In the context of film gauges, should Wikipedia:

and...

Should a statement specifying which style to use be added to MOS:NUM under the Specific units section, and/or to MOS:FILM under the Guidelines for related topics section? ~ Nikoledood (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• 1. Reliable
• 2. Additional considerations apply
• 3. Generally unreliable

Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Please answer 7, 8, refrain or both, with the optional add note. Binksternet (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

1. Leave as-is; no changes are needed.
2. Change them to subst-only so that the text inserted by the templates can be easily changed in the future.
3. The templates should be deprecated and/or deleted.

DonIago (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Fox News has been characterized by many as a propaganda organization.

Here is a previous discussion. Also see: Fox News#Political alignment in the body. soibangla (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 – "Alleged leak of classified intelligence"
• Option 2 – "Leak of intelligence not intended for public release"
• Option 3 – Another name choice (Please stated additional name choice with this option).

Brief background: On February 14 HuffPost published a story indicating DOGE displayed "classified data" on their website. This story and information was subsequently the subject of numberous news articles and led to a section being created in the article called "Leak of classified intelligence". On February 21, Reuters reported the data was not classified at all, but "was not intended for public release". This new Reuters report led to a disagreement between editors regarding the most appropriate section name. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

In the context of film gauges, should Wikipedia:

and...

Should a statement specifying which style to use be added to MOS:NUM under the Specific units section, and/or to MOS:FILM under the Guidelines for related topics section? ~ Nikoledood (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

A: Botswanan (pl. Botswanans) in all cases, without exception

B: Motswana (pl. Batswana) in all cases, without exception

C: Motswana in articles with strong national ties to Botswana or South Africa, otherwise Botswanan

D: Retain whichever word is used first in the article, either Botswanan or Motswana

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

An initial is capitalized and is followed by a full point (period) and a space (e.g. J. R. R. Tolkien).

However, there are seven American political figures known often by their initials in shorthand, and their initials across Wikipedia are used unspaced, in violation of this policy:

1. FDR for Franklin D. Roosevelt
2. JFK for John F. Kennedy
3. JFK Jr. for John F. Kennedy Jr.
4. RFK for Robert F. Kennedy
5. RFK Jr. for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
6. MLK for Martin Luther King Jr.
7. LBJ for Lyndon B. Johnson

The only exception for spaced initials is given at MOS:BIOEXCEPT, which allows formats such as CCH Pounder but requires that the format be used only when

• the person has clearly declared and consistently used a preferred exceptional style for their own name; and

While some (but not all) sources currently write these names unspaced, the and requirement of MOS:BIOEXCEPT still restricts this usage as none of these men styled their names without spaces, preferring to go by their full names in nearly all cases. In John F. Kennedy's case, there is evidence he wrote his name with spaced initials.^[1][2]

Some style guides resolve this issue by making a difference in how spaced initials are treated when they are the full name. For instance, Turabian has

Some individuals are known primarily by initials in place of a first and/or middle name. Such initials should be followed by a period and a space. If you abbreviate an entire name, however, omit periods and spaces.
G. K. Chesterton but JFK
M. F. K. Fisher but FDR

A previous discussion at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Archive 8 § "RFK Jr." vs "R. F. K. Jr." led to a discussion about modifying BIOEXCEPT at § MOS:BIOEXCEPT: and/or, which was inconclusive.

How should this discrepancy be resolved?

• Option 1: No change to the MOS, update all pages to use spaced initials.
• Option 2: Modify MOS:INITIALS to add If you abbreviate an entire name, however, omit periods and spaces from Turabian.
• Option 3: Modify MOS:BIOEXCEPT to remove the and-test and replace it with or.
• Option 4: As these examples are all Americans, deem this a MOS:ENGVAR issue and leave current styles intact.
• Option 5 "Ignore the MOS if it is not helpful." (Added by Polygnotus without any explanation of what that's supposed to mean operationally.)
• Option 6 ""Periods may be omitted when a person's full name is consistently abbreviated to just their initials, for instance MLK for Martin Luther King, Jr., if the common version of the abbreviation consistently appears without periods." (Added by SportingFlyer.)

— Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 04:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Offices, titles, and positions ... are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically. They are capitalized only in the following cases:

1. When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.
2. When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the King, not the king (referring to Charles III); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis).
3. When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description

Should we simplify MOS:JOBTITLES by removing exceptions #2 and/or #3? Surtsicna (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

In the context of film gauges, should Wikipedia:

and...

Should a statement specifying which style to use be added to MOS:NUM under the Specific units section, and/or to MOS:FILM under the Guidelines for related topics section? ~ Nikoledood (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

What action, if any, should we do with the following class of articles that are about seasons of American football college teams? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• 1. Reliable
• 2. Additional considerations apply
• 3. Generally unreliable

Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• A changed as in proposal A below
• B changed as in proposal B below
• C changed as in proposal C below
• D kept in its current state

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)