8691: 8688: 8679: 8678: 8677: 8676: 8672: 8668: 8661: 8658: 8657: 8653: 8649: 8644: 8640: 8639: 8634: 8630: 8627: 8626: 8625: 8624: 8623: 8614: 8613: 8609: 8603: 8599: 8583: 8579: 8575: 8571: 8570: 8569: 8560: 8557: 8554: 8552: 8545: 8544: 8543: 8539: 8535: 8531: 8530: 8517: 8508: 8505: 8502: 8500: 8493: 8485: 8481: 8477: 8476: 8475: 8471: 8467: 8463: 8459: 8455: 8451: 8450: 8449: 8445: 8441: 8438:is abundant. 8437: 8433: 8429: 8428: 8427: 8426: 8425: 8424: 8423: 8422: 8411: 8407: 8403: 8399: 8397: 8396:MoS-guideline 8391: 8387: 8383: 8379: 8375: 8374: 8373: 8369: 8365: 8361: 8360: 8359: 8355: 8351: 8347: 8343: 8339: 8337: 8331: 8327: 8324: 8323: 8322: 8318: 8314: 8310: 8306: 8302: 8298: 8293: 8292: 8291: 8287: 8283: 8278: 8272: 8268: 8264: 8259: 8258: 8257: 8253: 8249: 8245: 8242:. Instead we 8241: 8237: 8233: 8229: 8225: 8221: 8220: 8219: 8215: 8211: 8207: 8203: 8202: 8201: 8200: 8199: 8198: 8191: 8182: 8179: 8176: 8174: 8167: 8166: 8165: 8161: 8157: 8153: 8150: 8146: 8142: 8138: 8134: 8130: 8125: 8124: 8123: 8114: 8111: 8108: 8106: 8099: 8093: 8091: 8086: 8085: 8084: 8080: 8076: 8071: 8070: 8067: 8066: 8057: 8054: 8051: 8049: 8039: 8037: 8033: 8029: 8024: 8019: 8015: 8009:agree with me 8008: 8005: 8001: 7998: 7997: 7996: 7995: 7991: 7987: 7986:Peter coxhead 7979: 7975: 7971: 7968: 7965: 7964: 7963: 7955: 7946: 7943: 7940: 7938: 7931: 7927: 7923: 7922: 7921: 7920: 7917: 7913: 7909: 7904: 7903: 7899: 7895: 7890: 7889: 7884: 7882: 7877: 7876: 7871: 7870: 7866: 7865: 7862: 7853: 7850: 7847: 7845: 7836: 7834: 7833: 7832: 7831: 7827: 7823: 7804: 7795: 7792: 7789: 7786: 7777: 7773: 7768: 7764: 7760: 7753: 7750: 7746: 7745: 7744: 7743: 7742: 7741: 7740: 7739: 7738: 7737: 7736: 7735: 7720: 7719: 7710: 7707: 7704: 7702: 7690: 7688: 7685: 7682: 7681: 7674: 7670: 7665: 7664: 7663: 7659: 7655: 7651: 7647: 7643: 7641: 7632: 7629: 7626: 7624: 7615: 7613: 7610:can recall. 7606: 7604: 7593: 7591: 7590: 7589: 7586: 7581: 7580: 7579: 7578: 7577: 7576: 7575: 7574: 7573: 7572: 7559: 7558: 7557: 7556: 7555: 7554: 7553: 7552: 7551: 7550: 7537: 7536: 7535: 7534: 7533: 7532: 7531: 7530: 7529: 7528: 7517: 7516: 7507: 7504: 7501: 7498: 7490: 7486: 7482: 7478: 7474: 7469: 7465: 7461: 7457: 7453: 7449: 7443: 7421: 7419: 7415: 7414: 7413: 7409: 7405: 7401: 7400: 7399: 7398: 7397: 7396: 7395: 7394: 7383: 7382: 7381: 7380: 7379: 7378: 7377: 7376: 7366: 7362: 7358: 7357: 7356: 7355: 7354: 7353: 7352: 7351: 7341: 7337: 7333: 7329: 7328: 7327: 7326: 7325: 7324: 7323: 7322: 7300: 7291: 7288: 7285: 7283: 7276: 7272: 7268: 7264: 7261: 7260: 7259: 7256: 7251: 7249: 7240: 7237: 7234: 7231: 7223: 7219: 7215: 7211: 7210: 7209: 7205: 7201: 7200:Peter coxhead 7197: 7192: 7191: 7190: 7189: 7188: 7187: 7186: 7185: 7184: 7183: 7182: 7181: 7180: 7179: 7173: 7172: 7158: 7149: 7146: 7143: 7140: 7132: 7125: 7118: 7114: 7111: 7108: 7104: 7101: 7100: 7097: 7096: 7095: 7094: 7093: 7092: 7091: 7090: 7089: 7088: 7079: 7074: 7069: 7068: 7067: 7066: 7065: 7064: 7063: 7062: 7055: 7051: 7047: 7042: 7038: 7037: 7036: 7035: 7034: 7033: 7025: 7021: 7017: 7016: 7015: 7014: 7013: 7012: 7007: 7002: 6997: 6993: 6989: 6985: 6984: 6983: 6982: 6975: 6966: 6963: 6960: 6957: 6949: 6945: 6944: 6943: 6942: 6939: 6935: 6931: 6927: 6923: 6922: 6921: 6920: 6917: 6908: 6905: 6902: 6899: 6890: 6883: 6881: 6877: 6876: 6857: 6848: 6845: 6842: 6840: 6833: 6828: 6826: 6817: 6814: 6811: 6809: 6802: 6798: 6794: 6793: 6792: 6788: 6784: 6780: 6779: 6778: 6769: 6766: 6763: 6761: 6754: 6747: 6740: 6739: 6738: 6734: 6730: 6726: 6725: 6724: 6715: 6712: 6709: 6706: 6698: 6697: 6696: 6692: 6688: 6684: 6683: 6678: 6673: 6672: 6671: 6662: 6659: 6656: 6653: 6643: 6641: 6635: 6633: 6627: 6625: 6619: 6614: 6613: 6609: 6608: 6607: 6603: 6599: 6595: 6591: 6587: 6583: 6573: 6564: 6561: 6558: 6556: 6549: 6543: 6539: 6537: 6533: 6529: 6528: 6527: 6523: 6519: 6515: 6510: 6506: 6502: 6498: 6495: 6494: 6493: 6484: 6481: 6478: 6475: 6467: 6466: 6465: 6461: 6457: 6453: 6449: 6445: 6442: 6438: 6437: 6436: 6427: 6424: 6421: 6418: 6409: 6405: 6401: 6398: 6394: 6390: 6384: 6382: 6381: 6380: 6376: 6372: 6367: 6357: 6348: 6345: 6342: 6339: 6331: 6327: 6320: 6313: 6309: 6308: 6307: 6303: 6299: 6294: 6293: 6292: 6283: 6280: 6277: 6274: 6266: 6261: 6260: 6259: 6255: 6251: 6246: 6236: 6227: 6224: 6221: 6219: 6212: 6207: 6206: 6205: 6201: 6197: 6192: 6188: 6187: 6186: 6177: 6174: 6171: 6168: 6160: 6156: 6152: 6146: 6136: 6132: 6126: 6124: 6120: 6110: 6106: 6100: 6099: 6098: 6094: 6090: 6086: 6081: 6077: 6073: 6072: 6071: 6062: 6059: 6056: 6053: 6042: 6040: 6034: 6030: 6025: 