Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 123

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122Archive 123Archive 124Archive 125→Archive 130

Encyclopedic tone?

As much for my own learning as my query at this this DYK hook, are "perhaps" and "maybe" good on a main page hook? Tony (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is not so much a matter of tone as factuality: unencyclopaedic content rather than unencyclopaedic tone. My experience of DYK is that communication of fact is way down their list of priorities. Kevin McE (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"External links" should come after "See also" (link)

I've started a discussion to elevate "External links" higher in article. After footnotes, seems extremely buried for valuable content. Feels like treating it like categories or somethink low content like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Let.27s_start_putting_.22External_Links.22_section_after_.22See_also.22

TCO (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

See MOS:APPENDIX (WP:FOOTERS).—Wavelength (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A case of grammatical opinion-mongering

Editors may be interested in this difficulty at the article Who_(pronoun). NoeticaTea? 00:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Allmusic doesn't use italics for album names, should we when quoting them?

↑. The MOS seems unclear to me on this point. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have an example of what exactly you mean? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure. this review at Allmusic doesn't italicize album names (and also missed an apostrophe, but I silently added that in when I quoted it). So, when quoting the review in Document (album), should we use "Where Life's Rich Pageant sounded a bit like a party record, Document is a fiery statement..." or "Where Life's Rich Pageant sounded a bit like a party record, Document is a fiery statement..."? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah that should be italicized. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
That's kind of what I though, I just wasn't quite sure. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Just to note: the proper title for Lifes Rich Pageant is without the apostrophe. The article discusses why this is. freshacconci talktalk 17:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, saw that in your edit summary. Some places on Allmusic had it with an apostrophe, so I'd assumed that that was correct without properly doing my research. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd say generally speaking we should be converting all disparate styles to a single consistent one for an article, especially when formatting can disambig works. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't apply that principle too broadly to direct quotations. I would contend that MOS:QUOTE should normally apply: "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation." When it comes to titles of works, bands etc, they should be quoted exactly as rendered in the source, except in cases such as obvious typos. Formatting such as italicisation is probably acceptable but things like capitalisation and the inclusion or omission of apostrophes should be left as they appear in the source. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed guidelines for colours in navigation templates

FYI Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Colour Gnevin (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

More input needed regarding improved MOS NavBox

Additional editors would be appreciated at Template_talk:Style#Draft_navbox to appraise a proposed improvement to the MOS Sidebar NavBox (which appears in upper right corner of most MOS pages). Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hyphen usage for "very well-known" vs. "very well known"

From WP:HYPHEN: "A hyphen is normally used when the adverb well precedes a participle used attributively (a well-meaning gesture; but normally a very well managed firm, since well itself is modified); ..." Could someone supply a reference to support the usage indicated in the underlined part? I can't seem to find this exception (i.e., advocating the removal of the hyphen when well is modified) in my style guides. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

[1] says "Exception: In compounds beginning with good-, well-, ill-, better-, best-, lesser-, least-, etc., use a hyphen except when preceded by another modifier."
"very well known dude" Chris the speller yack 02:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
[2] says "Use a hyphen after full or well when it's used in a compound modifier immediately before a noun, unless the word itself is modified."
"a very well known professor" Chris the speller yack 02:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
[3] says "Hyphenate compounds that include well- and ill- when they precede the noun. Do not hyphenate if the expression carries a modifier."
"a very well known woman" Chris the speller yack 02:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
[4] says much the same as the second source I gave. Chris the speller yack 02:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

(<-) Thanks. Learn something new every day I guess. I have fixed the problem in the articles we were discussing by removing the nearly useless modifier "very". Cheers, Sasata (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sub-pages

Should we move all the sub-pages of the MOS to actual sub-pages, rather than using brackets? For example, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. There doesn't seem to be any reason for them not to be sub-pages. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait a second, McClay1, so you're not talking about creating more sub-pages but rather altering existing sub-pages? I reexamined your comment. Can you tell me how your proposal differs from simply renaming the existing sub-pages? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't. That's my proposal: just rename the pages. Use the standard sub-page format rather than the brackets system we're using now. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm seeing more and more of this hierarchical form of organisation across WP, and I like what they have done with the Reference Desk and believe it makes sense for us here. A simple rename that would improve cohesion of this set of guidelines, and give more clarity to the neophyte user. All users will be able to find stuff more easily. Has to be the way to go. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per A. di M.​ This is a decent reason to do it, and I don't see any good reason not to. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Should notification of this discussion be posted on the other MOS talk pages? GFHandel ♬  03:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. I am not convinced there is any harm, but I am convinced there is benefit. This Google search finds "en dash" (as a phrase) on this talkpage, but also on its subpages: all the archives, and the voting page and discussion page for the current poll on dashes. Now that's useful! Some searches can be done internally on Wikipedia, some on Google, and some on both. (What if you knew someone had written "arbcom thing" near "fuss" here or on those subpages, but could not remember where? Use this search on Google.) Imagine such Google searching (with powerful refinements also) enabled uniformly across all our sprawling MOS pages, and also their sprawling talkpages – and their sprawling archives. (And of course, all of that sprawl needs to be diminished: a separate but far more pressing matter.) [Amended details later.–N]
By the way, I hope everyone here knows about that poll concerning MOS dash guidelines, and will consider voting and commenting. NoeticaTea? 23:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


There is enough support to push this further. What is the next step? How can I help with that? GFHandel ♬  21:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

An RFC, clearly. I've started one. (See below: #RFC: Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?). NoeticaTea? 03:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

subpages on articles?

(Admitting my ignorance) Should we use subpages on articles themselves more? The daughter articles (topics that are blown up) often have significant deviations from the mother articles' topics. Is there some better way to consilidate information? To allow re-use of references for instance. This is a strange one, where actually print sources seem to work better and where the nature of separate (but linking) webpages is poor. [and in general I think hypertext has advantages...but this seems one where we constantly see a problem].TCO (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Subpages are not enabled on articles, for example AC/DC or OS/2. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)What I was about to say... Though, right now we are in the situation where AC/DC is not a subpage of AC but Talk:AC/DC is a subpage of Talk:AC. That's inelegant, but I have no better idea. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 16:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Just require people to use special markup for having a slash in title (as it is now, they can't have slashes in userspaces for instance if doing a sandbox vesion of AC/DC. There are probably more times when we want to use a slash for subpage than for title.TCO (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
All right, I'll bite. What is the special markup in titles [and their associated wikilinks, talkpages, subpages, etc.] for slashes that don't lead to subpages? —— Shakescene (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
create one...I'm thinking more about the users than the coders...I think there is some code for displaying a character but not having it function...TCO (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The thing is that we decided a long while back that sub-pages in the mainspace were more trouble then they were worth, and just something that we didn't want. Unlike, say, the manual of style here, actual articles are generally supposed to stand on their own. Yea, there are "sub-articles" to main articles (History of the United States in relation to United States, for example), but even so the History of the United States isn't really dependent on the United States article, which is what would be implied by a hypothetical United States/History article, in my mind. Make sense?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
hehe, I didn't do that on purpose. Notice in the revision history of United States/History when the change took place: around February 2002.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I get your point about something could be a daughter of two different articles. Although I think the same could be true of policy pages (or often of article pages is not a concern). Agreed, also, this would be a change from how we have done things so maybe not worht the disruption. Just floating the thought...TCO (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions (use English)

Because User talk:Jimbo Wales is on my watchlist, I noticed User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 113#Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Specific_proposals_to_change_the_wording_of_the_policy, which refers to and links to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#Specific proposals to change the wording of the policy.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I am revising my message by converting the second and third links from simple permanent links to piped links (showing non-permanent links but hiding permanent links). I did not do this at 20:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC), because I wanted to save time. I am doing it now, because the permanent links are very long and affect the width of the text on the screen.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Two hyphens . . .

"These were typewriter approximations." Should be these ARE, since, well, they still are. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree, though nowadays the usage is more in ASCII text than with typewriters, and we might want to say this. In Wikipedia, I’d much rather see an editor who finds entering an em dash too onerous to use two hyphens rather than something else, because the double hyphen is much easier to recognize and correct. I suppose that a spaced single hyphen could be interpreted as a spaced en dash, though I don’t know if this is consistent with British convention for manuscript preparation. But in any event, the double hyphen is alive and well in some contexts, and at the very least, we should use present tense. JeffConrad (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
What Jeff said. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The use of double hyphens is a current keyboard convention.  For whatever reason we have the Manual of Style#Other dashes section, the text at Typewriter#Typewriter conventions is not explanatory, any more than mentioning that editors should not reach for the carriage return lever at the end of each line would be relevant.  Proposal
  • from: Do not use substitutes for em or en dashes, such as the combination of two hyphens (--). These were typewriter approximations.
  • to:      Do not use substitutes for em or en dashes, such as the combination of two hyphens (--).
Unscintillating (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
What do we do about editors who don’t know how to enter dashes (or find it too much effort)? Though I think we should strongly encourage editors to use the proper characters, unless we’re considering sanctions for failure to do so, we should at least encourage those who for some reason will not use any character not on the keyboard to use preferred alternatives. I’d settle for two hyphens for an em dash, a spaced hyphen for a spaced en dash as an alternative to an em dash, and a hyphen (spaced or otherwise) for an en dash in most of its other uses. Although these alternatives aren’t pretty, their meaning is usually clear, and they’re easy to recognize for editors who want to replace them with the preferred characters. And I think it’s nuts to get huffy about long-standing and recognizable conventions (“typewriter”, “ASCII”, “manuscript”, or whatever) when we prefer equivalent conventions for quotes. JeffConrad (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this is not a good idea. I'd forget em dashes for the moment. Why can't we put in a Bugzilla request to get a double-hyphen rendered in display mode as an en dash. That is more intuitive, and LaTeX already uses that system. Keep it simple. Tony (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Jeff:
First, it is probably unwise to deal with this while en dashes are under discussion (along with hyphens, and to some extent slashes and em dashes) at the voting page and its discussion page under direction from ArbCom.
Second, it is a decidedly retrograde step, and unnecessary. Wikipedia has adopted certain standards of presentation, and it is not desirable to cater at every point for legacy practices from an earlier state of technology. We expect people to use diacritics in an encyclopedic way. We expect Schrödinger's equation, not Schrodinger's equation. The latter form would be normal in an email (so might Schroedinger's equation), but not in any respectable reference work. So Wikipedia provides tools under the edit window, including a means of typing "ö". And it also allows for redirects, so that all three of those approximations take the reader to a standard form, decided by the principles at WP:TITLE (sometimes supplemented by WP:MOS if punctuation is an issue): Schrödinger equation (no 's, note). Similarly, spaced and unspaced single and double hyphens, with various significance in various protocols (such as the influential MLA standard), are superseded as dash substitutes. They truly are vestiges of the typewriter age. Style guides adapt to this reality with varying sensitivity, depending on their intended users; but most have set a higher standard, as do published journals and monographs. Wikipedia recognises this, putting dashes under the edit window as the first available selections for insertion. And Wikipedia requires redirects from titles with incorrect hyphens to titles with correct dashes. There is no need to make any further provision in MOS. It only complicates things, and runs counter to modern practice and the general ways of Wikipedia editing. Most editors (and readers searching for titles) do not need any more concessions than are already provided. Those who are not up to speed will have their work improved by others, or can easily learn something new as they get more serious – about editing a serious encyclopedia. NoeticaTea? 11:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying is retrograde; the text is there already. I would just get rid of it (why do we want to say "do not do X" in the MOS?), but I agree that we should settle the rest of the outstanding dash issues first if this one is at all controversial. Dicklyon (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Dicklyon, I mean it would be retrograde in the broad. MOS used to allow two hyphens for a dash, but then moved to a higher standard, in accord with Wikipedia's status as a serious encyclopedia that in many ways outperforms traditional works of reference. The move would also be retrograde in not following the shifts of modern technology and practice. It would be like accepting underlining as an alternative to italics. That too was a typewriter convention; and that too has been superseded.
Yes, let's just drop this mention of alternatives to standard dashes; and yes, let's deal with the other dash business first.
NoeticaTea? 22:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Tony and Noetica, I completely agree in principle. But I still have a real problem with idiocy that capriciously deprecates typographical quotes yet bans other equally good typewriter conventions. It should be obvious that, were it up to me, we would require the proper quotes, especially if we really do aspire to a higher standard. In my experience, use of typewriter quotes are the first and most obvious indicator of the rank amateur. It seems to me that you either give ENOTTY or treat all comparable typewriter artifacts equally. I realize this is another topic for another time, but when a style guide is capricious, it’s difficult for me to treat with much respect.
Though I’d still rather have an editor who won’t use an em dash use two hyphens than a single hyphen, I don’t really see a problem with dropping “Do not use substitutes for em or en dashes, such as . . .” It’s a minor issue compared to the main discussion, but if it’s not controversial, I think we could make the change whenever convenient.
I don’t think rendering two hyphens as a en dash is a good idea, because I think far more people know the typewriter convention than the TeX markup. JeffConrad (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Jeff, I am more than a little surprised to find you using prejudicial language ("idiocy that capriciously deprecates typographical quotes"). This matter has been discussed at great length before, as a check of the archives will show. For the record, of course I insist on typographical quotes in my work away from Wikipedia; but I recommend a different approach here. I adapt; just as I adapt to using the em dash (which I abhor on perfectly rational grounds – like your own with respect to straight quotes ☺), to avoidance of the serial comma when that is consistently settled in an article, and to American spelling.
In brief, the difference between curly and straight quotes is not semantic, any more than the old ligature that joined st (s+t) means anything to the reader, or the current print ligature fl (f+l). A convention is never bad because it is associated with typewriter convenience. We avoid st and fl here because their use would not be helpful, and would involve massive inconvenience. Writing, editing, and especially searching would be a nightmare. Not so with "correct" dashes and hyphens. Rules are not handed to us on the summit of Sinai; but it turns out that en dashes (for example) almost invariably mean something different from hyphens. There is nothing like that semantic difference with quotes, whose significance is always fully determined by their immediate context.
Hyphen approximations for dashes vary from one old style guide convention to another; to learn them, explicitly permit them, or automate their conversion is no simple matter. I say again: their use is a step backwards. Wikipedia is not print; it is not written on a Remington; it is not selections from emails; it is not a blog. Wikipedia is unique, and must select what works best: respecting precedents, and occasionally surpassing them where all precedents fall away into the dust of history, and the Project advances on new ground.
NoeticaTea? 03:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps idiocy was a bit strong (and pejorative), but I’ll stand by capricious. A few thoughts:

