Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
|The previous RfC on this topic has caused more confusion than it has solved any issues. By not clarifying that the marriage ended upon the death of the subject of the article (although acknowledged in the article itself) causes issues as it implies the marriage has persisted after death. Additionally, if the spouse of the subject were to remarry, if people click around and skip over details it could suggest that the person in question is in two relationships at once which causes a whole stream of issues in itself. The original his death, her death thing was clearer than the layout being suggested by the discussion above. For articles where this is the case see Henry VIII where it clarifies and does not cause the confusion, a similar example is in Robert Mugabe's article.|
So to summarise, the formatting used in the case of Henry VIII and Robert Mugabe is better than the discussed format above. Thoughts? Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
|In general, should articles about anime media use the disambiguator (anime), rather than more general ones like ([animated] TV series) or (film) or, more broadly, (franchise)? There is some disagreement over whether an earlier discussion, WP:VPP#RfC: Is "telenovela" a suitable disambiguator? (permalink), is applicable.|
|User:Vanamonde93 and I have a disagreement about what is acceptable in synopses (see "Disputed changes" section above), specifically:|
I believe that this violates MOS:PLOT: "the plot summary must not present interpretations of the creators' intent. [...] Interpretation of the plot taken from reliable sources can be included elsewhere in the article to provide additional information." The fact that it requires two sources to back it up demonstrates, in my opinion, that this is the case here. Author Ursula K. Le Guin never reveals the exact nature of the shadow creature, leaving that to the reader's imagination. She also, as far as I can recall, doesn't refer to any "spirit" whatsoever. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
We have arrived at a bewildering profusion of ENGVAR-related templates, the only purpose of which seems to be advancing nationalistic viewpoints. For those not reading the discussion above this one, the short version is that in an encyclopedic, formal register, there is no meaningful difference between English, Scottish, Irish, Australian, New Zealand, African, Hong Kong, etc., varieties of English, only between Commonwealth English as a dialect continuum and the North American varieties (American English, and Canadian English which is a hybrid of American and British/Commonwealth). Commonwealth English is based on UK-published style guides; there are virtually no reliably published style manuals for Commonwealth dialects that are not produced in England in particular (by contrast, US and Canadian English are the subject of multiple mainstream style guides published in those countries).
|Presently, MOS:NUMS includes:|
This is followed by three more bullet points of WP:CREEP about crore. The lead sentence of this is just patently false; nothing necessitates the use of alternative numbering systems. Proof that Indian English doesn't do so abounds (including with regard to Indian currency) , , ,  etc., etc.
I propose that this be deleted and replaced with a) short advice against use of crore in Wikipedia articles, unless conversion is provided to Western numbers, and b) retaining the advice against using "1,00,00,000" for "10,000,000".
Rationale: I do not believe the present wording has actual consensus, and crore are rarely used in our articles even on Indian subjects. Some small number of Indian editors have somehow gotten MoS to be permissive about crore, despite it being non-English and meaning nothing to most anyone outside that part of the world, and despite English-speakers of India having no problem with "ten million" (or "10,000,000", "10mil", "10M", etc.)
|In 2015 the CNO and SecNav renamed multiple classes, including changing designations for JHSV's to Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF), Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) to Expeditionary Transfer Dock (ESD), and the Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) variant of the MLP to Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB). Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB) is the correct designation for ESB-class vessels and there is no need to edit it to previous or outdated names. Coffee Atoms (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)|