6022: 6021: 6020: 6016: 6012: 6008: 6006: 6002: 5998: 5994: 5990: 5986: 5982: 5981: 5980: 5979: 5970: 5967: 5964: 5961: 5950: 5946: 5940: 5938: 5934: 5931: 5930: 5929: 5924: 5921: 5917: 5913: 5909: 5906: 5902: 5898: 5895: 5892: 5888: 5886: 5883: 5879: 5876: 5872: 5869: 5865: 5861: 5857: 5854: 5849: 5847: 5843: 5842: 5841: 5832: 5831: 5822: 5819: 5816: 5813: 5802: 5798: 5797:The rationale 5795: 5794: 5790: 5786: 5782: 5775: 5773: 5772:The objection 5770: 5769: 5768: 5766: 5762: 5758: 5755: 5749: 5747: 5741: 5739: 5735: 5734:MoS talk page 5729: 5725: 5723: 5717: 5715: 5711: 5710:MoS talk page 5705: 5697: 5692: 5683: 5680: 5677: 5675: 5668: 5667: 5664: 5663: 5660: 5655: 5653: 5644: 5643: 5636: 5632: 5628: 5625: 5622: 5621: 5620: 5619: 5618: 5614: 5610: 5606: 5601: 5597: 5593: 5590: 5586: 5583: 5579: 5578: 5576: 5572: 5569: 5568: 5559: 5555: 5551: 5547: 5543: 5539: 5538: 5537: 5533: 5529: 5525: 5521: 5517: 5513: 5509: 5505: 5501: 5500: 5499: 5495: 5491: 5487: 5486: 5485: 5481: 5477: 5473: 5472: 5471: 5470: 5466: 5462: 5452: 5451: 5450: 5449: 5448: 5431: 5427: 5423: 5418: 5414: 5413: 5412: 5408: 5404: 5399: 5397: 5393: 5389: 5385: 5384: 5383: 5379: 5375: 5370: 5366: 5362: 5358: 5357: 5356: 5352: 5348: 5343: 5342: 5341: 5337: 5333: 5329: 5325: 5311: 5310: 5306: 5302: 5298: 5294: 5286: 5280: 5279: 5275: 5271: 5267: 5255: 5250: 5246: 5242: 5237: 5236: 5235: 5233: 5229: 5225: 5221: 5217: 5213: 5203: 5202: 5198: 5195: 5194: 5187: 5175: 5171: 5167: 5163: 5159: 5155: 5154: 5153: 5152: 5143: 5140: 5137: 5135: 5127: 5126: 5122: 5118: 5114: 5110: 5097: 5096: 5094: 5089: 5085: 5077: 5070: 5064: 5054: 5050:Guinea-Bissau 5048: 5047: 5045: 5040: 5036: 5029: 5019: 5006: 5005: 5003: 5002: 5001: 4995: 4991: 4987: 4983: 4979: 4975: 4974: 4973: 4972: 4968: 4964: 4926: 4922: 4918: 4914: 4910: 4906: 4905: 4904: 4900: 4896: 4892: 4891: 4890: 4886: 4882: 4877: 4876: 4875: 4871: 4867: 4863: 4860:' opinion. — 4859: 4854: 4853: 4852: 4851: 4850: 4849: 4848: 4847: 4846: 4845: 4844: 4843: 4842: 4841: 4840: 4839: 4838: 4837: 4836: 4835: 4834: 4833: 4832: 4831: 4830: 4829: 4804: 4800: 4796: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4788: 4787: 4786: 4785: 4784: 4783: 4782: 4781: 4780: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4773: 4772: 4771: 4770: 4769: 4768: 4745: 4741: 4737: 4733: 4728: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4682: 4678: 4674: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4657: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4653: 4652: 4651: 4628: 4624: 4620: 4616: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4570: 4566: 4562: 4558: 4557: 4556: 4555: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4545: 4544: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4539: 4520: 4516: 4512: 4508: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4486: 4469: 4465: 4461: 4456: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4426: 4422: 4418: 4414: 4409: 4405: 4404: 4403: 4402: 4401: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4379: 4375: 4371: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4363: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4344: 4340: 4336: 4332: 4328: 4324: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4302: 4298: 4294: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4275: 4271: 4267: 4263: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4249: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4234: 4231: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4215: 4211: 4207: 4203: 4202: 4199: 4195: 4191: 4187: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4180: 4176: 4163: 4162: 4160: 4148: 4145: 4141: 4134: 4130: 4123: 4117: 4107: 4103:Guinea-Bissau 4101: 4100: 4098: 4093: 4089: 4082: 4072: 4059: 4058: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4043: 4033: 4029:Guinea-Bissau 4027: 4026: 4024: 4012: 3999: 3998: 3996: 3992: 3984: 3983: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3977: 3963: 3959: 3955: 3951: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3941: 3939: 3935: 3931: 3926: 3924: 3922: 3918: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3902: 3898: 3894: 3890: 3886: 3881: 3879: 3875: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3857: 3855: 3851: 3847: 3843: 3839: 3835: 3831: 3827: 3824: 3823: 3814: 3810: 3806: 3802: 3798: 3794: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3784: 3781: 3776: 3774: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3762: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3740: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3730: 