  • Indeed the matter has been discussed extensively, and in the most recent discussion some editors expended far more effort arguing why typographical quotes cannot be used than I have expended in my entire life simply using them, in at least have dozen applications. A glance at the archives reveals that, though more people seem to prefer straight quotes, there clearly is no consensus. The bottom line is that many people simply don’t want to be bothered entering typographical quotes, and others apparently don’t want to be faced with cleaning up afterwards. The deprecation began when one editor simply added it to the MOS without any discussion.
  • Writing and editing a nightmare? Offhand, this seems a bit strong (even prejudicial?) For some reason, I seem to have no problem correctly typing and editing typographical quotes. Again, I just do it, and spend far less time doing so than many spend arguing why it cannot be done.
  • Be assured that my issue here is with the capriciously different treatment more than with straight quotes per se. I certainly don’t advocate the hobgoblins of foolish consistency, but simply note that almost everything here applies equally well to quotes, and vice versa.
  • I don’t necessarily agree that there is no semantical difference between typewriter and typographical quotes; we have different marks for opening and closing quotations. In In most cases, a reader has no problem distinguishing the two, but in some cases, with long or complex nested quotes, it’s possible to get lost, and having the conventional marks helps avoid this. Even so, most readers can backtrack and figure it out, but this is also true in most cases for typewriter approximations to dashes. With good writing, of course, the reader should not need to backtrack. One could also make the case that there is no semantical difference between Schrödinger and Schroedinger; the latter, in fact, would be the only option for many official documents in the US (perhaps an issue of its own). So again, I just don’t see the different treatment.
  • Searching? Again, the same arguments apply either way. If typographical quotes are used in article titles, redirects from equivalents with typewriter quotes are required. Intra-article searches? Well, the same problem arises with Schrödinger as with typographical quotes; it’s arguably worse because the o umlaut isn’t available from an Alt code.
  • I’m not sure the fl (f+l) ligature is a valid comparison, though like the usually more useful  (f+i) ligature, it’s an interesting issue. When the output was strictly print, the transformation from fl and fi could be done at the time of printing, and troff and TeX both do this. It’s trickier with the advent of electronic copy such as PDF; when the transformation is done when the electronic document is created, the result is different characters than were present in the source. Acrobat is smart enough to find the ligatures in searches for the characters, but this is admittedly a kludge—a better approach would be to have the transformation done at the point of rendering, but even this could be tricky with a PostScript file that could either be sent to a printer that doesn’t make the transformation or converted to PDF. The situation isn’t quite the same as with typographical quotes, though—there is no character translation from source to output. For those who note that the two forms are nearly identical and wonder why anyone would waste time on something so silly: with most sans-serif typefaces, there is little benefit from the ligatures, but the same is not true for most serif typefaces (e.g., vs. fi). These ligatures were once expected in all quality typesetting, but now seem to be falling into disuse.
  • Online media are somehow different from print media? Of course they are, but if the difference has anything to do with dashes, I cannot find it. I’ve mentioned the overblown issue of “web safety”; long ago, many browsers had limited Unicode support, some (Netscape) didn’t recognize HTML named character references, and some fonts provided limited Unicode support. If any of these concerns are valid today, I’d like to see some examples. Were there problems? Yes, but as I mentioned, most were from authors using incompatible proprietary eight-bit character sets (e.g., MacRoman vs. Windows “ANSI”); this is a nonissue with Unicode. Ultimately, I think it boils down to many web authors who do not know how to enter non-ASCII characters (or do not want to bother doing so). It’s certainly possible that I’ve missed something here, but if so, I’d like to know what it is.
  • I don’t think our differing dash preferences are comparable. I generally use unspaced em dashes, spaced points of ellipsis, and of course use double quotes by default and outside of single quotes. It’s not that I abhor spaced en dashes, unspaced points of ellipsis, or using single quotes as the outermost—I simply follow common US practice, just as you follow common practice in the Commonwealth (outside of OUP). Straight quotes find almost zero support in quality published material, and as nearly as I’ve been able to find, zero support in widely used style guides. In fact, precisely the opposite obtains from those that even address the issue.
  • Wikipedia is unique? I guess I’d like to know how it is. As several commenters in the last discussion mentioned, the problems with typographical quotes seem to afflict only the English Wikipedia. I could mention Mencken’s supposed comment, but will avoid something so potentially prejudicial.
  • I’m all for adaptability if there’s a good reason for it. But here I just don’t see it.

Clearly, we’re getting far from the original topic. I never meant to imply that typewriter approximations were acceptable as a final result in Wikipedia. I dragged the quote issue up mainly in response to comment that we should aspire to the highest quality. If that’s indeed the case, we should really do it, just as non-English versions of Wikipedia seem to do. JeffConrad (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I do like a well-turned delivery, and though brevity be the soul of wit it is not the whole of wisdom. I strive for wit and wisdom in replying; but I will not achieve brevity. At the outset I affirm that the distinction MOS essays is not capricious. That is not caprice which has an articulated foundation in reason. You may show contrary reasoning; but you do not prove caprice in the position you oppose. Now, your ten points:
  • I too would find it trivially easy to use directed quotes, in Wikipedia or anywhere. The fact that you do it here and I do not is immaterial. We make recommendations for the whole Project. Consensus? What in MOS has consensus, if we use the hardest criteria? But then, what in Wikipedia does? Accurate and meaningful use of dashes, as against careless ancient hyphens, have stood the test of time and disputation. Test them again; but don't single them out as especially ill supported.
  • I wrote: "We avoid st and fl here because their use would not be helpful, and would involve massive inconvenience. Writing, editing, and especially searching would be a nightmare. Not so with 'correct' dashes and hyphens." I did not write, as you impute to me, that using curly quotes would be a nightmare. As I have said, I could and do handle them with ease and accuracy. But I don't impose them on Wikipedia; and I recommend that others avoid them here also.
  • Again you mention caprice; but that is already dispatched.
  • Tradition and typewriters have left-handed and right-handed parentheses, yes. Their different forms help us to read efficiently. This is an accident of typographic history, and there is no reason for us to move against it. But if parentheses had not evolved to be uniformly directed, we would have adapted to that: their context too makes their significance as openers or closers clear. The different forms of typographic quotes helps reading, yes. So do many ligatures, though to most readers they are utterly transparent. No single set of conventions for all media was handed down to Moses, nor is there uniformity even within one medium. Many publishers use slanted quotes, barely distinguishable (if at all) for starts and ends of quotes. The readership survives the wilderness. Practice is more mosaic than Mosaic.
  • It is necessary to distinguish four kinds of searching: with Google or other web facility; within Wikipedia; within the browser; and within external programs such as Word, or other applications adapted for editing Wikipedia text. Thank you for being aware of this. The simpler the variations to search for, the better. This is just one determinant of our choices, but let it be weighted with sophistication.
  • I agree with you in general about typographic ligatures. But you have not shown that the comparison with curly quotes is inept. Ligatures help reading, and have aesthetic value that varies with fashion. So does styling of quotes; and both are inconvenient for editors, especially for the army of amateurs that makes Wikipedia. We agree, I think, that there is no reason to impose the one on them; I say we should also not impose the other, but only differences that mark a distinction in meaning. Who is capricious?
  • You declaim (☺): "Online media are somehow different from print media? Of course they are, but if the difference has anything to do with dashes, I cannot find it." Well, nor can I. In both, dashes for sentence punctuation have always been distinct from hyphens for word punctuation; and en dashes have evolved, over the last century, to be distinct from both em dashes and hyphens. That need not be a matter of the medium, especially now that online text can easily do the same with dashes and hyphens as print does.
  • You expect that I cleave to "Commonwealth English", as if that were a coherent entity and "American English" were another. But I do not, as the preceding sentence shows. I accept that English is becoming more international. Wikipedia is a huge player in that development, and will grow huger yet. I use what is good and widely acceptable from all sorts of literate English, and am as likely to prefer a CMOS convention if it works and has acceptance as I am to reject a Cambridge convention if I find it moribund and fusty. Unlike you, I do see that new collaboratively edited online text is a departure from traditional print text. (Consider searchability and the need to preserve it, once more.) We both respect both, and work with both; we should adapt to the needs of both.
  • If you have not yet noticed that Wikipedia is a unique pioneering effort, at the forefront of ineluctable change in protocols for text, I will not attempt to open your eyes. As for other languages, I am concerned with punctuation in several of them. The histories and politics differ in fascinating ways, and comparisons can be deceptive. Other-language Wikipedias struggle in ways that reflect national and regional cultural and linguistic politics – ripe for PhD dissertations. Do not assume that all is straightforward in them, nor that the dialogue is always as advanced as ours here.
  • If you don't see the good reason for adaptability, that is not for the want of evidence all around you. I have done what I can to show it, matching your ten points with ten in reply; but your opinions remain your responsibility, not mine.
I wish dialogue on this page were always be so reasonable and orderly! We might make quicker progress; and I'm confident that your way and mine are close. It has taken us a long time for a gap to open up between them, and it is not unbridgeable.
NoeticaTea? 10:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
As with so many things, I guess “caprice” and “articulated foundation in reason” are in the eye of the beholder. Brevity (and perhaps wit) has never been my strong suit, so I shall make no attempt at it.
  • Be assured that I have nothing against dashes, as should be obvious from my comments in that discussion. I’ve used en dashes for 25 years, so my preaching and practice are consistent. As strange as it may seem, I somewhat agree with PMAnderson that en dashes (save perhaps number ranges) find more support in style guides than in practice. Of course, this may say more about the practitioners than value of dashes. My point was, and remains, that quotes or dashes are essentially no different from any other non-ASCII character.
  • If you lived here, you’d be home by now; hypotheticals concerning typographical development are tough to deal with.
  • Admittedly, my reference to nightmare made an inference from the mention of f–i ligatures; I assumed they would have not been mentioned in a discussion about quotes unless they were seen to present a similar problem. Incidentally, I agree that they make for easier-reading copy in serif typefaces because the normal alignment of the f and i usually looks like crap. And despite philosophical concerns with encoding them in the source rather than having them rendered on output, I use them in my own work with anything that is to be printed or converted to PDF.
  • My reference to “online media” was admittedly somewhat preemptive, and probably drew more from comments in the last discussion about quotes than anything you said here. Absent a convincing explanation, I still don’t buy the claim that “online media” are somehow different from print media in the context (I really meant to say with regard to quotes rather than to dashes, but I’m not sure there’s much of a difference). Perhaps differences become more apparent if we get more specific about the media. It’s conceivable that there is a difference between something presented in HTML and one in PDF. If something in the latter format is generated using MS Word, a user can rely on the “smart quotes” feature (at least most of the time) to handle the typographical quotes. But this strikes me as more WP:IDOWANNADOIT than anything else. And of course, not all PDF is generated from Word. I do concede one real difference between the two formats: searches in Acrobat Reader using fi will match ligatures, while searches in the five majors will not. The same is largely true for searches using typewriter quotes; they find typographical quotes in Acrobat (and in Chrome and Safari), but not in the other major browsers (I haven’t checked IE 9).
  • I don’t think I mentioned “Commonwealth English”, but simply noted that I seem to follow US practice while you and others tend to follow British practice (OUP excepted). I don’t suggest that one is necessarily better than the other, but simply recognize that there is more than one way to do it. More important, both practices are well established, whereas use of typewriter quotes with proportionally spaced typefaces is not.
  • New collaboratively edited online text? Seems to me that this encompasses several issues . . . Different is never the same; the operative question is the significance of the difference. But whatever the difference, it applies to any non-ASCII character as to quotes (or dashes or whatever).
  • Searchability and the need to preserve it? Once again, this applies to any non-ASCII character as well as to quotes.
  • However Wikipedia may represent a pioneering effort, there is nothing about it that argues persuasively for treating quotes differently from any other non-ASCII character. I think introducing “national and regional cultural and linguistic politics” is a distraction from the simple fact that WP:IDOWANNADOIT seems less of an issue for the editors of those wikis. I usually rail against the oversimplification inherent in “Just do it”, but in this instance I think it’s the proper answer.
  • Again, so many things are in the eye of the beholder. What’s clear and convincing evidence to one can be insignificant to another. Though many arguments against typographical quotes have been presented, I agree with the editor who added the comment to the MOS register that most of the arguments are utterly unpersuasive, and some are just silly. This isn’t to say that every argument is insubstantial, but in balance, I remain thoroughly unpersuaded. I concede that the silliness of some of the arguments probably wields disproportionate influence on my resistance to persuasion. Though I’m apparently in the minority, it’s far from a small minority.
I suspect that we really aren’t that far apart, especially in what we do outside of Wikipedia. Where we seem to differ is on why quotes merit special treatment. Since the equivalent of typesetting has been available to ordinary mortals, I have required (or strongly urged) people who have worked for me to employ normal standards of typography (there are advantages to benevolent dictatorship). For what it’s worth, I’ve encountered little resistance to typographical quotes, but have probably come close to death threats over en dashes. JeffConrad (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:What Wikipedia Is states, "Wikipedia is not paper".  Which is more obsolete, the Linotype or the typewriter?  It shouldn't matter here, since by fundamental policy we are not a publishing house, nor are we a typing pool; our typography is paperless.  The proposal under discussion removes four words, "These were typewriter approximations."  This is a flawed rationale, for example, the intentional misstatement that the combination of two hyphens is an approximation, and the misdirection that the Wikipedia decision involving computer keyboards and a paperless encyclopedia is somehow an obvious pushback against the typewriter.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Other dash issues

Not to get sidetracked by yet other dash issues, but we currently say nothing about the use of two-em and three-em dashes. Though I did only a quick search, I could find nothing on the elision of parts of a word. New Hart’s Rules and the Oxford Style Manual prefer “f––– off” (three en dashes), while US practice seems to prefer “f—— off” (two-em dash) or sometimes “f— off”; I’ve also seen “f--- off”.

I see a possible issue with some fonts: on my system, two consecutive em dashes display fine with the default typeface (e.g., “Mr. P——”) and with my default serif typeface (“Mr. P——”) but aren’t continuous in the example font (“Mr. P——”). I haven’t done extensive testing, so perhaps the last example is one of few exceptions to normal behavior.

Though two-em and three-em dashes aren’t everyday characters, they are used for elision of letter, whole words, and in bibliographic entries, so they might be worth covering. I think we should resolve the current issue with en dashes, but may wish to address these issues if we get around to making changes to the MOS. JeffConrad (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

More conventional: f... off. Tony (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Nah! "f&*^ off" or "fxxx off" is more conventional. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks like finding consensus for expletives could be tough; presumably, we won’t need to deal with them very often. But what about the other uses? As might be expected, I tend to follow CMOS here, using a 2-em dash for omission of part of a word (expletive or otherwise), a 3-em dash for omission of an entire word, and a 3-em dash in a bibliography or author-date (or should that be author–date?) reference list. But recommendations of style guides are all over the map just for bibliographies: MWSM called for single em dash (MWM seems silent on the issue), and OSM and NHR call for a 2-em rule. JeffConrad (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
If this ever comes up, then presumably it's because we're quoting a censored source. In that case I think we should just copy whatever style the source uses. A long time ago I recall reading a newspaper column (as I said, a long time ago) where the columnist said that he and other journalists used to carefully count the dashes in words like "a------" but now the rule was to use dashes. He had some lament about dashes, but I forget what it was (being a newspaper column, it was about as deep and thoughtful as an average blog post). Ozob (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I've actually never seen that one before, Tony. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I have a similar recollection; apparently showing the number of characters in a word offends some. I agree we can deal with elided expletives if and when we ever need to. JeffConrad (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I've seen two-em and three-em dashes in various guides, esp. older ones, but never have used such a thing, and hope we won't need to. None of the example dash groupings above show up as a continuous rule on my font/browser. Dicklyon (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Um, see Depth of field—I simply followed Chicago style. The rules are continuous for me using the default fonts in Firefox 4, IE 8, Chrome 12, Safari 5, and Opera 11. I cannot find a 2-em or 3-em in the Unicode tables, so using three consecutive dashes is apparently the only option. JeffConrad (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Seriously? Oh well… It has been my experience that the most common English-language convention is to substitute redacted letters with hyphens one for one. Editors use the bare minimum of letters in the expletive so as to clue adults as to what the expression means and then substitute the correct number of redacted letters with hyphens; thus He called him a “mother f-----” and he took offense and He said “I don’t give a s---.” I’ve seen this over and over. Greg L (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As Wikipedia is not censored, we should only be dealing with redacted letters if we quoting a source that has redacting them - therefore we should follow the source.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I completely agree. We should format a censored word how it is in the source. Censoring written words is pointless anyway since censoring it doesn't mean you didn't write it and anyone can still know read it says. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

And I’ve seen f**k off! as commonly as anything else. At the risk of being a killjoy, my inclusion of the example eliding some of the letters in an expletive was largely tongue in cheek. What do we do about the elision of words or with repeated authors in bibliographies? Or are these uses sufficiently infrequent that we’re OK as long as we follow some reasonable style guide and do so consistently within any article? JeffConrad (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

It looks like the dispute that led to this page being protected dates back to February. Unfortunately, I can't even find the discussion at this point, so does this mean that the Manual of Style is going to be protected forever? For what it's worth, I think the disputed sentence is completely redundant and pointless. Why is there so much controversy over it? Kaldari (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, could you remind us what the disputed sentence is? It's all so long ago. A couple of months back I called for those disputing it to work things out, so we can get on with the work of this page. (I had nothing to do with it, and just wanted to make a series of tidying edits in MOS.) But that call was inexplicably rejected by commenters on this page. NoeticaTea? 23:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This was the last edit before the page was protected. (An edit war over a hidden comment? FFS!) ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 00:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
(BTW, gotta love the way WP:3RR reminds me of threefold repetition.) :-) ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 00:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, it was the dispute behind that sentence, plus all the drama involving hyphens and dashes that was going on concurrently. I was waiting for the conclusion of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting (or alternatively, the mass rename of subpages) to remove the protection, with the hope of preventing continued flare-ups over the same dispute. That said, I have no opposition to unprotecting earlier if you guys think it would not re-escalate tensions or somehow influence the poll's results. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Titoxd, it's time to think about alternative approaches. As I see, reviewing the history of the page in late February 2011, just two or three editors were involved in that sharp exchange over hidden text (!), and over a political point (against MOS) inserted among practical guidelines. This is not a reason for the central page of Wikipedia's Manual of Style (applicable to 6,909,105 articles) to be disabled for months. Nor is the dispute over dashes and hyphens a sufficient reason. That issue came to the fore because the very same extremely small minority brought it to the fore; and it is being dealt with in a proper way under ArbCom supervision, right now.
Perhaps there should be specific bans for sections of the page; or narrowly defined topic bans – like no alterations about reliable sources, or whatever the "hot spot" happens to be. Or perhaps we need to look seriously at topic-banning individuals who cause huge disruption here, and whose agenda is clearly to weaken MOS, no matter what it takes. Perhaps we are too tolerant of politically driven disruption. It's insidious; and we need to be watchful. One hundred editors can behave well and work productively on MOS; but if two want to disable that work, they can easily do so. Let's rethink this. NoeticaTea? 01:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Additionally, for what it's worth, I feel that administrators in general have been far to trigger happy about fully protecting this page over the years. I don't know about specific bans (although that's certainly something to consider), but... I have a hunch that part of the problem here is the constant page protections that occur. I don't have any hard evidence to base this on, but getting the page protected seems to have become something of a strategy. Fights shouldn't be allowed to escalate too far, but... let people bicker for a while. Doing so can relieve some of the stress, and once certain partisans realize that the page isn't going to immediately be protected that can have the effect of slowing down the battles somewhat. This document isn't that important, after all.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's remember one thing: The MoS has not been disabled or inaccessible these past few months. To do its job, it needs to be viewable by readers. Being editable by us is not its main function. Let's also remember that no one wanted to shut down the page. This was not a case of troublemakers or vandalism. It was a discussion that got more intense than usual.
That being said, the way things tend to go here, it would be fantastic if there were a way to edit-protect only certain sections of the MoS. They're big enough and self-contained enough to merit it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The normal work of editing the page has been disabled. There are dozens of small things to attend to in its maintenance, at least. Editors are not motivated to go through the laborious business of asking admins to fix them. And admins have edited the page in the meantime, without consultation here; there is therefore a heightened imbalance of power, and non-admins committed to developing this page through consensus have their task made even harder.
I note the assertion that "this is not a case of troublemakers". I regret, however, that the evidence is clear. It is. And it has been going on for far too long, so that it seems to be almost normal and acceptable. Through "a discussion that got more intense than usual", occasioned by an interest in weakening the role of MOS, all editors here have been tarred by the same brush and the page has been protected for four months. People will choose what to call that: I don't call it normal; I don't call it acceptable. We should require that the editors responsible undo their ill work; and that we are not all treated so shoddily in future, as we go about our work maintaining and improving the Manual of Style.
NoeticaTea? 22:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The "normal work" of this page consists of pretentious editors imposing their provincial versions of English on this page (and, they hope, on the rest of Wikipedia). The rest of the encyclopedia has not missed it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I know nothing about the dispute that led to the current page protection. However, it is embarrassing that those who are the self-appointed arbiters of Wikipedia's style guidelines (I have been one in the past) have difficulty complying with Wikipedia's behavior guidelines and policies, which require collaborative editing, to a degree that led to the MoS being protected indefinitely. I take issues of style as seriously as anyone, and perhaps more seriously than is sane; I am not alone in this affliction. However, the success of Wikipedia as a project depends more on fostering a spirit of community and collaboration than on the resolution of any particular issue of style. I urge all who are involved, perhaps with the assistance of those who are not involved, to resolve the issue, whatever it is, and end this sorry situation now.—Finell 23:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, you may want to look into the actual dispute. It seems to me that the full protection was jumping the gun a bit (and maintaining it for four months is indefensible, in my opinion). In my experience, I've witnessed much worse edit wars on policy and guideline pages then have ever occurred here.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
It's always the same dispute: a handful of editors want a "strong" page, whether or not what it demands is what editors or readers actually want or regard as English. This is not, of course, consensus; the usual suspects then remove all signs that it is not consensus. That appears to have been the impulse for the latest protection; it will be the impulse for the next protection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Finell, we are all "self-appointed" volunteers at Wikipedia, with our diverse skills to donate. You have missed the point I make above. It is easy for one or two editors, set hard and fast against Wikipedia having a robust and usable Manual of Style, to disrupt and defame its work. The guidelines here are developed through an open process. Any editors can contribute to it ("self-appointing" themselves); and the most vociferous detractors have themselves done exactly that. We are seeing evidence right now, at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting, how well the guidelines enshrine common best practice, and how solidly they are endorsed by the community. In any case, WP:MOS is indeed a set of guidelines, not edicts. Those thinking it dictatorial are typically those who most vehemently enforce policy, against even reasonable exceptions or WP:IAR; they are the most likely to assert for WP:TITLE an unnegotiable dominance, even in areas that have always been the business of WP:MOS.
I would not have started this section. It has turned out not to be a constructive discussion. I hold off from escalating things, and from responding further to manifest abuse and misrepresentation. As one who had no part in bringing on the present protection, as one who resolutely called for orderly centralised discussion and made peace proposals in the dash débâcle, as one who just wants to get on with the hard work of developing the page, I again ask those who caused the protection to take responsibility, and undo what they did. NoeticaTea? 01:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

update and unprotection

Right, I am going to unprotect this page in a few minutes. Let's really really not have edit warring over the hidden comment ( <!--The preceding sentence is not consensus and is disputed--> ) after this sentence

Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources when considering a stylistic question

Instead, if anyone wishes to readd or subtract it, it needs to be discussed below. Also remember that edit warring is not strictly tied to the magical number '3' and an administrator can view a lower number as disruptive in a volatile situation such as this, so if folks want to raise this again, raise it below not on the article pages or risk sanctions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Cas! Let's all try for collegiality, respect, restraint, and good order. (I hope that edit summaries will be full and informative also, so that nothing is done surreptitiously. A problem in the past.) NoeticaTea? 02:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. :) More on topic though, we should remove the comment, in favor of a talk page discussion (If that's still needed, which I suspect it is). Hidden comments such as those are just silly.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The comment should be removed, ultimately; but the provision that it comments on needs to be reviewed, since it was never remotely consensual. I am therefore starting a new section, suggesting a compromise. NoeticaTea? 05:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Nothing on this page is, or ever has been, consensual. Why should this be any different? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

New hyphenation subsection

A newly added subsection under WP:HYPHEN (added here on June 27) narrowly limits the use of hyphens in "permanent compounds" used as modifiers. Did I miss a discussion section on this? Dicklyon (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. I reverted that totally unruly addition, and requested that it be taken to talk. NoeticaTea? 00:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I support your revert, as I disagree with that edit. Ozob (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The "unruly" paragraph here was a bit verbose, but what it actually contained was quotes from several style guides saying more or less:

One way to determine whether a given phrase is hyphenated is to look it up in a good dictionary.

Several style guides are stronger, calling this the only or the best way, on the grounds that hyphenation is unsystematic and has changed markedly over the past century, mostly to dehyphenate. That these editors disagree with style guides and with usage is unsurprising; but we will need actual reasons to oppose advice so evidently correct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added current - a necessary qualification since hyphenation is changing; this is implicit in several of the style guides. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the section was that it started out talking about "permanent compounds" (i.e. the ones found in dictionaries), and then wrote a bunch of stuff over-interpreting what the CMOS says. It was written in a way to try to push away from hyphenation, it appears. There are good reasons to push the other way, when writing for readers who are less familiar with the subject matter, as many guides explain; for example, medical professionals write "small cell carcinoma", but their style guides suggest that for general audiences omitting the hyphen from "small-cell carcinoma" allows an unnecessary ambiguity that can confuse non-specialist readers. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Got a dictionary entry for that?
In literate usage, established compounds have in fact been losing their hyphens for a century or more; while "small-cell carcinoma" would probably be better hyphenated for clarity if it were a nonce phrase, it isn't one. As an established term, especially since "small cell-carcinoma" has no existing referent, the hyphen is unnecessary and unidiomatic. (Those who believe that this wikipedia should cater to non-native speakers should consider that using a hyphen in this title actively misinforms them.) Therefore, while occasional passing references may well hyphenate, the article title and the text of immediately relevant articles should not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there is always this ongoing process of familiar phrases losing their hyphens, as they become less necessary to cue the reader. But that process has not been completed, even in the medical community, in the case of small-cell carcinoma (see this paper for example). At Wikipedia, when we choose a style, it makes more sense to choose the one that clarifies, rather than the one that assumes familiarity. The fact that there is little sense in the interpretation as a cell carcinoma that's small doesn't really help the reader who has to pause to figure that out. In any case, a new MOS section that asserts an extreme position on hyphens, without so much as a discussion, in not appropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Over-clarification belongs on the simple Wikipedia, not here. That it is desirable - when it is not usage - is your personal position, not ours. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oddly, the edit based on this section, saying simply that looking at a dictionary is one way to betermine hyphenation, was not been objected to. It has, however, been reverted on the obviously false ground that the edit has not been discussed. In fact it has, right here; the reversion has not been discused. This is no ground for unprotection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

en.WP MoS a model for at least one foreign-language MoS

The Sinhalese WP, presumably a pretty new one, has cut and pasted en.WP's MoS as a starting point, even though the project is not written in English. Interesting; probably a good template for structure, but I guess its contents will gradually be sinhalised. I think Sinhalese is spoken and written in northern Pakistan. Tony (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sinhala language is spoken in Sri Lanka, not Pakistan. AFAIK the Afrikaans WP also defers to this MOS on matters that its own MOS doesn't cover (yet). Roger (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
What happens on other language Wikis does not matter to us. One of the problems behind the various disputes here is that the English language is not as "set in stone" as other languages are. It is a much more flexible language than, say, French. English does have some "rules", but almost every "rule" has an exception (and often more than one exception). This is true for spelling, grammar, and especially style. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
It depends on whether you want the WPs to be insular or to learn from each other, to reach out. It's a fascinating comparative study of the style guides in each language project. On flexibility, yes, "big and baggy" it's been called; even more reason it needs corralling. Tony (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I would disagree with your last comment Tony. I think the English language is at its best when it is not corralled... when allowed to run free on the open range and adapt to changing times and changing needs. Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I feel the same way, for the most part. The MoS should be flexible (meaning that there should be many options), as English itself is (very) flexible. That being said, we should make some, or even many, choices among styles wherever we are able to do so. I'd rather see Wikipedia consistently use the same style consistantly, although I think that such style choices should be as narrow as possible (while still achieving the intended goal, of course).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The half whispered truth is that the English Wikipedia is the Wikipedia, regardless of everyone trying to pretend otherwise. The fact of the matter is that even the larger Wikipedia's in other languages are forks of this one. They try hard to be independent, and they mostly succeed, but they all come running here for various things, and they almost all come her to start things off, rather than starting from scratch (and I'm thinking of everything here, not just the MOS).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
That also shows that the argument “en.wiki is for people whose first language is English, others can use the one in their own language”, which I've seen used by several people in relation to several issues, is fallacious: there are lots of non-native speakers (e.g. myself) who prefer en.wiki. Assuming that the reader is fluent in English is OK, but assuming they grew up in North America or the British Isles or the Antipodes is not (34.4% of the visits to en.wiki coming from elsewhere[5]), and can contribute to systemic bias. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 12:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Meh. One time the English language Internet was the Internet, but try telling that to a billion Chinese people. I've seen plenty of backports from de.wp in templatespace at least. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Concur with A. di M. The English Wikipedia is for anyone who wants to read it, and our target audience is people who read English well enough to benefit from encyclopedia articles. That being said, the only relevance I see in the fact that other wikis copy us is that it should inspire us to be extra precise and extra diligent. We seem to already be doing that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
All are welcome to read and edit this English Wikipedia; but there is no other Wikipedia for native speakers of English. When, and may it be rarely, their interests conflict with those of our guests, they must have priority - they have nowhere else to go. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but remember that there are millions of native English speakers in South Africa, Singapore, Guyana, etc. who aren't necessarily familiar with mainstream Anglo-American culture (as well as people who aren't native speakers of English but aren't literate in any other language). Also, for practical purposes speakers of (say) Bengali or Hindi have nowhere else to go either, bn.wiki and hi.wiki being two orders of magnitude smaller than en.wiki (by number of articles), but it is to be hoped this will change in the next years. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 20:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the world's largest English-language daily newspaper is the Times of India which has a daily circulation of over 3 million, yet only about a quarter of a million people speak English as their mother tongue. Martinvl (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In India, I presume? Otherwise that's three and a half orders of magnitude off. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Ohms' statement: "The half-whispered truth is that the English Wikipedia is the Wikipedia, regardless of everyone trying to pretend otherwise." Hee hee. There'll be a hate-fest over at WP.fr if we're not careful: they're very sensitive about les Anglo-Saxonnng (i.e., all of us, except for A. di M.) and the loss of their empire international status. They hate the fact that English-speakers don't even have to try and their language encroaches everywhere, takes over, like a giant slimy mould; but in Quebec and France they pass laws in a futile attempt to ban it. Hee hee.