3729: 3726: 3721: 3719: 3710: 3706: 3705: 3686: 3682: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3664: 3660: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3642: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3621: 3617: 3613: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3603: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3588: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3567: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3543: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3525: 3521: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3511: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3492: 3488: 3453: 3449: 3445: 3441: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3422: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3412: 3408: 3404: 3400: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3389: 3385: 3381: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3316: 3312: 3308: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3268: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3199: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3108: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3081: 3077: 3073: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2891: 2887: 2882: 2878: 2875: 2872: 2869: 2865: 2862: 2859: 2858: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2752: 2747: 2744: 2743: 2741: 2735: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2679: 2673: 2659: 2656: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2634: 2633: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2573: 2572: 2567: 2559: 2555: 2552: 2545: 2544: 2532: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2514: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2489: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2472: 2470: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2455: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2418: 2414: 2411: 2410: 2403: 2402: 2391: 2385: 2378: 2375: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2353: 2352: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2321: 2311: 2308: 2300: 2296: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2284: 2275: 2265: 2261:Guinea-Bissau 2259: 2258: 2257: 2254: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2179: 2174: 2172: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2101: 2091: 2088: 2080: 2076: 2069: 2068: 2066: 2062: 2056: 2054: 2044: 2042: 2039:Guinea-Bissau 2036: 2035: 2034: 2031: 2019: 2006: 2005: 2003: 1999: 1991: 1990: 1988: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1979: 1978: 1972: 1966: 1965: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1951: 1946: 1944: 1938: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1928: 1927: 1921: 1915: 1914: 1906: 1902: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1874: 1869: 1867: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1826: 1821: 1819: 1811: 1805: 1802: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1704: 1694: 1691: 1683: 1679: 1672: 1671: 1669: 1665: 1659: 1657: 1647: 1645: 1642:Guinea-Bissau 1639: 1638: 1637: 1634: 1622: 1609: 1608: 1606: 1602: 1594: 1593: 1591: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1583: 1578: 1576: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1471: 1468: 1465: 1462: 1461: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1424: 1420: 1418: 1414: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1346:173.199.215.5 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1325: 1322: 1321: 1294: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1274:Peter coxhead 1269: 1262: 1250: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1233: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1174: 1170: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1141: 1138: 1137: 1129: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1090: 1089: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1001: 997: 993: 988: 987: 986: 982: 981: 975: 969: 968: 959: 958: 957: 953: 949: 945: 941: 936: 935: 934: 930: 926: 922: 921: 920: 916: 912: 908: 904: 900: 896: 895: 894: 890: 886: 881: 877: 873: 872: 871: 867: 863: 858: 857: 856: 852: 851: 845: 839: 838: 829: 828: 827: 823: 819: 814: 813: 812: 811: 807: 803: 799: 786: 782: 778: 774: 773: 772: 769: 760: 759: 758: 755: 750: 748: 742: 741: 740: 736: 732: 727: 723: 719: 718: 712: 706: 705: 696: 695: 694: 690: 686: 681: 677: 673: 669: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 