But more seriously, the racism we've resorted to, ironically, to keep the peace among anglophones who use the major varieties of English, is interesting—because it ends up privileging native speakers over others. It plays out in spelling, occasionally lexis, inconsequentially in grammar, and in date formatting. Weird. I'd like to know whether the Portuguese and Spanish and French WPs have an equivalent set of rules to ENGVAR. Brazilian Portuguese is quite different from European Portuguese. And don't say "quatre vingt "in Quebec. Tony (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget about WP:de... if we're not careful, we'll end up starting our own little WWII scenario. ;)
Anyway, "racism" seems a tad extreme. Language is an integral, and very personal, part of all of us. It's one of the things that sets humanity apart, after all. That being the case, it should hardly be surprising that people can become... touchy, when it comes to language issues. Also, I don't know about the Wikipedia's, but the Portuguese, French, and Spanish speaking worlds have all had conflicts over language. I feel a bit like Copernicus in saying "we're not that special, really". Oh, coincidentally, I've just recently read English Around the World: An Introduction, which hit on a lot of this subject material. Good stuff.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks worth buying from what I see inside it at Amazon. Tony (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Due to or because?

I learned that you are only supposed to use "due to" in a special fashion as a modifier (I always have to look up the specific stuff). But I see people doing it different here at Wiki a lot in articles. But in the real world, I've had it corrected by editors. It's not like I'm going to go edit war with people about it, but, say, for an FAC, should we go with the traditional grammar instructions? Or should we be all new fangled?

TCO (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is really an ENGVAR issue. Due to is unobjectionable in American English but apparently grates in British English. Given that it never really seems to be necessary, I would generally avoid it, per WP:COMMONALITY. (As reciprocity, I would ask our English friends to avoid whilst, except perhaps in specifically British articles.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I was taught it by editors in the land of the free and the home of the brave.TCO (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I live where that star-spangled banner yet waves, but I've never heard of such a rule. Can you be more specific? Ozob (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
"Due to" modifies nouns, "owing to" (or "because of") modifies verbs. Simple. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
They're the same metaphor. Do you have a source for this distinction, Malleus? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes. You show me yours and I'll show you mine. And neither are "metaphors". Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
It is certainly not an ENGVAR issue, it is a grammatical issue. "and, due to his deteriorating health, he was admitted to hospital." is acceptable to any Englishman.
I find it rather bizarre that you would suggest that "due to" would not be acceptable in English English and, whilst I appreciate the sentiment, land of the free doesn't seem to include health care :¬) I take it you are all aware that the tea thrown in the water was actually less than half the price of the American version?
PS - unobjectionable? I suspect "acceptable" would have been better use. Similarly starting a sentence with "But", when there is no preceding sentence to rebuke, also seems a little off kilter ... Chaosdruid (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
And between modern countries, dumping is unlawful. So? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
"unobjectionable" and starting a sentence with "But..." are, and should be, perfectly acceptable practices with informal writing. Not appropriate for the main space, of course, but that's why I'm replying here. People seem to conflate more formal writing practices with informal writing practices quite often, which is something that I see causing interpersonal issues quite often.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
And, when warranted, both are good formal English. Unobjectionable is a weasel word, properly used only for law or for the most grudging consent; But... is rhetorical, as will rarely be wanted for an encyclopedia; though I would use it for Blucher's arrival at Waterloo: But the Prussians were not delayed.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Although commonly treated the same, "due to" and "because of" are not the same. This MoS discussion [noun] is due to (caused by) differences in usage. This MoS discussion was started [verb] because of differences in usage. Then again, few people myself included would notice the difference in prose unless looking for it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Unwise to legislate on. I just don't like close repetitions of "due to" in a text; and sometimes (I haven't worked out on what basis) it's just not stylish; perhaps it can sound legalistic or over-technical. "As" is a bigger problem in English, as it can be causal (better "because" or "since) or it can be "during, while". As it sometimes has to be reverse-disambiguated by the reader, it's best to expunge it from your writing as soon as possible. Tony (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Pretty much everything can be ambiguous in the ‘right’ context, including your own suggestion since. See [6][7]. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 00:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Grammar Girl gives a referenced discussion of "due to" vs. "because". Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Grammar Girl is hot (For a toon, anyway). <grin>
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Naaaah, she's too skinny for my taste. I prefer plump women. (But I mostly agree with her.) ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 00:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Reprotected

I have reprotected as I am sensing instability - so clamping down before there is more edit warring. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again, thank you Casliber! Clearly it was not such a good idea after all. Many here will wish that people could leave those most sensitive areas as they stand – at least while the en dash discussion is still in full swing. NoeticaTea? 08:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
This page should continue protected until those regulars and revert-warriors who claim WP:OWNership of it are topic-banned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Well... there is a distinction to be made between a "regular" who succumbs to bouts of WP:OWNership (a sin that is common among most editors who work on policy pages... including both you and me) and a "revert-warrior". "OWNership" can usually be corrected with a mild reminder, "revert-warring" often needs more definitive action. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A minor error got locked in; below should be above. Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is not a problem when a short word like "I" stand at the end of a line, but think that it would look bad if such a short word (or number) is the first resp. the last in a quotation or in a following of the blue words of a link. That I pipe the source code of the link is not perceptible for the reader, and for other editors, I use to explain the function of the non-breaking spaces by the sentence

"These non-breaking spaces ensure that the words, numbers, or abbreviations right and left of them are not separated, at the end of a line."

I also insert the non-breaking spaces before very short words, numbers, or abbreviations at the end of a paragraph.

Does anybody object to these my habits? --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You are taking largely unnecessary trouble, and I hope you are providing some breaks in the rare cases when you congeal together most of a line; but I have no objection in general. I would object quite strongly if your habits were put up as a model for others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I am of course aware of the danger that I could congeal together all-too much. But there are, anyway, again and again quite long words, and I always pay attention not to congeal together anything unnecessarily or into a following of tokens and spaces that would be longer than, let`s say, an adjective of a length slightly above average. I ponder very thoroughly what would pay to be congealed together, in every single case.
To avoid that one could think my proceeding was a model for others, I have now changed my standard edit summary for such edits into:
"These non-breaking spaces can be inserted to ensure that the words, numbers, or abbreviations right and left of them are not separated, at the end of a line."
--Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Having looked at a few of your edits, 8 chosen at random, it does seem to me as if you are a little over zealous in the application of the nbsp. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
What I personally take issue with, is the piping of links just to add nbsp. Nymf hideliho! 08:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I guess You mainly fear editors could be confused or deterred from editing Wikipedia by an all-too complicated source code, right?
I have already changed back the Blake Lively page to my version with the piped links after Pmanderson had uttered his general approval and also You Yourself has said You had deemed my edits mere oversights, on my talk page. My impression was now that You Yourself had overlooked something. If You check how the Blake Lively page looked before my insertion of the non-breaking spaces, and scale it up resp. down so that the two links (to The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 in the fourth paragraph of the Career section and to I Just Had Sex, in the section Career / Music video) are separated where I later inserted the spaces (i.e., before the "2" resp. after the "I"), You see what I for my part take issue with. Especially the second of the two links can be quite annoying for the user if it is separated between "I" and "Just". One is urged to try to hit the very narrow "I" with the cursor to ensure that it belongs to the link.
In certain other cases, I think it would really be wrong to renounce piping a link so that one cannot insert the spaces: linked names of emperors. In Seven Years' War, there is, so far, mentioned Frederick II of Prussia, in the lead, without non-breaking spaces. To insert them, one would have to pipe the link. I`d say that would pay, because otherwise one can very easily get a line that begins like this:
II of Prussia failed to complete...
--Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
"To insert [nbsp], one would have to pipe the link." I disagree. Ever since this discussion, I have been changing links like Frederick II of Prussia to Frederick II of Prussia, which has an nbsp you can see by clicking "edit". No technical problems have been reported. Art LaPella (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
That is indeed a good hint. I could not be sure about this, because I did not know how other browsers than mine would react. I even thought it hadn`t worked with mine, but that must have been a mere fantasy. Thank You, very much, for this hint! --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. Is there support for explaining this at WP:NBSP? Art LaPella (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, why not?! Indeed one should mention, there, that the spaces can also be inserted in links, for clarity, the more now after I have already at dozens of places piped links to insert them, unnecessarily, and don`t feel inclined to simplify the source code, at all these spots, all-too strongly, so that many could wonder if such a complicated proceeding was necessary for some reason. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done [8] Art LaPella (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Size of WP:MOS

WP:MOS has grown to 153 kB. The article at WP:SIZERULE states that as a rule of thumb, articles above 100 kB should be split into two. I have text ready at User:Martinvl/MOSNUM which can be used to reduce the sections on currency and on numbers by a few kilobytes. However the biggest section is the section of punctuation which is currently 39 kB in length (or 25% of the artcile).

I am quite happy to follow the rules on punctuation and I certaily have no strong views there. However, the on-going edit-war has resulted in edit-locks being placed on the article and hindered development of other sections of WP:MOS, such as the text that I have ready to install (see above). May I propose:

1. The section on punctuation we converted into the core of a new article WP:MOS (punctuation), so some such similar title. A lede for the article will be needed.
2. A replacement for the section be written along the lines of the replacements that I have written for units of measure (in place in WP:MOS), numbers and currencies (still in my work area).

This will have the benefit both of reducing the length of WP:MOS and allowing those who are having an edit war regarding punctuation to do so away from the main article. Martinvl (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Not comfortable with fragmentation of the basics; there's great advantage for editors to see the whole thing here, with a convenient ToC. Punctuation is an important issue for our editors. Generally, I agree that the MoS could easily be trimmed back. Look at my now slightly out-of-date User:Tony1/Beginners' guide to the Manual of Style, which owes somothing to pithy, example-based online guidelines such as that of The Guardian. It's 40% of the size of this MoS, without losing much meaning at all. Tony (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The MoS is not an article. Is the size limit really relevant? Roger (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Ditto. It is not; SIZERULE is for articles. We shouldn't split due to size if keeping info together makes more sense. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
As Tony has mentioned, it is much easier to go to one MoS page and hit CTRL-F than to go to several pages. If there's any fat that can be cut from the existing MoS, I'd love to hear you out, but there's no need to split up the flesh. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Roger, good point. DF, well, we could start by chopping the lead section, and I do find it over-sectionalised. Then, I'd be inclined to chop the exemplification headers where possible (given there's a section heading) and to reduce the wording of the examples. Here you go, 424 characters down to 288 in a jiffy:

*When used generally, the words sun, earth, and moon do not take capitals (The sun was peeking over the mountain top; The tribal people of the Americas thought of the whole earth as their home), except for when the entities are personified (Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the Roman sun god) or when the term refers to the names of specific astronomical bodies (The Moon orbits the Earth; but Io is a moon of Jupiter).

*Used generally: The sun was peeking over the mountain top; The tribal people saw the whole earth as their home. When personified: Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the Roman sun god. When used for specific astronomical bodies: The Moon orbits the Earth; but Io is a moon of Jupiter. Tony (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that splitting the MOS into sub-pages is a bad idea... all policy/guideline pages have a tendency to grow through instruction creep... but when they are cut up into sub-pages it is more likely that this inevitable instruction creep will result in two sub-pages (inadvertently) contradicting each other. This is less likely to occur if there is one single page. Trimming instruction creep is a laudable goal... spreading it over several sub-pages causes problems. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Geographical names has already been hived off into a separate article. Units of measure likewise.

If we are to have a single "article", would it not be better to have an MOS book which would encompass incorporate all the MOS articles? Martinvl (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As I recently recalculated, that would be about 1,400,000 bytes. Wikipedia's longest article is under 400,000 bytes (in mainspace; I don't know about Wikipedia space.) Art LaPella (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I think Martinvl might be talking about Wikipedia:Books. That wouldn't be a bad idea indeed. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 23:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Transclusion.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

My two cents:

  • WP:MOS is not an article; so what? Size issues apply to it all the same. In order to read section 19 you have to wait for all 18 sections before it to download. Believe it or not, some people still use 56K connections.
  • I agree with splitting Section 8 (“Punctuation”) to a separate page, keeping a summary behind. My ideal would be for the main page of the MOS to be an ‘overview’, entirely consisting (except for Section 1) of short summaries of more detailed guidelines found in subpages. (This is like books where Chapter 1 is an overview/summary of the rest of the book.) There could still be a WP:Manual of Style/full which would include the general principles and a transclusion (rather than a summary) of each guideline, for those not afraid to crash their browsers. (My idea of what the summaries on WP:MOS would look like is User:A. di M./MOSNUM. Each section of it would include a comment <-- This is a summary of WP:MOSNUM#Figures or words; when editing it, make sure it agrees with the full version. Substantial changes to the guideline should be discussed at WT:MOSNUM. -->; likewise, each section of the subpage would include <-- When making substantial changes to this guideline, please update the summary at WP:MOS#Figures or numbers if needed. -->. As a bonus, if this were consistently implemented, this talk page would only include discussions about the general principles and the organization of the MOS, whereas discussion about individual points would be at the relevant subpage.)
  • IMO, User:Tony1/Beginners' guide to the Manual of Style is a good idea as a ‘cheatsheet’ for somebody who has already read the MOS but wants to quickly look for something they've forgotten, but for newbies it would be much clearer to use full sentences.

― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 23:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Some editors have expressed concern that WP:MOS is growing by means of "instruction creep". For the record, I have a copy of The Guardian alongside me - it is a 300 page hard-covered book (available on-line). The Times styleguide (also available on-line) appears to be similar in length as does the Reuters styleguide. I think that this will illustrate why trying to keep WP:MOS as a single article is rather a tall order. Martinvl (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
When comparing WP:MOS size to professional style guides, remember that professionals can be fired for ignoring style guides. Wikipedians hardly know there even is a style guide. Even Manual of Style insiders don't know half the rules on all the subpages. Art LaPella (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Some feedback on my example above on celestial bodies? 509 down to 288 words. I just think a lot of the "cushion" text around examples can be binned. Readers often get it just from examples. Tony (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Not a bad job of condensation, a bit telegraphic.
      • But what function does the entire paragraph serve? To tell editors to capitalize Sun, Moon and Earth as proper nouns, and lower-case as common nouns; we say that elsewhere. Since the first example The sun rose does refer to a specific (if every-day ;->) astronomical body, the classification is contradictory; it is also redundant. Therefore this edit can be easily improved: drop the paragraph. If we want to save the examples, we can have a genuine subpage for all such exemplars. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Telpardec, 30 June 2011

The "En dashes" section of WP:MOS needs something like the following added:

Do not replace hyphens in external links with en dashes. Some browsers convert en dashes to hyphens, but some do not, and the links fail. Ranges of verses in Bible references should use hyphens, not en dashes for the same reason, even though the reference may not yet be linked to an external viewer or wikisource.

Thanks. —Telpardec (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Has this been a problem some place? People modifying URLs for styling reasons, or what? Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I have often converted hyphens in Bible verses to en dashes, because they are ranges and because the {{Bibleverse}} template works with either hyphens or dashes. So you got my attention. Am I causing a problem? Art LaPella (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
If that's the problem, a note in the template doc, or a fix to the template, would be a better fix than putting something in the MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Still, "Do not replace characters in urls." is generally good advice, if not something that should be policy. ...the MoS probably isn't the best place for such a stricture, though. (actually, isn't there something about this somewhere, already?)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Presumably at WP:EL. It is excellent advice, and should be done there, if it is not. Another minor example of the harm this page and Dicklyon impose on Wikipedia daily. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Does everything (and not just by yourself) need to be polarized into this pro/anti MoS thing? It seems to be getting a tad bit out of hand.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
If this is an example of the harm I do daily (questioning why a new rule should be inserted in the MOS), then I plead guilty. Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: This seems to be still under discussion, so declining for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd just add a sentence to “Allowable typographical changes”, reading This does not apply to computer code, URLs, etc.; I would consider that obvious, but... ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 00:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem has not been resolved. The problem mainly appears when dragging and dropping a link with an en dash from one open window to another – the en dash is converted to a question mark character, and fails – or else only the first verse in a range is displayed. There is not just one, but multiple varieties of bible verse templates. See list: Category:Bible link templates
Here are some of my test results using Windows XP-pro & Internet Explorer:
Template:Bibleverse
Template:Bibleverse-nb
Template:Bibleref		Direct Click
or
shift-Click		Drag-n-drop
to other
open window
With hyphen: Genesis 1:1–5OKOK
With endash: Genesis 1:1–5OK1st verse only
With emdash: Genesis 1:1—51st verse only1st verse only


Template:Bibleref2
Template:Bibleref2c
Template:Bibleref2-nb
Template:Bibleref2c-nb		Direct Click
or
shift-Click		Drag-n-drop
to other
open window
With hyphen: Genesis 1:1–5OKOK
With endash: Genesis 1:1–5OK?failed
With emdash: Genesis 1:1—5OK?failed
In page view (10pt Arial) the hyphen is 3 pixels wide and endash 7 pixels.
In edit view (10pt Courier New) both hyphen and endash are 6 pixels wide, so there is no way to tell them apart while editing.
Wikipedia:Third-party_sources With hyphen this link works.
Wikipedia:Third–party_sources With endash it does not work.
Wikipedia:Third—party_sources With emdash it does not work.
I renew my request that some sort of notice asking editors not to change hyphens to endashes in links or in ranges that are now (or could become) links. Thanks. —Telpardec (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Any Bible verse, or any text for that matter, might be turned into a link in the future. If someone changes my phrase "link in the future" into the link link in the future, it is his responsibility to make sure that the link works. I don't see how we can anticipate any change that might be made in the future. We can only make sure the links we provide are working.
Ranges with em dashes don't work. They shouldn't. WP:DASH says to use en dashes in ranges, not em dashes. The issue is whether to use en dashes in Bible verse ranges, like any other ranges.
I copied and pasted the Genesis 1:1–5 wikilink to a word processor, and it copied the entire phrase including the dash, with no problem. Did you mean something else? Even if that copy and paste had failed, why is that important? What matters is what happens when the reader reads the verse numbers or clicks the link. The reader has no obvious reason to copy and paste it, and if he did he would correct the problem when it occurred.
The article "Third-party sources" can be reached only with a hyphen, not using a dash. According to our rules, that hyphen is correct. It shouldn't have a dash instead. In an article like Michelson–Morley experiment that should have a dash, there should be a redirect so that Michelson-Morley experiment works too.
But I sympathize with the complications introduced by dashes, and you might want to comment on our current discussion on that guideline. Art LaPella (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

English translation of foreign titles: italics or roman?

Just reviewed a DYK hook: ... that the Philippine play Paglipas ng Dilim (After the Darkness) tackles the conflicts of mixing cultures from the Philippines, Spain, and the United States?

Anyone know the correct formatting? Tony (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Associated Press Stylebook 2008 says translate the title into English, capitalize "After" and "Darkness," put quotation marks around the name. Reference "composition titles." I'm not sure how that meshes with Wiki style.--Jp07 (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Jp. I'm being lazy not hunting it down on the sprawling MoS pages. It's in the prep room now, so I'll put the double quotes in. Tony (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. Hope that helps.--Jp07 (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Good work, Jp.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Redux: Spaced endashes in Template:Footballbox

Can somebody fix this, like run it via AWB or something. I've been into a stupid revert "battle" at 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC First Round as one editor insists in continuing the use of the format that doesn't follow MOS. It's not really a change, it's just nobody followed the rules. –HTD 12:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's irritating and unusual, isn't it. I've left a note on the talk page. Tony (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Now I pity the fellow since I've also bitched on his talk page. lol.
However, what we need is someone that'll edit (like a bot or a human who has plenty of time) these articles and remove the spaces. Also, one way to force this is by narrowing the column for the score and report so that'll force people to not use spaced endashes. –HTD 13:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course, this only becomes a problem if you insist on thinking of the MOS as being "the rules". If you think of it as being "advice" (indicating a "preference", but not mandating it) then it really does not harm Wikipedia to leave it as it is. Has anyone asked the editor who objects to the change why they prefer it the way it is? There may be a good reason. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Like I said elsewhere, "consistently violating the MOS" isn't a good reason. –HTD 14:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
My point is that if the MOS is seen as "advice on best practice" and not as "the rules", then not following it isn't a "violation" of anything. Thinking of it as "the rules" and demanding compliance is what gets other editors upset and causes them to complain about "Style Nazis" and stuff. But if you approach it as being "advice on best practice", and explain to others that what the MOS says is considered "best practice", and encourage them to follow that "best practice", then they are more likely to see reason and accept the change... you don't piss them off by trying to "enforce" compliance over their objections. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather follow the "advice on best practice" than make up my own rules. –HTD 17:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not saying we should ignore what the MOS says ... I am simply suggesting that we stop thinking of it as "rules" and stop thinking of situations where it isn't followed as being "violations" ... You will find that people will be more willing to follow the MOS if it is presented to them as advice on best practice. If they demonstrate resistance in a specific article (such as reverting a style change you made), then persuade them to follow the good advice and preferences presented in the MOS, don't demand that they do so (and certainly don't edit war over it). Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I did not say any of those on 17:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC). If there's no good reason we should not heed to the suggestions of the MOS, we should follow it. –HTD 09:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that the wideness of the column for the scores (and the report link) is far too wide, that's why people have resorted on using spaced endashes. If it is narrowed, there'll be less space to use spaces and the flagicons will be closer to the scores for easier correlation.
Of course that should be discussed elsewhere but I'm just suggesting things here. Don't we have MOSes for templates too? Apparently the template documentation encourage the people using it to willfully disregard the MOS. –HTD 15:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Spaced en dashes at Template:Footballbox is an issue that recurs about once a year, because Wikipedia has two fiefdoms with incompatible rules. Every once in a while someone from this side discovers the other side and doesn't know it's a minefield. It's what we can expect the rest of Wikipedia to be like if nobody knows whether we have real rules or not. Art LaPella (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • What puzzles me greatly is why those people would choose a table of all places—highly space-constrained—to insist on their own fiefdom. It looks neater, takes less horizontal space, is easier to read, and is site-consistent, to use unspaced dashes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)
    • One highly trafficked football article already uses unspaced dashes -- UEFA Euro 2008. I was surprised that this was the case. Seeing that it can actually be implemented without too much drama, perhaps it's time to do these mass changes. Via AWB, bot, or a human that has a lot of time, anything, just to heed the request of the MOS. –HTD 18:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Subsections of Section 1

Do we need all those one-paragraph subsections in Section 1? What about replacing them with a definition list, as in:

==General principles{{anchor|Consistency}}==

Shortcuts

The Manual of Style is a guide applicable to all Wikipedia articles. It presents Wikipedia's house style, and is intended to help editors to produce articles with language, layout, and formatting that are consistent, clear, and precise. The goal is to make the whole encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to use.

Internal consistency
An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion.
Stability of articles
The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.
Follow the sources
Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources when considering a stylistic question. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources. If the sources can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage, follow current English usage instead—and consult more sources. (See also Manual of Style:Trademarks and Wikipedia's policy on no original research.)
Clarity
Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording. (See also: Wikipedia:Vagueness.)
Global view
Except in content with a local focus or where specific localized grammar or spelling is appropriate, or when a precedent has been established and no clear reason has been accepted by a consensus to overturn it, content should be presented from a global view without bias towards any particular culture or group.

― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 12:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. I like it. Not a big difference, but it looks good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's good. But do you want my short and pithy version of this? Tony (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    I deliberately didn't change the text at all at all (other than converting hatnotes to parenthetical notes), not even the hidden comment, given the rí-rá surrounding this all. If no-one objects in 24 hours I'm gonna put on an edit request for the formatting change, but if you want to discuss the content, I think it's better done in a new section. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 15:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    Tony, I'd like to see what you're suggesting. And we still need to deal with "follow the sources", which has the ambiguous "Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise" that we've had so much trouble with agreeing on the meaning of, but as A. says, this is a separable issue. Dicklyon (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This retains the anchors, which are the chief reason to have separate sections. Only one problem: It would be better to divide the shortcut box, so that each shortcut was shown where it linked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think it better not to divide the shortcut box. I am always wary of shortcutting to an individual sentence or short paragraph ... it encourages editors to read only that individual sentence or paragraph, and not read what is around it (and very often to fully understand the sentence or paragraph being pointed to, you have to read it in context with what is around it). Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
But your edit won't do that. MOS:FOLLOW will still lead to the paragraph itself; what remains difficult is to tell, when looking at the paragraph, that MOS:FOLLOW is the shortcut to it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD matter at Talk:Femininity#Definition of femininity

Hi. Is there anyone here willing to read or partially read through the long discussions about this and help out? I feel that a few editors there are controlling the lead in a way that is not consistent with the Manual of Style, and that they are also going against Wikipedia's principles. There is more than one thing that femininity encompasses, including biological factors, and yet a few editors at the Femininity article are trying to keep the definition of femininity limited to only or mostly a social construction, despite the reliable sources I have provided that demonstrates that femininity is considered to be due to both biological and sociological factors. They only want to stick to their sources, instead of having the lead present a wider definition of the term. And per WP:LEAD, all the ways the term is defined should be included in the lead, especially any significant controversies or debates, such as the biological vs. sociological debate in this case. With such a narrow version of the lead, it also currently violates WP:Neutral. And as one editor weighing in on the RfC stated:

The sources above definitely indicate there are a variety of views of "femininity", perhaps even a sharp disagreement. Clearly the lead needs to reflect the various definitions. The sentence from the proposal above "Though largely socially constructed and distinct from the female biological sex, femininity may encompass biological factors as well" seems like a very good characterization, and should probably be in the first 2 or 3 sentences. I understand that some editors may find the clean definition "femininity is a social construct, period" very tempting, but the article must follow the sources (editors cannot pick-and-choose which sources' definitions to use, and cannot rely on their own viewpoint). If the sources provide a variety of interpretations to "femininity", so must the lead paragraph.

So please...can (or rather will) anyone here help out? I don't believe this is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work regarding its leads (excluding or under-representing other ways a term is defined) simply because editors prefer one particular definition. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Femininity does indeed include biological factors, such as waist-hip ratio, wide-set eyes, etc. etc.
2. You have to find reliable sources that say so. The word "gender" has more than one meaning. The WHO defines the term as referring to social constructs while most regular dictionaries include a general definition of "state of being male or female, sex." The Wikipedia article explicitly acknowledges the term's multiple meanings. Try taking the tack that femininity also has multiple meanings, and back it up. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I did back it up, Darkfrog24 -- that femininity includes biological factors -- which is what the editor of the above quote was saying. As basically summarized in that quote, that just wasn't being respected enough to change the lead without much stubborness. Thank you for weighing in here and at the talk page. The matter seems resolved now. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Normally, I would just say that Wikipedia always follows the RSs. I can just imagine the POV-pushing agenda of those who would inhabit an article like Feminity. I’d just give up and go elsewhere and not waste my time. Greg L (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Should I stop typing double spaces after periods?

I'm thinking maybe I should train myself to stop typing the double spaces after periods. I know it makes no difference in how the stuff is displayed in Wiki. But I have been finding wierd spaces in material I work with, at times. Not at the end of the sentence, but somehow in the rest of the text. Could it be coming from double spacing after sentences? And yes, I realize the double spacing is "right". And that if I ever write the Great American novel in courier font, that I would actually want those spaces, for the manuscript to send, to old school publishers. But, I could do a find/replace in that event. So, advice?