656: 652: 622: 618: 614: 610: 609: 608: 604: 600: 595: 594: 593: 589: 585: 580: 579: 578: 574: 570: 565: 564: 563: 559: 555: 550: 538: 534: 530: 525: 521: 520: 519: 515: 514: 508: 502: 501: 493: 489: 485: 480: 479: 478: 474: 470: 466: 462: 461: 460: 456: 455: 449: 443: 442: 434: 430: 426: 425: 424: 420: 416: 411: 410: 409: 405: 404: 398: 392: 391: 382: 381: 380: 376: 372: 365: 360: 359: 358: 354: 350: 346: 342: 338: 337: 336: 332: 331: 325: 319: 318: 310: 309: 308: 304: 300: 296: 292: 291: 290: 286: 282: 278: 277: 276: 272: 268: 263: 259: 258: 257: 253: 249: 245: 235: 231: 227: 222: 221:WP:COMMONNAME 217: 216: 215: 211: 207: 206:Peter coxhead 202: 201:WP:COMMONNAME 198: 197: 196: 192: 188: 184: 183:WP:COMMONNAME 180: 179: 178: 174: 170: 169:Peter coxhead 164: 160: 158: 154: 150: 146: 145: 144: 140: 136: 132: 128: 127: 126: 125: 121: 117: 113: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 10410: 10370: 10329: 10294: 10264: 10247:Help:Infobox 10228: 10225: 10220: 10214: 10187: 10165: 10143: 10130: 10121: 10096: 10076: 10050:Mexican Jays 9994: 9940: 9933: 9902: 9851: 9832: 9824: 9725: 9662: 9601: 9600: 9593:Golden Eagle 9585:Some editors 9564: 9531: 9512:entire basis 9475: 9449: 9417: 9390: 9386: 9363: 9345: 9332: 9255: 9249: 9239: 9232:Golden Eagle 9224:Some editors 9203: 9202: 9201: 9198: 9194: 9193: 9186: 9157: 9096: 9092: 9088: 9085: 9050: 9043:WT:CONSENSUS 9034:WP:CONSENSUS 9021:WP:CONSENSUS 8890: 8863: 8855:common sense 8847:edit warring 8844: 8825: 8790: 8780: 8752: 8731: 8686: 8665: 8636: 8635:works, like 8620: 8595: 8550: 8498: 8483: 8461: 8457: 8453: 8431: 8395: 8341: 8335: 8333: 8329: 8239: 8228:prescriptive 8205: 8172: 8148: 8144: 8104: 8047: 8020: 8012: 7983: 7973: 7960: 7936: 7897: 7893: 7880: 7843: 7817: 7784: 7763:no one cares 7759:proper names 7700: 7694: 7679: 7649: 7622: 7612:No one cares 7496: 7448:WP:POVFORKed 7441: 7364: 7281: 7265:is policy. 7229: 7195: 7138: 7024:or guideline 7023: 6996:WP:CONSENSUS 6988:WP:CONSENSUS 6955: 6897: 6838: 6831: 6807: 6759: 6704: 6681: 6680: 6676: 6651: 6593: 6589: 6585: 6554: 6547: 6508: 6500: 6473: 6451: 6416: 6337: 6312:WP:CONSENSUS 6272: 6217: 6210: 6190: 6166: 6084: 6079: 6075: 6051: 6043:entire point 5992: 5988: 5984: 5959: 5954: 5927: 5848:. Yes, the 5833: 5811: 5806: 5796: 5785:WP:Consensus 5771: 5751: 5738:MoS register 5731: 5727: 5714:MoS register 5707: 5703: 5695: 5673: 5651: 5647: 5623: 5594:(version of 5581: 5580:The heading 5545: 5523: 5519: 5515: 5511: 5507: 5503: 5458: 5445: 5416: 5368: 5364: 5360: 5347:AlexTiefling 5322:— Preceding 5317: 5301:Curly Turkey 5290: 5284: 5270:Curly Turkey 5263: 5252: 5209: 5191: 5183: 5157: 5133: 5128: 5113:Wilkes-Barre 5106: 5056:Wilkes-Barre 4998: 4959: 4909:WP:DEADHORSE 4726: 4407: 4326: 4209: 4172: 4150:Wilkes-Barre 4132: 4109:Wilkes-Barre 4052: 4035:Wilkes-Barre 3994: 3973: 3949: 3940: 3925: 3889:Epstein–Barr 3882: 3858: 3833: 3829: 3825: 3800: 3792: 3772: 3738: 3717: 3712: 3586: 3552:Wilkes-Barre 3484: 3421:Wilkes-Barre 3398: 3285: 3114: 3106: 2973:named after 2889: 2880: 2876: 2867: 2863: 2816: 2733: 2675:Wilkes-Barre 2671: 2647: 2601: 2597: 2530: 2490: 2473: 2456: 2444:VivaLaPandaz 2439: 2407: 2387:Wilkes-Barre 2383: 2366: 2328: 2317:Wilkes-Barre 2285: 2282: 2267:Wilkes-Barre 2255: 2252: 2217: 2170: 2097:Wilkes-Barre 2057: 2047:Wilkes-Barre 2045: 2037: 2032: 2001: 1967: 1960: 1942: 1936: 1916: 1909: 1905:any of those 1901:one of those 1881: 1865: 1817: 1812: 1809: 1794: 1700:Wilkes-Barre 1660: 1650:Wilkes-Barre 1648: 1640: 1635: 1604: 1574: 1425: 1421: 1410: 1341: 1334:individual’s 1333: 1318: 1313:Wilkes–Barre 1309:Wilkes-Barre 1297:Wilkes–Barre 1291:Wilkes-Barre 1288: 1267: 1254:Wilkes-Barre 1246:Lennard–Hale 1223: 1173:Wilkes-Barre 1166: 1134: 1127: 1088:hyphen-minus 1086: 1074: 1052: 1020: 970: 963: 943: 939: 906: 876:Wilkes-Barre 840: 833: 795: 746: 707: 700: 647: 523: 503: 496: 464: 444: 437: 393: 386: 344: 320: 313: 261: 109: 78: 43: 37: 10411:SMcCandlish 10403:MOS:INFOBOX 10295:SMcCandlish 10188:SMcCandlish 10144:SMcCandlish 10077:SMcCandlish 10004:SMcCandlish 9995:Felis catus 9941:SMcCandlish 9930:Talk:Cougar 9903:Felis catus 9852:SMcCandlish 9786:Pink salmon 9663:SMcCandlish 9532:SMcCandlish 9450:SMcCandlish 9364:SMcCandlish 9307:WP:ASTONISH 9270:frequently. 