TCO (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. The double space is purely a left-over from the fixed spacing typewriter age. With proportional fonts there is no reason for them. −Woodstone (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I completely disagree with that. The reason is to make sentences more separate, not anything to do with the space taken up by the period character itself. If anything, it's more important with a proportional font, because the smaller width for the period jams the sentences closer together.
One issue that is somewhat dependent on the rest of your punctuation style is that the extra (not always double) space after a period is useful for those of us who retain the period after honorifics such as Mr., Ms., Mrs., Dr. In TeX and LaTeX we are taught to put a hard space or non-breaking space after these, to keep it from putting the extra space expected at the end of a sentence. For those who omit these periods, this motivation does not apply.
In any case it doesn't affect the MoS, because single- or double-spaces in the source don't affect what gets rendered on the screen. --Trovatore (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
How kind of you to drop by, TCO. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I still prefer double spaces at ends of sentences, to distinguish from periods at ends of abbreviations; you can't get back to that automatically. However, since most modern typography doesn't distinguish those situations, and automatic formatting programs ignore extra spaces, it's just for source-level convenience at this point. Call me old-fashioned. Dicklyon (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter because HTML renders multiple standard spaces as one. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I regard it as a minor courtesy to fellow editors. In the monospaced edit window it is a little easier to read, but it has no impact on the rendered text for readers. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
A few notes: (1) TCO, double sentence spacing isn't "right" (few things, if any, are "right/wrong" in a non-prescriptive language like English) and according to the Chicago Manual of Style, "most publishers" prefer single spaced manuscripts. You can read about that at the Sentence spacing article in the "Controversy" section. (2) Double spacing after sentences can affect spacing in text (see [9]). (3) It can matter in HTML and Wikimedia.     Extra spaces can be forced in the final markup.     It hasn't been a big problem on Wikipedia to date as far as I know.     Good luck trying to make a change here at the Manual of Style though. People can be very resistant to change, regardless of what style guides say about this.
In any case, Much of this isn't related to improving the WP Manual of Style, so I'll leave it at that. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The only times I ever replace two spaces with one or vice versa is in dummy edits. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 20:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap, people have been doing that on purpose?!? I thought that it was a software artifact. Anyway, yea, please stop. Double spaces after periods are crazy annoying. They don't make reading the source easier at all (the exact opposite is true, to me).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Trovadore, have you wondered yet why your argument about periods after Mr., Dr., etc. has never been taken up by a reliable source? It's worth considering. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd think most people would consider Donald Knuth, possibly the single most famous professor of computer science that ever lived, reliable. Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The #1 best-selling style guide according to Amazon (ref) recommends double-sentence spacing, and online polling shows that half of all respondents are using double-sentence spacing. Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there's more to the APA's style guide than you mention. The latest edition recommends double sentence spacing for draft manuscripts only. For the final product, the APA still recommends single sentence spacing. You can read about it here.
But you're absolutely right about online polls. And many people still use double sentence spacing. If that settles if for you, great. --Airborne84 (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
APA does not recommend single sentence spacing for final products, they recommend that the draft document sent to the publishing house contain double sentence spacing, allowing the "publication designer" to make the decision. Unscintillating (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
My opinion...please don't use double spacing, ever. Unless you are having one of those "civil" conversations with an editor you secretly wish to annoy. That's what it does, it annoys editors. Eschew it. Rumiton (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
TCO, this isn't an issue for the MoS. Because of automatic conversion to one space, it's irrelevant on Wikipedia. That being said, two spaces may be old-fashioned but both are correct. Aesthetic appeal vs annoyance is 100% in the eye of the beholder. Do whatever feels best to you. I use one space with my clients and two in all my own writing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Three reasons not to double-space after a period ("French" spacing): (1) diagonal/vertical rivers of white are more likely on the page, whether in your RL text or in edit mode here; (2) it's unnecessary thumb-work, and if an ingrained habit can easily be fixed (like homosexuality) with electric shock treatment; (3) most style guides say to drop this vestige of the typewriter era. Tony (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
<blink> ...what the fuck?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Ohms, is what I wrote about the "typewriter era" weird? Tony (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The double spacing keeps the typewriter quotes from getting lonely . . . incidentally, typewriter habits can be cured with electric shock treatment. Actually, I agree with Tony’s first reason—the “rivers” of white can be really distracting. The ideal intersentence spacing might be slightly greater than the interword spacing, but unlike programs such as groff, HTML provides no simple way of doing it (though one could use CSS to define a sentence-spacing class). Double spacing in the source for HTML may help if the source is viewed with a monospaced font, as is the default for Wikipedia. But I agree with Darkfrog24 that it’s not an issue for the MOS. JeffConrad (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
You should keep using two spaces after a full stop because it improves readability in edit view while not affecting rendered view. And I have to say, I love how this issue is pretty much vi vs. emacs except nontechnical people can get involved too. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure two spaces improves readability? Please help improve this article with relevant studies then. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, it's all interesting, but most of this should be saved for blogs. I'll only offer that it's not true that this is irrelevant at Wikipedia.      Articles can be rendered with zero or one or two or three or four spaces between sentences.       Even thin or en or hair spaces (among others) could be used.      I suggest that we drop the subject though since everyone gets a vote here, whether it's supported by reliable sources or not.       And there are those who will never let go of the way they were taught.      In twenty or thirty years, it might be possible to adjust the Wikipedia MoS to align with reliable style guides.      Until then, I think we'll just be spinning our wheels catering to personal preferences. It's all very interesting of course. Just not very productive here right now. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Have people actually done that in Wikipedia articles? Otherwise, it really smells like WP:BEANS to me. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 22:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like extra spaces and I remove them. Adding unnecessary whitespace increases the size of a page. McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well... assuming an average sentence length of 80 characters, using one extra space after every sentence would increase the size of a 25 kB article by about 300 bytes. That's a couple orders of magnitude less than the size of (say) some navboxes. (Also, IIRC multiple spaces are stripped in the Wikitext-to-HTML conversion anyway.) ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 23:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec) As you say, it renders identically in the displayed articles. As far as our readers are concerned, there's no difference whatsoever—Airborne's silly example above, involving special HTML codes (that no one would ever use to space sentences), notwithstanding. (If you look at the HTML source for this page, you'll notice that the text is served with just one space between sentences, regardless of what's in the raw wikicode.) I find the extra whitespace is convenient in the edit window, but there's no reason to panic if it isn't there. In practice, editors are welcome to use whichever style they prefer. Making edits solely for the purpose of adding or removing non-rendering spaces to an article's wikicode is strongly discouraged, however; aside from being a waste of time and server space, an en masse replacement of double spaces with single (or vice versa) makes diffs between article versions before and after the change look very complex. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
"special HTML codes (that no one would ever use to space sentences)"
Sorry Ten, but some people feel so strongly about this that they feel it's necessary to force two spaces between sentences in the final markup. I understand your statement of course; it would seem strange that anyone would do such a thing. But it's a strange and wonderful world we live in.
I'm not trying to say there's anything left to talk about here. These editors with strong personal preferences get the same weight on this Wikipedia page as the Oxford Style Guide, the Chicago Manual of Style, and any other of the dozens of reliable sources that weigh in on this. Because of that, it will be decades before a change is possible, IMHO. (shrug) --Airborne84 (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I could care less what people type in edit boxes. I know some people do, but I think it's a bit silly to object to that. I'd happily support wording saying "type whatever makes you happy in the edit boxes" but "leave a single word space after terminal punctuation in the final markup." But I also know that this suggestion has no real possibility of being accepted for the reasons I noted above. I shrug again. Fascinating discussion though. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The current guideline says, “The number of spaces following the terminal punctuation of a sentence in the wiki markup makes no difference on Wikipedia because the MediaWiki software condenses any number of spaces to just one when rendering the page (see Sentence spacing). For this reason, editors may use any spacing style they prefer on Wikipedia.” It's obvious that it doesn't apply to magic tricks with which two spaces would be rendered. As for why the MOS doesn't explicitly forbid such tricks, it's the same reason it doesn't forbid indenting the first line of a paragraph or using serif text for headings – namely, that no-one will do that anyway. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 17:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Good then, there's no problem. And believe me, I know what the current guidance is. Because of strong feelings on this topic, regardless of what most style guides say, perhaps that's simply all that will work now on Wikipedia. And that's why I just shrug. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't known that the MediaWiki software zaps superfluous spaces. How sensible of it. But even if it didn't, then as Gadget850 implies, browsers would ignore those superfluous spaces. -- Hoary (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
It's really annoying to me, and many other editors; please don't do this.AerobicFox (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Get a grip, folks. "It's really annoying to me" how many of these comments use phrases of that ilk (see also, "Personally, I don't like...," supra) in an attempt to force their personal preferences on others. That should tell us something: With apologies to Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here is a failure to recognize a POV issue," albeit in an atypical context. It's simply a matter of taste. And, of course, "there's no accounting for taste." ("De gustibus non est disputandum," for you classical scholars.) There are absolutely no rational, objective criteria for deciding which POV is "right" or "wrong." A. di M.​ has cited the most relevant and cogent point above: the current guideline. So get over it and move on to something more constructive in WP. (Anyone reading this in the editing window will probably note that I'm of of the 2-spaces persuasion.) BTW, it's really annoying to me that WP articles are in a black, sans serif, Arial-lookalike font, which I personally don't like. I'd strongly prefer a dark-blue, serif font. But never mind. --Jackftwist (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This issue has been rather fully explored (check archives for yet more!), and – yes – there are some rational, objective criteria on which to settle the issue:

  1. Let's dispense with "that's how I was TAUGHT". You were taught by a typing teacher, or someone taught by a typing teacher, or ... etc. etc. Typing was monospaced; two spaces made sense. So did underlining rather than italics. So did centering by counting and backing up by half. So did strikeouts rather than deleting. So did typing the full width of the page unjustified, even though magazines and newspapers at the time were "2½ alphabets wide" justified columns. So did typing 3 periods rather than an ellipsis glyph, using an single quotation mark as that and an apostrophe and a prime mark, using all-caps for bold, half-line manual shifts up-and-down to do fractions, two hyphens for an em-dash, a half-line-shift-up + lower-case-o rather than an actual degree sign...etc. You are not sitting in front of a typewriter. Those were all compromises and conventions based on the physical limitations of a mechanical device. Those with access to more sophisticated, flexible technology (newspaper & magazine publishers — the pros) did not use those conventions then, and we certainly shouldn't retain them now.
  2. Let's also dispense with the "well, it only shows up in markup; final content rendering makes it moot (unless you force it)" — EXACTLY. There's an inherent style editor in WP, and it converts 2sp to 1sp. Seems a decision was explicitly made when the rendering rules were coded.
  3. Speaking of which, your word processing software, the product of hundreds of thousands of hours of not just work, but collective decision-making, does this kind of thing for you. It changes three periods into a true ellipsis glyph, changes 1/2 into ½, auto-justifies and leads your lines, does automatic bullets & numbering, converts a double-hyphen into a true em-dash, converts oe or ae or ff to ligature glyphs if available (without losing the underlying characters for, say, a search-and-replace, which is pretty amazing when you think about it!), deals with smart/hinted fonts, auto-corrects "thier" to "their", auto-capitalizes after a period (! - we'll revisit this!) curls your single- and double-quotes, and far more — all of which are derived from sophisticated modern typography and layout rules & conventions. So: it's also smart enough to add a little extra space at the end of a sentence. (In fact, depending on the default settings of your particular WP s/w, it may dang well remove the extra space character -- and then correctly render it with the correct amount of extra EOS space.) Put another way: why on earth would your expensive (or OS ;-), brilliant word-processing software do all that, but NOT put the correct amount of space at the end of a sentence? Which brings us to:
  4. "But what about periods in the middle of a sentence, e.g. these?" OK, first of all, if you were a smart multi-billion-dollar company, writing word-processing software, don't you think you'd be able to figure out that "e.g." is an abbreviation, not two sentences? Especially seeing as how it's followed by a lower-case "t"? I'm pretty sure that none of the WP progs I use (MSW, Libre, OO) add extra spacing in the middle of "i.e.", "e.g.", or "U.S.A.". (And for things like "U.S.A.", I prefer to use SmallCaps, no periods, anyhoo. Doesn't break up the visual flow so much. Which brings us to:)
  5. "White Space Waterfalls". When you 2-space after periods, especially if you're doing nice readable columns, you'll get "waterfalls": white-space patterns in the text that are visually rather glaring. In fact, this is where you butt up against the limitations of your software: if you choose total auto-hyphenation, or none, you'll often still get waterfalls. I find that, for important work (I used to be a marketing VP in Silicon Valley), you often still have to manually tweak hyphenation to get a good-looking page.

And you'll never, imho, get a good-looking page with (forced) 2-spacing after periods. A Doon (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC notification

A new discussion on wording changes to the current guideline to clarify the use of diacritics for subjects whose native names contain them has been initiated. It can be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Follow the sources: a compromise proposal

Here is the content of a guideline that occasioned so much trouble, back in February of this year:

Follow the sources
See also: Manual of Style:Trademarks and Wikipedia's policy on no original research
Shortcuts

Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources when considering a stylistic question. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources. If the sources can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage, follow current English usage instead—and consult more sources.

Immediately after the first sentence come these words, in hidden text: "The preceding sentence is not consensus and is disputed." It is true that the provision was disputed, and that it still is. It is also true that the wording of the guideline, while seemingly innocuous, is thought by some editors to undermine and weaken WP:MOS. There is something of value in the guideline; but it certainly does not support the other guidelines on the page, or in the Manual more broadly. Never having edited that guideline myself, I now propose the following alteration and shortening:

Follow the sources [proposed new wording]

[Please do not amend this without first establishing consensus to do so; see subsection below.]

See also: Manual of Style:Trademarks and Wikipedia's policy on no original research
Shortcuts

Many points of style can be decided by observing usage in high-quality sources. If a question cannot be settled using Wikipedia's guidelines, in the Manual of Style and elsewhere, follow relevant English-language sources. If major sources are not representative of current English usage, consult others; and give weight to current English usage.

This would not be my own preferred wording; but I offer it as giving due weight and respect to all our other guidelines. I commend it to editors here, so we can all move on from a sore point of contention. NoeticaTea? 05:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed wording: support votes

[Single numbered paragraphs please; rejoinders and discussion below, not in this subsection.]

  1. Withdrawn support as proposer. This is definitely a compromise proposal, enabling due weight for WP:MOS and the Manual of Style more broadly. Ultimately, the place to decide what weight these guidelines should have is not here: not among the guidelines themselves. It is an external matter. The guidelines should simply stand as well-founded recommendations: based on open, rational discussion, already giving weight to precedent and to major style guides. If a compromise like this is not adopted, it will be reasonable to require that the section be removed entirely. It was never consensual; it was inserted for political reasons, and works against all that MOS offers as a major element among Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for maintaining an excellent encyclopedia.
    I see that there is no bilateral movement toward compromise, and no general will to keep discussion civil, unthreatening, and orderly. With regret, I therefore withdraw my initiative toward compromise and settlement of an old dispute – a dispute that I had no part in. I now support withdrawing the section altogether. It has caused a ridiculous amount of turmoil and division, and is completely unnecessary in any case. [Altered and re-signed.]
    NoeticaTea? 06:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    This was no compromise: it was the same old demand: "Do whatever MOS says, whether there is any reason to do so or not." Why does Noetica think it one? And why does the proposal below not count as a bilateral attempt? (No sentence in it is mine.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. Support. I have often argued that if the Manual of Style is wrong (not just an unlisted exception, but wrong as written), then we should change the Manual, not do it your way. If you believe you have an unusually wonderful reason to do it your way, in this case "high-quality sources", then it should be unusually easy to correct the Manual. And if you're really really really really sure we should do it your way, then it should be really really really really easy to correct the Manual. And if the Manual's regulars systematically keep the Manual wrong, then the Manual shouldn't be called a WP:GUIDELINE. But if it is a guideline, let's use it. Art LaPella (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  3. Support – while not optimally clear, definitely an improvement on the current formulation. In any case, people, please do not forget that the MOS is not a policy to bang others on the head with, but just a guideline intended to offer guidance to editors who care about stylistic issues.  --Lambiam 09:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you; your comment is much better than the wording proposed. [Note: I do not consent to have this refactored; if Lambiam is inspired to propose text, so much the better.] Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  4. Support since it's basically the same thing as before. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed wording: oppose votes

[Single numbered paragraphs please; rejoinders and discussion below, not in this subsection.]

  1. Very strongly oppose It is next to impossible to amend this page to reflect anything other than the opinions of the latest handful of Language Reformers, so Art's argument is no reason to support. This would be acceptable with the admission of its purpose: This Manual of Style has nothing to do with the English language.. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed wording: neutral statements

[Single numbered paragraphs please; rejoinders and discussion below, not in this subsection.]

  1. What we are dealing with is a disagreement between those who say "When there is a dispute, the MOS should trump Common English Usage (as demonstrated by looking at the sources)" and those who say "When there is a dispute, Common English Usage should trump the MOS". (To my mind, both are wrong ... but I have no idea how to express what and were the compromise should be). Unfortunately, there are those on both sides of this debate who strongly favor one or the other. Based on the previous discussions, both viewpoints have adherents who feel strongly that their take on this is best... but neither view has a clear consensus in the discussions. I am beginning to wonder whether there is a compromise position between these two views. I am beginning to think that the only way to reach a consensus is to avoid discussing the issue of MOS vs Usage completely (ie to remain silent on the issue). Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. I tend to agree with this outlook. I don't think that either the MOS or "Common" English (no such thing really exists anyway, but that's another story) trumps anything. In my view, the MOS occasionally makes choices between many (valid) options in places where we can find common ground. It's the "where we can find common ground" part that can be problematic, obviously. It may be that the MOS should be silent, but I'm not sure that we're at the point where we should give up yet.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    That would be what a useful Manual of Style would do; insofar as it differs from this, it is not a Manual of Style. In short, I agree with the neutral comments here, and that's why I disagree with this proposal. [Note: anybody who refactors this comment may expect to explain themselves to an admin.] Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  3. I agree with Blueboar that they can both be wrong, depending on what common English usage means. We shouldn't make up a style which is not used by any sizeable fraction of the relevant reliable English-language secondary sources, but if 30% of the sources use a style and 70% a different one it doesn't mean we must follow the latter, if we agree there's a reason to prefer the former. (And I'd agree to remove this text altogether.) ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 20:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  4. As far as I can tell, PMAnderson's addition of the subject paragraph here, back in May 2008[May 2009][A simple error in reading the date, I think. I have corrected this as a plain matter of fact.–Noetica], was never so much as mentioned on the discussion page, so there's little shared understanding of its purpose or meaning. To me, and apparently to many others, "Unless there is some clear reason to do otherwise" has been interpreted as in Noetica's new version to mean something like "unless the MOS already has an answer". Apparently, this is not what its author intended. On the whole, I see no need to keep such an ambiguous paragraph in the MOS; the proposed amendment and the reactions for and against it make it clear that there is no consensus around even what it is supposed to mean. It has been invoked repeatedly by its author as a reason to ignore wikipedia's style, and instead follow the varying styles of sources in different subject areas; I support Noetica's attempt to clarify that there is not consensus in support of this interpretation, but I find the amendment to be still puzzling. Can we just remove it? Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
re: ignore wikipedia's style, and instead follow the varying styles of sources in different subject areas... I think this is the heart of most of the debate here... It is my belief that Wikipedia's style should be to follow the style of sources in different subject areas. If Wikipedia's style is the same as that of the sources, then there is no need for anyone to "ignore" it. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd get rid of the statement altogether (particularly in view of Noetica's withdrawal of support). It's just not helpful to throw such things in the faces of editors who come to this page for guidance ... more like legalism born of friction. And I do believe the lead section of the MoS has become rather too long, anyway. Tony (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggested amendments to the proposed wording, and discussion

[Orderly discussion here; please do not amend the proposed wording without first establishing consensus here to do so.]