9251:Don't panic 9158:SMcCandlish 9101:BarrelProof 9097:Pretty Ugly 9089:Hello Sally 9051:SMcCandlish 8891:SMcCandlish 8864:SMcCandlish 8783:WP:CONLEVEL 8753:SMcCandlish 8687:SMcCandlish 8551:SMcCandlish 8499:SMcCandlish 8332:starts out 8244:use English 8224:descriptive 8173:SMcCandlish 8105:SMcCandlish 8048:SMcCandlish 7937:SMcCandlish 7844:SMcCandlish 7785:SMcCandlish 7772:WP:CONLEVEL 7701:SMcCandlish 7623:SMcCandlish 7497:SMcCandlish 7336:use English 7282:SMcCandlish 7230:SMcCandlish 7139:SMcCandlish 6992:GA criteria 6956:SMcCandlish 6898:SMcCandlish 6880:WP:CONLEVEL 6839:SMcCandlish 6808:SMcCandlish 6760:SMcCandlish 6705:SMcCandlish 6652:SMcCandlish 6555:SMcCandlish 6474:SMcCandlish 6417:SMcCandlish 6338:SMcCandlish 6298:Ring Cinema 6273:SMcCandlish 6265:WP:CONLEVEL 6250:Ring Cinema 6218:SMcCandlish 6167:SMcCandlish 6127:fill a void 6052:SMcCandlish 6039:WP:CONLEVEL 5960:SMcCandlish 5812:SMcCandlish 5674:SMcCandlish 5134:SMcCandlish 3993:An en dash 3950:attributive 3874:Wells Fargo 3870:McGraw-Hill 3805:Enric Naval 3791:Oh, sorry, 3753:Enric Naval 3157:Enric Naval 3107:attributive 2979:Enric Naval 2821:Enric Naval 2789:Enric Naval 2478:DocWatson42 2000:An en dash 1603:An en dash 1056:Ananiujitha 905:, in which 463:All right, 297:, perhaps? 226:Walternmoss 135:Walternmoss 98:Archive 160 90:Archive 157 85:Archive 156 79:Archive 155 73:Archive 154 68:Archive 153 60:Archive 150 36:This is an 10335:Epeefleche 10232:Epeefleche 9905:there are 9599:articles; 9238:articles; 9133:WP:PEACOCK 9114:I believe 8974:SlimVirgin 8918:SlimVirgin 8454:convention 8378:Darkfrog24 8313:Darkfrog24 8282:Darkfrog24 8210:Darkfrog24 8151:. (;-: --> 8016:each other 7978:WP:NCFLORA 7906:possible. 7654:Darkfrog24 7485:WP:NOTHERE 7481:WP:SOAPBOX 7385:clarified. 7220:on a page 7073:SlimVirgin 7001:SlimVirgin 6632:WP:GAMEing 6624:WP:NCFAUNA 6598:Darkfrog24 6441:good faith 6408:WP:NCFLORA 6404:WP:NCFAUNA 6389:WP:NCFAUNA 5993:particular 5989:in general 5985:particular 5949:WP:NCFAUNA 5912:WP:NCFAUNA 5864:WP:NCFLORA 5860:WP:NCFLORA 5852:guideline. 5609:Wavelength 5602:" instead. 5588:conflicts. 5369:definitive 5295:(original 5222:template. 5072:Hindi-Urdu 4125:Hindi-Urdu 3930:John Cline 3769:Spelling? 3259:Mitch Ames 3198:Mitch Ames 3119:Mitch Ames 2819:source. -- 2756:Mitch Ames 2700:Mitch Ames 2651:Hindi-Urdu 2575:Mitch Ames 2558:MOS:ENDASH 2370:Hindi-Urdu 2303:Hindi-Urdu 2083:Hindi-Urdu 1686:Hindi-Urdu 1498:W. P. Uzer 1444:W. P. Uzer 1360:W. P. Uzer 1209:W. P. Uzer 1178:W. P. Uzer 1040:W. P. Uzer 992:W. P. Uzer 948:W. P. Uzer 911:W. P. Uzer 885:W. P. Uzer 802:W. P. Uzer 685:W. P. Uzer 613:W. P. Uzer 584:W. P. Uzer 554:W. P. Uzer 529:W. P. Uzer 469:W. P. Uzer 415:W. P. Uzer 364:W. P. Uzer 349:W. P. Uzer 299:W. P. Uzer 267:W. P. Uzer 10270:Arxiloxos 10221:(2010-12) 9607:redirects 9577:gray wolf 9324:WP:GAMING 9320:WP:POINTY 9244:redirects 9216:gray wolf 8456:are also 8336:guideline 8040:dominated 8002:, Peter: 8000:WP:KETTLE 7894:guideline 7456:WP:OWNish 6783:Trovatore 6751:tag from 6746:Guideline 6729:Trovatore 6687:Trovatore 6448:this diff 6319:Guideline 6196:Trovatore 6105:Guideline 6089:Trovatore 6076:consensus 6011:Trovatore 5997:Trovatore 5776:Of course 5510:give is: 5025:Hale–Bopp 4727:preserved 4078:Hale–Bopp 4018:Hale–Bopp 3885:Hale–Bopp 3058:Modal Jig 2602:Hale–Bopp 2598:C/1995 O1 2566:Hale-Bopp 2495:User:Sroc 2025:Hale–Bopp 1628:Hale–Bopp 1301:Hale–Bopp 1169:Hale–Bopp 940:Hale–Bopp 907:Hale–Bopp 899:Hale–Bopp 880:Hale–Bopp 490:and then 10134:contribs 9624:of birds 9480:JHunterJ 9357:WP:BEANS 9348:MOS:LIFE 9311:WP:NABOB 9274:German). 9189:MOS:LIFE 9137:Hawkeye7 9116:WP:UNDUE 8989:JHunterJ 8929:JHunterJ 8574:JHunterJ 8534:JHunterJ 8440:Dicklyon 8436:Evidence 8398:template 8364:Dicklyon 8032:WP:SPADE 7873:the war. 7822:Dicklyon 7669:Darkfrog 7444:has been 6536:WP:CIVIL 6532:WP:SPADE 6191:anything 6151:MOS:LIFE 5937:MOS:CAPS 5546:applying 5542:WP;NDASH 5528:Blueboar 5476:Blueboar 5422:Blueboar 5374:Blueboar 5336:contribs 5324:unsigned 5220:Citation 5170:contribs 5023:or just 4990:contribs 4978:Dicklyon 4921:contribs 4911:case. — 4870:contribs 4795:Dicklyon 4740:contribs 4623:contribs 4561:Dicklyon 4515:contribs 4460:Dicklyon 4421:contribs 4370:Dicklyon 4339:contribs 4293:Dicklyon 4270:contribs 4240:Dicklyon 4226:contribs 4076:or just 4016:or just 3974:Per the 3954:Dicklyon 3895:and the 3681:contribs 3649:contribs 3602:contribs 3542:contribs 3510:contribs 3448:contribs 3411:contribs 3370:contribs 3315:contribs 3216:contribs 3027:contribs 2902:contribs 2712:contribs 2614:contribs 2235:Dicklyon 2023:or just 1626:or just 1375:Dicklyon 1075:directly 668:Dicklyon 524:supposed 10330:because 10169:Collect 10038:Cougars 9476:Support 9120:DonIago 8837:WP:BOLD 8830:in the 8733:Duxwing 8667:Duxwing 8466:Andrewa 8402:Andrewa 8350:Andrewa 8297:Andrewa 8248:Andrewa 8236:promote 8206:correct 8156:Andrewa 8036:WP:DUCK 7908:Andrewa 7460:WP:GANG 7404:Andrewa 7263:WP:BOLD 6830:phrase, 6801:WP:DFTT 6518:Andrewa 6501:germane 6456:Andrewa 6371:Andrewa 6209:phrase, 6123:WP:BOLD 5935:a.k.a. 5858:a.k.a. 5783:and of 5658:(talk) 5285:Revised 5117:JorisvS 4963:JorisvS 4895:JorisvS 4881:JorisvS 4858:JorisvS 4673:JorisvS 4408:against 4206:JorisvS 4190:JorisvS 4175:JorisvS 3928:found.