  • If a sentence is not consensus, it should not be in the MOS at all. Whatever we decide, get rid of the hidden comment. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The words "when considering a stylistic question" are redundant and awkward. We should remove them. However, the words "such as proper names" should remain. It establishes what sort of situation the paragraph is meant to apply to. It should assuage any fears that the paragraph is meant to subvert the rest of the MoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • The pointed mention of proper names? Fair enough as a further concession, as far as I'm concerned. If that were a sticking point, it could be conceded. So long as the body of MOS guidelines is not diminished as at present. Let's see what others say. NoeticaTea? 12:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If the warning sentence is hidden from readers, then it serves no purpose. This isn't WP:LQ when the only people we need to warn are the ones trying to correct the policy by editing it. If the sentences is disputed, then it should either be marked visibly or removed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • In answer to McLerristarr and Darkfrog: The hidden text would of course be removed once an acceptable compromise version is settled. The issue that prompted that hidden text is the root problem. The present wording of the guideline is unsupported by discussion at this talkpage; objectors might fairly demand that it be removed for that reason. Rather than it coming to that, I propose a conciliatory middle position. That's all. NoeticaTea? 12:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Re: comments in "neither support nor oppose," we could always say, "When dealing with peculiar points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, consult both the MoS and language-reliable sources and then decide on a case-by-case basis." Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

[A comment on support vote 2, moved to discussion by Noetica:]

I would love it if things worked that way, Art, but when the MoS is wrong on some point, it's usually because said point is popular with the denizens of this discussion page. We have to take actual use into consideration (referring in this case to the mechanism of changing the MoS, not to the English language). Darkfrog24 (talk)
If the mechanism of changing the MoS is too difficult, I think that means the same as "And if the Manual's regulars systematically keep the Manual wrong, then the Manual shouldn't be called a WP:GUIDELINE." Note that my comment didn't respond to Noetica's comment above it, because it didn't exist yet (the timestamps are backwards). Art LaPella (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Septentrionalis's comment "It is next to impossible to amend this page to reflect anything other than the opinions of the latest handful of Language Reformers" also means the same as "[if] the Manual's regulars systematically keep the Manual wrong ..." Art LaPella (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Then are you disputing the standing of this page as a guideline? Making it an essay would permit our dogmatists to say whatever they wanted, and persuade whomever they could persuade. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
User:Art LaPella/Because the guideline says so: "Another alternative is to agitate for the delegitimization of the Manual of Style, or of most of it. That would be fine with me. If the Manual of Style isn't the real rules, then let's not allow it to call itself the real rules. Make it an essay. I hope changing your comma makes you angry enough to organize such a rebellion. But as long as Wikipedia is content to recognize the guidelines as authoritative, we should be honest and enforce them." Art LaPella (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

[A comment on neutral statement 2, moved to discussion by Noetica:]

That would be what a useful Manual of Style would do; insofar as it differs from this, it is not a Manual of Style. In short, I agree with the neutral comments here, and that's why I disagree with this proposal. [Note: anybody who refactors this comment may expect to explain themselves to an admin.] Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Moving this from the context which made it intelligible was vandalism. Restoring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

[A comment on neutral statement 4]

Dicklyon made a simple slip concerning the date of the edit he refers to (his diff gives it correctly); and that must have set Dicklyon off track so he did not find the discussion in the voluminous archives. The original edit introducing the contested section appears to be this one by PMAnderson, on 7 May 2009. It was reverted because of editors' concerns. PMAnderson then launched a discussion, preserved in Archive 109. There were just four participants in that discussion, counting PMAnderson. Two of them expressed serious reservations about the new section, but appear to have acquiesced after a short exchange. On my analysis, the exact intention of the contested section remains vague, even by the end of that discussion. It is instructive to revisit the concerns that were voiced then, and to track the evolution of the section. After the protection (26 February 2011) occasioned by skirmishes over this section, there was a particularly interesting discussion (in Archive 120) initiated by Lambiam. I commend it to editors now. Lambiam proposed this clarification, and wondered why it was not an acceptable rewording:

In stylistic points of usage on which this Manual of Style gives no guidance, observe the style adopted by reliable high-quality sources, preferably English-language secondary sources, and follow the usage most commonly adopted – unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise.

I'm wondering the same thing. We at least need clarity. As far as I can see, the section that caused four months of protection has never provided that, which leaves it open to abuse. Hence people's strong feelings back in February. Let's work on fixing it now. NoeticaTea? 08:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Because we should always consider the usage of high-quality sources, especially when it disagrees with the recommendations of a guideline; although editors don't have to follow usage, even then. Often the reason that MOS disagrees with usage is that our paragraph on some subject simply hasn't considered a special case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I had the date wrong and looked at the wrong archive year. The discussion does however support my point that there was no consensus for this paragraph addition as a general principle. If we can agree on what it should say, that's fine; if not, let's take it out. Dicklyon (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new wording

I adopt the following from Lambiam, Ohm's Law and Darkfrog Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is a guideline intended to offer guidance to editors who care about stylistic issues. It occasionally makes choices among the many valid options available in standard English. On particular points, such as the spelling of proper names, consider both the recommendations of this page and the usage of the sources.

Hmmm... I think we could be more explicit than that... suggest:

  • "The Manual of Style is a guideline intended to offer advice to editors who care about stylistic issues. It occasionally recommends one style usage over others, but these recommendations should be seen as indicating a preference and not as a requirement. Style usage in specific articles, and on particular points (such as the spelling of a specific proper name) may differ from the preferences indicated in this guideline and are governed by a consensus of editors at the article level, based upon considering both the recommendations of this page and common usage in reliable English language sources."

Is this an acceptable balance between "follow the sources" and "follow the MOS"? Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
In other discussions, we've seen a lot of resistance to the idea of style decisions being made article by article. I agree that this tends to lead to more fights than having more definite central guidance on style. I actually like the version that PMA wrote better, as it acknowledges that MOS makes choices from valid options (not always the same choices that various sources make); the "more explicit" version might be better if it didn't contain the vague "on particular points"; for the rendering of names, it's mostly OK, since there's no way the MOS can cover that broadly enough to avoid the need for article-by-article decisions. Dicklyon (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to re-write. What I was trying to focus on two points: a) While the MOS does sometimes indicate a preference on style issues, our stated preferences are recommendations not requirements (advice not rules) and b) editors should consult both this MOS and the relevant sources when there is a style conflict at the article level. If we can get those two points across, I am quite flexible on the wording. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I like it. A couple minor points: I'd lose “who care” in the first sentence (and possibly also “to editors”, and maybe “intended to offer guidance” too); I'd lose the comma after “specific articles”; I'd replace the second part of the last sentence to may deviatediffer from the preferences indicated in this guideline if consensus emerges that there is a good reason to do so, after considering the clarity of the various options and the usage of relevant reliable English-language secondary sources. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 20:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 20:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The stylistic tweaks are fine; I compiled this from several comments above, as they were written, and tried to avoid rewriting lest I change meaning. Guideline/guidance may actually be useful emphasis on what a guideline is.
The last proposal is misguided; it is MOS which deviates (often without any tinge of utility) from standard English, not the other way around. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm replacing “deviates” with “differs” as in Blueboar's version. Is it better now? ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 20:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but I still prefer Blueboar's version; yours says much less, less than is true for any guideline whatever. But let's see what the objections are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Way too watered down. I want external links at the top! After all, having them at the bottom is just a preference! I want German-style quotation marks (aka Bobby said „don't do that“)! straight quotes are just a preference anyway. I want the headers in quarks to be italicized and follow title case! Unitalicized and sentence case is just a preference!
Most of the choices made are preference that should be enforced. Some choices are recommendation for the 95%+ cases. The default is the MOS. When something warrants deviation from the MOS, then deviate, otherwise follow the MOS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
English does not "deviate" from the MOS; the MOS deviates from English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A modest proposal

OK, let's take Headbomb at his word. Let's tell the truth about this page and its writers:

This Manual of Style is the opinion of less than a dozen Wikipedians. They want something they can enforce. They don't want editors going to the trouble of consulting dictionaries and style manuals; they are horrified at the concept of considering English usage on any point of style; they know better. That will produce a strong Manual of Style, which will control 6,909,105 articles; appealing to any other policy is subversion. Discussion is useless; all editors must follow their opinion, because they say so.

Most of this is not a parody; it is what Noetica, Tony1, Dicklyon, Kwamikagami and Headbomb say and want. Until they are topio-banned. this page will be useless, unsupported, and non-consesnsus; it should be protected until they get bored with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

To my recollection, I have not been involved in the formation of the MOS (I have made only 24 relatively minor edits, none of which have been controversial or objected to, as far as I can see). I happen to think an MOS is a good idea, and this one aligns pretty well with the styles that I've learned from professional editors in the U.S., so yes, I like it pretty much. For that I should be topic-banned? As I read the history, the MOS has evolved, from a consensus of those working on it, including some of those you condemn, and others. You accuse them of having ownership issues; it is a sin to continue to work on what you have built? Is it better to turn it over to those who dislike it, to tear it down, even though it has been stable and effective for years? Or should we proceed in an orderly way, to make changes by consensus? Let's talk about it here, while the page is protected, so that when it's unprotected again, you'll have some idea what sorts of changes might be supported, and what not. Or do you have a constructive alternative way to proceed, other than suggesting banning those who care about the MOS so that you can dismantle it? Dicklyon (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
On the topic of dictionaries and style manuals, yes, we do care very much about them. That's why we rely on them so much for information about things like the en dash usages that have found wide agreement and support after such discussion. On the recently added and removed paragraph on "permanent compounds", however, the advice of dictionaries and style guides was grossly misrepresented in a paragraph that sought to say what the "only" legitimate use of hyphens would be. If you read about "permanent compounds" in style guides, you usually find that they are discussed as "one more" way that hyphens may be used: in compounds nouns, even though not used as adjectives, sometimes a hyphen is needed if the compound is conventionally used that way, as evidenced in dictionaries. You'll also find that "open" permanent compounds found in dictionaries still should get hyphens when used as adjectives (e.g. here). This standard punctuation rule seemed to be preempted and negated by the paragraph in question. And the CMOS was cited for saying other uses are wrong, which is not what the quoted page said at all; the CMOS essentially says is that hyphens are unnecessary where they are not needed, but doesn't say that it's wrong to use them where they can aid readability. Many guides take a more active approach to what aids readability, which is the approach that I prefer, but we can discuss whether to move that way or leave it alone, rather than go hard over the other way based on unsupported claims like the ridiculous statement "A hyphen should be used in a well-established, 'permanent' compound modifier only if relevant dictionaries hyphenate the compound" that had three references but no real support in guides, and certainly not in the quoted passages. Dicklyon (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't propose to dismantle it at all; I don't have to.
If the clique which claims ownership of this page is removed from it, I'm sure the rest of the audience here - those not ihterested in "strength" or the imposition of obsolete grammatical chimaeras - will respond to the slow but perpetual rain of protest this page gets, by, as policy requires, attempting to achieve consensus. I will be perfectly happy to stop by at half-yearly intervals, and cheer on the improvement made in your absence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
And as for following sources, instead of guides, I think you can find tons of examples where the trend toward not hyphenating is doing a lot of harm, or humor, depending on how you look at it. Guides suggest "high-school teacher", but sources more often say "high school teacher." What's the point of WP editors not following the guides, removing the obvious and unintended ambiguity, and reserving "high school teacher" for when you mean it? Dicklyon (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
As others have said, what is a "high school-teacher"? In the few cases we discuss exhilarated educators, a wise editor will avoid the phrase altogether; in any other context there is no rational ambiguity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I often share Septentrionalis's cynicism, but exactly what is his alternative, is it any better or is it even worse, and how is it worth all this continued disruption?
"This Manual of Style is the opinion of less than a dozen Wikipedians." It was written by about that many, but it has many more supporters than writers. The current arbitration has turned up many more people who generally support WP:DASH than Hyphen Luddites or Septentrionalis supporters. Most Wikipedians don't know and don't care. The second biggest group says do it my way because it's proper English, and whoever shouts "proper English" the loudest is likely to win. Tiniest of all are the group who cite style manuals, although those manuals, in turn, are just a more formal way to say do it my way because it's proper English. The third group is the best hope of a consensus that can get us back to writing an encyclopedia again. In particular, it's better than letting any one individual rewrite everything by claiming to represent a silent majority, and it's better than saying that we have a guideline in theory while ignoring it in practice.
"They want something they can enforce." You're too kind. They often want first of all to demonstrate their knowledge of rules. Enforcement matters only if they can enforce just often enough to get some attention, not to change Wikipedia as a whole, and I can demonstrate that by everyone's lack of interest in ways to bridge the gap between here and the rest of Wikipedia. But the alternatives are no better. There might be a consensus for saying that Manual of Style rules should defer to dictionaries (and style guides) as those rules are written, but I hope there is no consensus for re-arguing what dictionaries and style guides supposedly say on each article talk page.
I think the most peaceful issues have been the issues where the Manual explicitly says "Do it either way; just don't argue about it." Art LaPella (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I’m clearly somewhat of a prescriptionist, but I agree that much of the discussion can approach “My way is better than yours”, and perhaps even “My guide is bigger than yours”. I also agree that we’d often be far better off recognizing that there’s more than one way to do many things, and as long as an approach is reasonable and used consistently in an article, we should worry more about other things . . . like content. JeffConrad (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree most of all with the last paragraph; and that is my chief alternative: to apply it more widely. The most useful Manual of Style would follow "Do it either way; just don't argue about it" with "These are the benefits of method A; these are the benefits of method B." Often, as with the Oxford comma, the benefits of either method are quite similar; fine, say that.
But our dogmaticists oppose even: "Follow Method A only and always; and this is why." Is it because the merits of their Sacred Writ exist largely in their sacred imaginations? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Um, Dick, just what do you mean by “high school teacher”? “High schoolteacher”? JeffConrad (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes; the standard reading of "adj noun1 noun2" is a "noun1 noun2" that is "adj"; no? Just as with a hyphen "adj-noun1 noun2" means a noun2 modified by "adj noun1". Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
But wouldn’t we normally close up schoolteacher, as I did? Accordingly, I would normally omit the hyphen, but I concede things like this are often tough calls, and concede that I may not always be consistent. JeffConrad (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
In this case, yes, schoolteacher does show up that way in dictionaries, so it could be done. But usually one doesn't close up open compounds in this context. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
No, it depends on the compound, the usage of which often follows neither rhyme nor reason. And illustrates, I think, that it’s simply impossible to prescribe everything. Ultimately, it’s sometimes “a matter of ear”. JeffConrad (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
[T]he standard reading of "adj noun1 noun2" is a "noun1 noun2" that is "adj": what evidence do you have for that? A quick look at the results for [aj*] [nn*] [nn*] and or similar (because it won't let me search for [aj*] [nn*] [nn*] alone) at http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/ suggests that it's by no means the only “standard” interpretation. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 00:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
A di M, Dick wrote this:

the standard reading of "adj noun1 noun2" is a "noun1 noun2" that is "adj"