— 3826:Comment 3779:(talk) 3724:(talk) 3659:JorisvS 3626:JorisvS 3612:JorisvS 3573:JorisvS 3556:JorisvS 3520:JorisvS 3487:JorisvS 3425:JorisvS 3384:JorisvS 3352:To me, 3340:JorisvS 3326:JorisvS 3072:JorisvS 2933:JorisvS 2890:another 2868:en dash 2803:JorisvS 2771:JorisvS 2531:Comment 2499:JorisvS 2491:Support 2474:Support 2457:Support 2427:JorisvS 2331:JorisvS 2187:JorisvS 2177:(talk) 2155:JorisvS 2141:JorisvS 1949:(talk) 1886:JorisvS 1872:(talk) 1850:JorisvS 1836:JorisvS 1824:(talk) 1770:JorisvS 1581:(talk) 1559:JorisvS 1544:JorisvS 1526:JorisvS 1512:JorisvS 1483:JorisvS 1390:JorisvS 1344:name. — 1342:thing’s 1150:JorisvS 1098:em dash 1094:en dash 925:JorisvS 862:JorisvS 818:JorisvS 777:JorisvS 753:(talk) 281:JorisvS 248:JorisvS 153:JorisvS 149:Noetica 116:JorisvS 39:archive 10251:Pburka 10062:Cougar 10034:Cougar 9934:cougar 9844:WP:IAR 9835:cougar 9827:within 9579:, but 9569:zebras 9524:WP:NOR 9303:Cougar 9299:cougar 9291:ignore 9263:WP:NOR 9218:, but 9208:zebras 9025:WP:BRD 8843:here: 8841:WP:BRD 8832:WP:BRD 8828:engage 8812:WP:GAN 8804:WP:BRD 8607:話して下さい 8480:WP:SSF 8238:these 8098:WP:BRD 7898:policy 7776:WP:OWN 7767:WP:IAR 7749:WP:OWN 7585:trlkly 7438:43 CMs 7434:43 cm. 7428:, not 7418:WT:MOS 7267:WP:BRD 7255:trlkly 7216:and a 6685:. --- 6586:should 6544:pseudo 6155:WP:OWN 6135:Cougar 6131:WP:IAR 6119:WT:MOS 6026:really 5945:WP:MOS 5850:plants 5765:WP:BRD 5600:Hyphen 5508:should 5305:gobble 5274:gobble 5224:Jc3s5h 5162:Dsimic 5078:, but 4982:Dsimic 4913:Dsimic 4862:Dsimic 4732:Dsimic 4615:Dsimic 4507:Dsimic 4413:Dsimic 4331:Dsimic 4327:really 4262:Dsimic 4218:Dsimic 3793:naming 3673:Dsimic 3641:Dsimic 3594:Dsimic 3534:Dsimic 3502:Dsimic 3440:Dsimic 3403:Dsimic 3362:Dsimic 3307:Dsimic 3208:Dsimic 3019:Dsimic 2894:Dsimic 2881:hyphen 2704:Dsimic 2606:Dsimic 2461:Dsimic 2301:) vs. 2081:) vs. 1684:) vs. 1109:rose64 874:Well, 764:TRPoD 433:second 10223:". 10046:Lions 9910:). -- 9595:) in 9520:WP:RS 9418:every 9391:wrong 9314:anti- 9234:) in 8853:, or 8821:again 8787:where 8712:_< 8698:⚞(ⱷ҅̆ 8334:This 8263:Tdslk 8232:WP:AT 7974:their 7796:⚞(ⱷ҅̆ 7675:major 7599:here. 7508:⚞(ⱷ҅̆ 7473:WP:AT 7241:⚞(ⱷ҅̆ 7150:⚞(ⱷ҅̆ 7124:essay 6967:⚞(ⱷ҅̆ 6909:⚞(ⱷ҅̆ 6884:where 6716:⚞(ⱷ҅̆ 6663:⚞(ⱷ҅̆ 6636:style 6594:would 6485:⚞(ⱷ҅̆ 6428:⚞(ⱷ҅̆ 6397:WP:MR 6330:WP:AT 6284:⚞(ⱷ҅̆ 6178:⚞(ⱷ҅̆ 6159:local 6147:force 6085:style 6063:⚞(ⱷ҅̆ 5971:⚞(ⱷ҅̆ 5920:WP:MR 5823:⚞(ⱷ҅̆ 5512:avoid 5365:wrong 5361:right 5283:RfC: 5158:might 5084:Hindi 5035:Hindi 4214:above 4140:Hindi 4088:Hindi 3707:From 3399:after 3110:noun. 2640:Hindi 2518:SamBC 2359:Hindi 2295:Hindi 2220:kwami 2075:Hindi 1976:edits 1925:edits 1678:Hindi 1429:kwami 1234:until 1128:never 979:edits 944:Comet 849:edits 798:I did 716:edits 512:edits 453:edits 429:first 402:edits 341:fixed 329:edits 165:would 16:< 10372:sroc 10339:talk 10274:talk 10265:also 10255:talk 10236:talk 10173:talk 10128:talk 10118:here 10066:Lion 10064:and 10052:and 10042:Lion 10030:does 10025:Cats 10015:talk 9916:talk 9912:Stfg 9837:and 9794:talk 9790:Stfg 9734:talk 9703:talk 9699:Stfg 9648:talk 9634:talk 9630:Stfg 9516:WP:V 9502:talk 9484:talk 9433:talk 9406:cats 9401:cats 9341:cats 9336:Cats 9322:and 9309:and 9267:WP:V 9265:and 9141:talk 9124:talk 9105:talk 9023:and 8993:talk 8933:talk 8808:here 8737:talk 8702:ⱷ)≼ 8671:talk 8578:talk 8538:talk 8492:here 8470:talk 8444:talk 8406:talk 8382:talk 8368:talk 8354:talk 8317:talk 8301:talk 8286:talk 8267:talk 8252:talk 8226:not 8214:talk 8160:talk 8133:talk 8129:N-HH 8079:talk 8075:N-HH 8034:and 8004:This 7990:talk 7912:talk 7826:talk 7800:ⱷ)≼ 7774:and 7754:both 7658:talk 7650:back 7607:only 7512:ⱷ)≼ 7462:and 7430:45cm 7408:talk 7365:help 7245:ⱷ)≼ 7204:talk 7154:ⱷ)≼ 7050:talk 7046:Stfg 6971:ⱷ)≼ 6934:talk 6930:Stfg 6928:. -- 6913:ⱷ)≼ 6799:and 6787:talk 6733:talk 6720:ⱷ)≼ 6691:talk 6667:ⱷ)≼ 6602:talk 6590:does 6548:faux 6540:nice 6522:talk 6489:ⱷ)≼ 6460:talk 6432:ⱷ)≼ 6406:and 6391:and 6375:talk 6302:talk 6288:ⱷ)≼ 6254:talk 6200:talk 6182:ⱷ)≼ 6093:talk 6080:were 6067:ⱷ)≼ 6015:talk 6001:talk 5975:ⱷ)≼ 5947:and 5827:ⱷ)≼ 5761:here 5754:here 5652:Tony 5631:talk 5627:EEng 5613:talk 5571:EEng 5554:talk 5550:EEng 5532:talk 5516:Best 5504:must 5494:talk 5490:EEng 5480:talk 5465:talk 5461:EEng 5426:talk 5407:talk 5403:EEng 5392:talk 5388:EEng 5378:talk 5351:talk 5332:talk 5297:here 5293:here 5266:here 5245:talk 5241:EEng 5228:talk 5193:sroc 5166:talk 5160:. — 5121:talk 5088:Urdu 5086:and 5039:Urdu 5037:and 5014:; 5010:; 4986:talk 4967:talk 4917:talk 4899:talk 4885:talk 4866:talk 4799:talk 4736:talk 4677:talk 4619:talk 4565:talk 4511:talk 4464:talk 4417:talk 4374:talk 4335:talk 4297:talk 4266:talk 4244:talk 4222:talk 4210:long 4194:talk 4179:talk 4144:Urdu 4142:and 4092:Urdu 4090:and 4067:; 4063:; 4053:to: 4007:; 4003:; 3958:talk 3934:talk 3919:and 3887:and 3864:and 3850:talk 3846:Bwrs 3809:talk 3773:Tony 3757:talk 3739:does 3718:Tony 3677:talk 3663:talk 3645:talk 3630:talk 3616:talk 3598:talk 3577:talk 3560:talk 3538:talk 3524:talk 3506:talk 3491:talk 3444:talk 3429:talk 3407:talk 3388:talk 3366:talk 3344:talk 3330:talk 3311:talk 3263:talk 3212:talk 3161:talk 3123:talk 3115:like 3076:talk 3062:talk 3023:talk 2983:talk 2937:talk 2898:talk 2825:talk 2807:talk 2793:talk 2783:The 2775:talk 2760:talk 2708:talk 2644:Urdu 2642:and 2610:talk 2579:talk 2522:talk 2503:talk 2482:talk 2465:talk 2448:talk 2431:talk 2409:sroc 2363:Urdu 2361:and 2335:talk 2299:Urdu 2297:and 2283:to: 2239:talk 2224:talk 2191:talk 2171:Tony 2167:No. 2159:talk 2145:talk 2079:Urdu 2077:and 2014:; 2010:; 1970:talk 1963:N-HH 1943:Tony 1919:talk 1912:N-HH 1890:talk 1884:. -- 1882:That 1866:Tony 1854:talk 1840:talk 1818:Tony 1774:talk 1682:Urdu 1680:and 1617:; 1613:; 1575:Tony 1563:talk 1548:talk 1530:talk 1516:talk 1502:talk 1487:talk 1479:here 1448:talk 1433:talk 1394:talk 1379:talk 1364:talk 1350:talk 1320:sroc 1303:and 1278:talk 1213:talk 1198:talk 1194:Stfg 1182:talk 1154:talk 1136:sroc 1113:talk 1104:. -- 1060:talk 1044:talk 1028:talk 996:talk 973:talk 966:N-HH 952:talk 929:talk 915:talk 889:talk 866:talk 843:talk 836:N-HH 822:talk 806:talk 781:talk 747:Tony 735:talk 710:talk 703:N-HH 689:talk 672:talk 655:talk 617:talk 603:talk 599:Stfg 588:talk 573:talk 569:Stfg 558:talk 533:talk 506:talk 499:N-HH 473:talk 447:talk 440:N-HH 419:talk 396:talk 389:N-HH 375:talk 371:Stfg 353:talk 323:talk 316:N-HH 303:talk 295:this 285:talk 271:talk 252:talk 230:talk 210:talk 191:talk 187:Stfg 173:talk 139:talk 120:talk 10425:ⱷ≼ 10421:≽ⱷ҅ 10367:. 10333:Tx. 10309:ⱷ≼ 10305:≽ⱷ҅ 10202:ⱷ≼ 10198:≽ⱷ҅ 10158:ⱷ≼ 10154:≽ⱷ҅ 10091:ⱷ≼ 10087:≽ⱷ҅ 10070:not 9955:ⱷ≼ 9951:≽ⱷ҅ 9926:cat 9866:ⱷ≼ 9862:≽ⱷ҅ 9847:--> 9839:cat 9677:ⱷ≼ 9673:≽ⱷ҅ 9620:the 9589:IOC 9583:). 9546:ⱷ≼ 9542:≽ⱷ҅ 9464:ⱷ≼ 9460:≽ⱷ҅ 9378:ⱷ≼ 9374:≽ⱷ҅ 9228:IOC 9222:). 9172:ⱷ≼ 9168:≽ⱷ҅ 9065:ⱷ≼ 9061:≽ⱷ҅ 8905:ⱷ≼ 8901:≽ⱷ҅ 8878:ⱷ≼ 8874:≽ⱷ҅ 8817:but 8768:ⱷ≼ 8764:≽ⱷ҅ 8565:ⱷ≼ 8561:≽ⱷ҅ 8513:ⱷ≼ 8509:≽ⱷ҅ 8187:ⱷ≼ 8183:≽ⱷ҅ 8119:ⱷ≼ 8115:≽ⱷ҅ 8062:ⱷ≼ 8058:≽ⱷ҅ 7951:ⱷ≼ 7947:≽ⱷ҅ 7886:it. 7858:ⱷ≼ 7854:≽ⱷ҅ 7715:ⱷ≼ 7711:≽ⱷ҅ 7637:ⱷ≼ 7633:≽ⱷ҅ 7616:one 7436:or 7432:or 7340:not 7296:ⱷ≼ 7292:≽ⱷ҅ 6853:ⱷ≼ 6849:≽ⱷ҅ 6822:ⱷ≼ 6818:≽ⱷ҅ 6774:ⱷ≼ 6770:≽ⱷ҅ 6677:You 6620:the 6569:ⱷ≼ 6565:≽ⱷ҅ 6385:you 6353:ⱷ≼ 6349:≽ⱷ҅ 6232:ⱷ≼ 6228:≽ⱷ҅ 5787:as 5688:ⱷ≼ 5684:≽ⱷ҅ 5417:not 5372:) 5299:). 5148:ⱷ≼ 5144:≽ⱷ҅ 4133:but 4131:), 3897:AMA 3893:IAU 3587:and 2817:Any 2672:but 2670:); 2648:but 2646:); 2384:but 2367:but 2365:); 1937:are 1311:or 1107:Red 465:now 345:why 10408:— 10376:💬 10341:) 10292:— 10276:) 10257:) 10238:) 10185:— 10175:) 10141:— 10120:: 10074:— 10044:, 10040:, 10036:, 10017:) 9938:— 9918:) 9849:— 9796:) 9736:) 9705:) 9697:-- 9660:— 9650:) 9636:) 9575:, 9571:, 9529:— 9504:) 9486:) 9447:— 9435:) 9361:— 9214:, 9210:, 9191:: 9155:— 9143:) 9126:) 9107:) 9048:— 8995:) 8935:) 8888:— 8861:— 8766:⚲͜ 8749:— 8739:) 8700:⚲͜ 8683:— 8673:) 8654:." 8610:) 8580:) 8548:— 8540:) 8496:— 8472:) 8446:) 8408:) 8384:) 8370:) 8356:) 8348:. 8319:) 8303:) 8288:) 8269:) 8254:) 8216:) 8170:— 8162:) 8135:) 8102:— 8081:) 8045:— 7992:) 7934:— 7914:) 7841:— 7828:) 7798:⚲͜ 7781:— 7698:— 7660:) 7620:— 7596:. 7583:— 7510:⚲͜ 7493:— 7487:, 7483:, 7479:, 7410:) 7279:— 7243:⚲͜ 7226:— 7206:) 7152:⚲͜ 7135:— 7126:}} 7122:{{ 7052:) 7044:-- 6969:⚲͜ 6952:— 6950:. 6936:) 6911:⚲͜ 6894:— 6836:— 6805:— 6789:) 6757:— 6749:}} 6743:{{ 6735:) 6718:⚲͜ 6701:— 6693:) 6665:⚲͜ 6648:— 6604:) 6552:— 6524:) 6487:⚲͜ 6470:— 6462:) 6430:⚲͜ 6413:— 6377:) 6351:⚲͜ 6334:— 6322:}} 6316:{{ 6304:) 6286:⚲͜ 6269:— 6256:) 6215:— 6202:) 6180:⚲͜ 6163:— 6107:}} 6103:{{ 6095:) 6065:⚲͜ 6048:— 6031:is 6017:) 6003:) 5973:⚲͜ 5956:— 5825:⚲͜ 5808:— 5671:— 5646:". 5633:) 5615:) 5577:. 5556:) 5534:) 5526:" 5496:) 5482:) 5467:) 5428:) 5420:) 5409:) 5394:) 5380:) 5353:) 5338:) 5334:• 5307:) 5276:) 5268:. 5247:) 5230:) 5197:💬 5172:) 5168:| 5131:— 5123:) 4992:) 4988:| 4969:) 4923:) 4919:| 4901:) 4887:) 4872:) 4868:| 4801:) 4742:) 4738:| 4730:— 4679:) 4625:) 4621:| 4567:) 4517:) 4513:| 4505:— 4466:) 4423:) 4419:| 4411:— 4376:) 4341:) 4337:| 4299:) 4272:) 4268:| 4246:) 4228:) 4224:| 4196:) 4181:) 3995:is 3960:) 3936:) 3852:) 3844:. 3811:) 3759:) 3683:) 3679:| 3665:) 3651:) 3647:| 3632:) 3618:) 3604:) 3600:| 3579:) 3562:) 3544:) 3540:| 3526:) 3512:) 3508:| 3493:) 3450:) 3446:| 3431:) 3413:) 3409:| 3390:) 3372:) 3368:| 3346:) 3332:) 3317:) 3313:| 3265:) 3218:) 3214:| 3163:) 3125:) 3078:) 3064:) 3029:) 3025:| 2985:) 2939:) 2931:-- 2904:) 2900:| 2827:) 2809:) 2795:) 2777:) 2769:-- 2762:) 2714:) 2710:| 2616:) 2612:| 2581:) 2524:) 2505:) 2484:) 2467:) 2450:) 2433:) 2413:💬 2337:) 2329:-- 2241:) 2226:) 2193:) 2161:) 2147:) 2139:-- 2002:is 1892:) 1856:) 1842:) 1776:) 1605:is 1565:) 1557:-- 1550:) 1532:) 1518:) 1504:) 1489:) 1450:) 1435:) 1396:) 1388:-- 1381:) 1366:) 1352:) 1324:💬 1293:)" 1280:) 1272:. 1215:) 1200:) 1184:) 1156:) 1140:💬 1115:) 1062:) 1046:) 1030:) 998:) 954:) 931:) 917:) 891:) 868:) 860:-- 824:) 816:-- 808:) 783:) 737:) 691:) 674:) 657:) 619:) 605:) 597:-- 590:) 575:) 560:) 535:) 475:) 421:) 377:) 355:) 305:) 287:) 273:) 254:) 232:) 212:) 193:) 175:) 141:) 122:) 94:→ 64:← 10423:ᴥ 10419:¢ 10416:☏ 10413:☺ 10369:— 10337:( 10307:ᴥ 10303:¢ 10300:☏ 10297:☺ 10272:( 10253:( 10234:( 10200:ᴥ 10196:¢ 10193:☏ 10190:☺ 10171:( 10156:ᴥ 10152:¢ 10149:☏ 10146:☺ 10131:· 10126:( 10089:ᴥ 10085:¢ 10082:☏ 10079:☺ 10013:( 10006:: 10002:@ 9953:ᴥ 9949:¢ 9946:☏ 9943:☺ 9914:( 9899:( 9864:ᴥ 9860:¢ 9857:☏ 9854:☺ 9792:( 9732:( 9701:( 9675:ᴥ 9671:¢ 9668:☏ 9665:☺ 9646:( 9632:( 9544:ᴥ 9540:¢ 9537:☏ 9534:☺ 9522:/ 9518:/ 9500:( 9482:( 9462:ᴥ 9458:¢ 9455:☏ 9452:☺ 9431:( 9376:ᴥ 9372:¢ 9369:☏ 9366:☺ 9170:ᴥ 9166:¢ 9163:☏ 9160:☺ 9139:( 9122:( 9103:( 9063:ᴥ 9059:¢ 9056:☏ 9053:☺ 8991:( 8931:( 8903:ᴥ 8899:¢ 8896:☏ 8893:☺ 8876:ᴥ 8872:¢ 8869:☏ 8866:☺ 8799:" 8762:¢ 8759:☏ 8756:☺ 8735:( 8696:¢ 8693:☏ 8690:☺ 8669:( 8645:. 8604:( 8576:( 8563:ᴥ 8559:¢ 8556:☏ 8553:☺ 8536:( 8511:ᴥ 8507:¢ 8504:☏ 8501:☺ 8468:( 8442:( 8404:( 8380:( 8366:( 8352:( 8315:( 8299:( 8284:( 8265:( 8250:( 8212:( 8185:ᴥ 8181:¢ 8178:☏ 8175:☺ 8158:( 8131:( 8117:ᴥ 8113:¢ 8110:☏ 8107:☺ 8077:( 8060:ᴥ 8056:¢ 8053:☏ 8050:☺ 7988:( 7949:ᴥ 7945:¢ 7942:☏ 7939:☺ 7910:( 7900:. 7856:ᴥ 7852:¢ 7849:☏ 7846:☺ 7824:( 7794:¢ 7791:☏ 7788:☺ 7713:ᴥ 7709:¢ 7706:☏ 7703:☺ 7693:. 7671:: 7667:@ 7656:( 7635:ᴥ 7631:¢ 7628:☏ 7625:☺ 7506:¢ 7503:☏ 7500:☺ 7406:( 7294:ᴥ 7290:¢ 7287:☏ 7284:☺ 7239:¢ 7236:☏ 7233:☺ 7202:( 7148:¢ 7145:☏ 7142:☺ 7128:. 7105:( 7048:( 6965:¢ 6962:☏ 6959:☺ 6932:( 6907:¢ 6904:☏ 6901:☺ 6851:ᴥ 6847:¢ 6844:☏ 6841:☺ 6820:ᴥ 6816:¢ 6813:☏ 6810:☺ 6785:( 6772:ᴥ 6768:¢ 6765:☏ 6762:☺ 6731:( 6714:¢ 6711:☏ 6708:☺ 6689:( 6661:¢ 6658:☏ 6655:☺ 6600:( 6567:ᴥ 6563:¢ 6560:☏ 6557:☺ 6520:( 6483:¢ 6480:☏ 6477:☺ 6458:( 6426:¢ 6423:☏ 6420:☺ 6373:( 6347:¢ 6344:☏ 6341:☺ 6300:( 6282:¢ 6279:☏ 6276:☺ 6252:( 6230:ᴥ 6226:¢ 6223:☏ 6220:☺ 6198:( 6176:¢ 6173:☏ 6170:☺ 6143:] 6115:x 6091:( 6061:¢ 6058:☏ 6055:☺ 6013:( 5999:( 5969:¢ 5966:☏ 5963:☺ 5951:. 5907:. 5821:¢ 5818:☏ 5815:☺ 5791:. 5724:. 5686:ᴥ 5682:¢ 5679:☏ 5676:☺ 5629:( 5611:( 5607:— 5552:( 5530:( 5492:( 5478:( 5463:( 5424:( 5405:( 5390:( 5376:( 5349:( 5330:( 5303:( 5272:( 5243:( 5226:( 5190:— 5164:( 5146:ᴥ 5142:¢ 5139:☏ 5136:☺ 5119:( 5090:) 5041:) 4984:( 4965:( 4915:( 4897:( 4883:( 4864:( 4797:( 4734:( 4675:( 4617:( 4563:( 4509:( 4462:( 4415:( 4372:( 4333:( 4295:( 4264:( 4242:( 4220:( 4192:( 4177:( 4146:) 4094:) 3956:( 3932:( 3880:. 3848:( 3834:g 3832:. 3830:E 3807:( 3755:( 3675:( 3661:( 3643:( 3628:( 3614:( 3596:( 3575:( 3558:( 3536:( 3522:( 3504:( 3489:( 3442:( 3427:( 3405:( 3386:( 3364:( 3342:( 3328:( 3309:( 3261:( 3210:( 3200:: 3196:@ 3159:( 3121:( 3074:( 3060:( 3021:( 2981:( 2935:( 2896:( 2883:. 2870:. 2823:( 2805:( 2791:( 2773:( 2758:( 2736:" 2732:" 2706:( 2663:( 2657:) 2608:( 2577:( 2520:( 2501:( 2480:( 2463:( 2446:( 2429:( 2406:— 2376:) 2333:( 2309:) 2237:( 2222:( 2189:( 2157:( 2143:( 2089:) 1973:/ 1922:/ 1888:( 1852:( 1838:( 1772:( 1692:) 1561:( 1546:( 1528:( 1514:( 1500:( 1485:( 1446:( 1431:( 1392:( 1377:( 1362:( 1348:( 1317:— 1276:( 1211:( 1196:( 1180:( 1152:( 1133:— 1111:( 1083:+ 1079:0 1058:( 1042:( 1026:( 994:( 976:/ 950:( 927:( 913:( 887:( 864:( 846:/ 820:( 804:( 779:( 733:( 713:/ 687:( 670:( 653:( 615:( 601:( 586:( 571:( 556:( 531:( 509:/ 471:( 450:/ 417:( 399:/ 373:( 366:: 362:@ 351:( 326:/ 301:( 283:( 269:( 250:( 228:( 208:( 189:( 171:( 161:I 137:( 118:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Manual of Style/Archive 155 - Knowledge

Index