As I see it, he meant that in constructions like adj_noun1_noun2 (spaces, no hyphens), adj modifies noun1_noun2 (or as he puts it, noun1_noun2 "is" adj). Example: "drunk Corvette driver" refers to a Corvette driver who is drunk. If so, the evidence you point us to does not weigh against him. At least six of the first ten hits (by frequency, in the British National Corpus) support his claim: "national health service"; "high blood pressure" (blood pressure that is high); "high interest rates"; "local education authorities"; "front sea view"; "inflammatory bowel disease" (not a disease of an inflammatory bowel: a bowel disease that is inflammatory). The others are miscellaneous, and do not count uniformly against his claim: only "magic item card" is a clear case of adj_noun1 modifying noun2. I discount "digital equipment corporation" since it is cited as a corporate name. (Which corporation? O, Digital Enquipment.) That quick BNC evidence illustrates the need for best-practice punctuation. We'd need to do a bigger sample, of course; and we'd need to compare different punctuated forms. Note though: BNC does not distinguish en dash and hyphen. See "the Red–Green coalition" in this text. Both Googlebooks and BNC report the en dash as a hyphen! In BNC, you search for it with "the red-green coalition" (without quote marks); and neither "the red green coalition" nor "the red–green coalition" will find it.
(We're ahead of them!)
Jeff, it is exactly the role of WP:MOS to make recommendations in favour of rhyme and reason.
NoeticaTea? 02:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
To some extent, perhaps. But we don’t have a mandate for changing the language. Certainly, the treatment of “high school teacher” is really a matter of knowing that we normally close up schoolteacher than White’s meaning of “ear”, but it’s something that must be known to write effectively. At least in AmE, we would normally write “he is a schoolteacher” rather than “he is a school teacher”; apparently, the association of high and school is so strong as to rend schoolteacher asunder, so that we write “high school teacher” with no ambiguity. Much of English has neither rhyme nor reason, and this is one of its defects. But I’m not sure we’re at liberty to correct such defects that we may perceive. Especially because we may not all perceive the same defects. JeffConrad (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The school teacher example was not a great one, since I wasn't aware that over the past 70 years it had gradually become more common to close it up (according to books). I was just trying to make a point about the "normal" readings implied by hyphen and no hyphen in the case of non-permanent compounds, and how the same cues are often useful even with permanent compounds. Things like the "magic item card" mentioned above are easier to understand if the hyphen is not omitted, since the default reading without hyphen is an item card that is magic, which is probably not what was intended; magic-item card is unambiguous. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
...and I'm not trying to make up new rules, nor fix defects of the language. Guides go on at great length about how to decide when to use hyphens, and they don't all agree. And consulting a dictionary for permanent compounds is certainly part of the answer. But a narrow approach like forbidding hyphens in permanent compounds that appear open in the dictionary contradicts both guides and usage in many cases, and when we therefore have choices to make, it can be useful for the MOS to provide advice on which to choose. My suggestion, and my habit, is to choose to hyphenate compounds used as modifiers when it can help the reader, as in small-cell carcinoma, even if the dominant use within the specialty field that uses such terms is to treat them as so familiar as to not need a hyphen. That's just my opinion, and I'm not pushing to have the MOS reflect my opinion; but if people suggest moving hard over in the opposite direction, I'll oppose that. Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Dick, I agree we’re probably making too much of “high school teacher”, but there are many other similar situations that cannot properly be dealt with unless one is familiar with the language evolution or sometimes just a particular idiom. I also agree that with less familiar terms, such as “small-cell carcinoma”, it’s probably better to cater to the reader who may not be familiar with them. JeffConrad (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Jeff: "To some extent, perhaps. But we don’t have a mandate for changing the language." Correct. Nor do CMOS, NHR, BCE, GMAU, or any of those style guides. Nor do any in-house style manuals. WP:MOS changes the language no more than any of those; in fact it's more "permissive" than most. You don't see CMOS "allowing" spaced en dashes as sentential punctuation, though very many publishers use them in the US (founded in Britain perhaps; but publishing in the US). Consistency harmonised by best practice, with respect for common usage: these constitute rhyme and reason for the practice of any large publication, or for any large publisher like Wikipedia. In the end it's all about clear, clean, easy-flowing communication.
"Much of English has neither rhyme nor reason, and this is one of its defects. But I’m not sure we’re at liberty to correct such defects that we may perceive." We describe English as it is used, and we miss the mark if we find "defects" in a language. But we might aim to "prescribe" (that is, recommend: what else could it be, among consenting adult web-dwellers?) best practice for Wikipedia, according to careful descriptions of use, and careful assessment of precedent in other style guides and manuals. Simple really!
NoeticaTea? 04:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, I am going to be honest and say that I didn't read all of this on the school teacher. However, the way I learned it, you hyphenate other forms of speech when they function in a string as an adjective; you don't hyphenate compound nouns in that newly created adjective string; "high school" is a compound noun. Therefore...--Jp07 (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
“Defect” is probably the wrong word, but it was shorter than “characteristics that can make it maddening to learn, sometimes for native speakers as well as those who learn it as an additional language.” We largely need to follow what is commonly and reasonably done, which for me would be high school teacher. Where we have a choice, we certainly could and should opt for that which is more logical and facilitates reading by the general audience; for me, this would be to prefer tilt/shift lens and small-cell carcinoma.
Chicago and OUP indeed have no mandate other than to prescribe or recommend practice for works that they publish. But they both have been around a long time, and published guides when there were no others; in a sense they got there first with the biggest guides, but they did as they did and many people follow their recommendations.
I’m not sure whether CMOS “allows” or “disallows” all that much. Although I’m sure there are some practices Chicago would not accept in material they publish, a glance at their monthly Q&A shows they aren’t nearly as dogmatic as many make them out to be; more than anything else, they urge consistency and compliance with whatever rules govern (when you write for the New York Times, it makes sense to follow their style guide). The problem with “best practice” is that there are many points on which reasonable people differ, and I agree with Art that we sometimes seem to approach “I am the one true interpreter of best practice”. Depending on what you count, I have 30 different style guides (30 more than most people I know other than writers, and arguably 20 more than I need), and try to carefully assess precedent. But I clearly disagree with some here on some points, so the process is far from deterministic. Perhaps simple in theory, but not always in practice. JeffConrad (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Jeff: "Chicago and OUP indeed have no mandate other than to prescribe or recommend practice for works that they publish." Mandate or no mandate, they publish style guides (CMOS, NHR, ODWE, and so on) that are intended for use far beyond their own publications. I use those works, and many others from my collection (and online), as required. What's more, those style guides sell. People crave them, and also APA – whose sales hover around 25th in the Amazon rankings for all books sold (fiction and non-fiction), as we have both observed. Books on punctuation too: very numerous, and good sellers. Internally at Wikipedia, a great number of editors are happy with WP:MOS and its adjuncts; but as always, those who are unhappy are more vociferous. Here they have a voice; for CMOS and others they do not – as I have pointed out before. It's worth heeding, and remembering. NoeticaTea? 07:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
@Noetica: If by standard you mean ‘more common’, I admit that that meaning is more common, but then it would mean that somebody is not standard because it's rarer than someone. Saying that a construction is non-standard when in the BNC there are 98 occurrences of social security office, 32 of public house licence, 47 of fatal accidence inquiry, 225 of social services department and 69 of hot water cylinder sounds like a stretch to me. And WTH do hyphens and dashes have to do with this, when the phrase I searched for has none? ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 10:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
A di M: If. I did not use the word standard.
Hyphens and dashes? I said: "... we'd need to compare different punctuated forms. Note though: BNC does not distinguish en dash and hyphen ...". Just preempting any wild~goose~chases. BNC and such corpora are clumsy instruments for punctuation research, and certainly for our perennial broader theme: hyphens and en dashes. The closest to an adequate resource for that, to my knowledge, is the current online OED. It distinguishes en dashes in searches – for headwords, definitions, citations, what you will. Results are reliable, except that not all of the vast text is yet brought up to date. For the rest, I wrote: "... the evidence you point us to does not weigh against him." I just reported on the top ten hits (most frequent) from your own search. Of course more must be done! I covered all that.
NoeticaTea? 21:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
You didn't say “standard”, but (IIUC) you were agreeing with Dicklyon who did use it. And I don't think any sizeable number of people would use en dashes in phrases syntactically like high~school~teacher, so comparing the frequencies of ‹high-school teacher› and ‹high school teacher› ought to be an excellent approximation to the real thing regardless of how often en dashes are converted to hyphens in the corpus. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 22:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
A di M, on what do you base the assertion that I was agreeing with Dicklyon? NoeticaTea? 22:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
You said “the evidence you point us to does not weigh against him”, which I interpreted as “...against his claim (that ‘the standard reading of "adj noun1 noun2" is a "noun1 noun2" that is "adj"’)”. If that's not what you meant, can you clarify? ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 23:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
A di M: Again, If? I meant exactly what I wrote, with the precise wording you quote just now. I did not not say, or wish to suggest, that I agreed with Dicklyon on the point he appeared to be making. I do not think I was guilty of unclarity; but in any case, I hope you now understand what I wrote. NoeticaTea? 23:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Huh? In what sense you meant “weigh against him” other than “weigh against his claim”? Against him as a person? Sure, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 23:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
A di M, you ask: "In what sense [did you mean] 'weigh against him' other than 'weigh against his claim'?" Well, none. I mean, as you have taken me to mean, 'weigh against his claim'. So what's your exegetical problem? If I say "A does not weigh against B's claim", I am not saying that I agree with B's claim. As you can see, I say what I mean: in extenso. NoeticaTea? 23:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
So, what you meant was that my BNC evidence does not weight against [adj [noun noun]] being the standard interpretation, even if you didn't use the word standard yourself. And what I mean is that this is only the case if standard is taken to mean ‘more common’. Maybe agree was the wrong word, but what difference does it make whether you used the word standard when you were talking about Dicklyon's claim which did use it? ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 10:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
What I said was "the evidence you point us to does not weigh against him," which as you have observed was shorthand for "the evidence you point us to does not weigh against his claim." Since the evidence you adduced was from BNC, a reasonable substitution would indeed yield "A di M's BNC evidence does not weigh against Dicklyon's claim." But notice two things: 1) I did not endorse Dicklyon's use of "standard"; 2) I gave a working, "sanitised" version of Dicklyon's claim: "in constructions like adj_noun1_noun2 (spaces, no hyphens), adj modifies noun1_noun2." I was cautious not to include qualifications like "always", "most often", or the like. So in full, my assertion might be paraphrased like this: "A di M's BNC evidence does not weigh against the assertion that in constructions like adj_noun1_noun2 (spaces, no hyphens), adj modifies noun1_noun2" (that is: by and large, typically, generally speaking, or whatever you prefer for cashing out the meaning of expressions with vague quantification in natural language; cf. "cows have four legs", which we do not think aberrant even though some are born with six, or some have by accident lost the typical complement of four). Now we come to your question (though I don't understand the immediate preamble to it, which for completeness I nevertheless include here): "Maybe agree was the wrong word, but what difference does it make whether you used the word standard when you were talking about Dicklyon's claim which did use it?" My answer: That would depend on exactly how I might have used the word "standard"; but since I did not use it, I find the question irremediably hypothetical and counterfactual; so I cannot say. Tell you what I'll do: you propose various ways I might have used "standard" in (or when) talking about Dicklyon's claim, and I'll venture an opinion about how those scenarios differ from actuality. But notice two things: 1) we would be talking about something that didn't happen; and 2) I can't think why anyone would care. I hope that helps, all the same. NoeticaTea? 11:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I see it now. I had overlooked your “sanitised” version, so I thought you were referring to Dicklyon's claim “as is”. Still, I think that such a blanket statement, even without always, is too strong. The [[adj noun] noun] might be rarer, but it's not such an oddity as three-legged cows. (Would you say that, by and large, generally speaking, the indefinite pronoun for people is someone in written English and somebody in spoken English? ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 12:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
A di M: Too strong? Well, de quantificationibus incertis non est disputandum, as people used to say when I was little. Would I say that, by and large, generally speaking, the indefinite pronoun for people is someone in written English and somebody in spoken English? If I thought so and was asked, I would say so. Do I think so? Depends what we are to take it to mean, exactly. Whose spoken English? I don't use somebody much, myself. Hmmm. "Everybody loves somebody sometime," they used to sing. I'm not convinced. I think there are exceptions to most rules. Alternatively, there are no exceptions, and the rules are ridiculously complex. Which would you prefer, young A? One simple rule with zillions of exceptions, or one exceptionless rule that is as complex as the domain to which it applies? (Ach! A frisson, as we are finally back on topic: MOS, rules, complexity, and the coming revolution. Beulah! ... Peel me a grape.) NoeticaTea? 12:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, based on corpus data the preference the [adj [noun noun]] parsing of such phrases appears to be no stronger than that for someone in writing and somebody in speech. As for what I would prefer, it's moderately complex rules which apply in about 95% of the cases; less accurate rules can be useful too, provided they acknowledge they're less accurate (say, that ‹ow› in stressed syllables is pronounced /aʊ/ in slightly more than 50% of the time). (Not that simple rules are always inaccurate: for example, the rule that articles in English go before the noun they ‘belong’ to is extremely simple and yet I think it applies in at least 99.999% of the cases.) ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 18:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
By "the standard reading" I meant the way such a group would be parsed in the absense of other cues from specialized knowledge about the particular words or their use in a domain. As described here, the hyphen acts as parentheses in math, to modify the default order of operations (the "precedence"). As described in this book, the normal way of "unpacking" a noun phrase is back-to-front. I'm not saying that usages that differ from this standard pattern are incorrect, but they are a bit slower to read, especially when the reader is not familiar with the particular compounds involved, because of the ambiguity that has to be resolved toward the less-probable grouping.


The following actually useful exchange is now invisible:

PMA, please excuse my insertion into your section here, but you have it backwards. I never proposed anything in MOS that would forbid "high school teacher"; what I did was to oppose a change that would have forbid "high-school teacher". I'm not nearly as prescriptive as you claim; or as you are, apparently, as you're the one wanting new rules added, not me. And your continually repeating unfounded claims of "falsehoods" and "liar" are getting tiresome. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
That's not what Dicklyon's post said.
He is always welcome to clarify his position; mine is, and always has been, that both "high school teacher" and "high-school teacher" should be permitted; the wording Dicklyon was arguing against would have done that. Editors should consider the additional precision provided by the hyphen; they should also consider that most writers, in most contexts, don't use one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In short, there are two ways to write "high~school teacher"; both of us would permit either. The proposal at hand is that editors should consider dictionaries as well as the three generalizations in the present text; if Dicklyon is not arguing against that, is anybody? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A modest reply

There are, it appears, three questions at hand

  • Was Darkfrog's description of Noetica correct? We have more than enough evidence on that.
  • Is One way to see if a phrase is hyphenated is to consult a good current dictionary sound advice? As far as I can tell, even Dicklyon and Noetica are now arguing that it is.
  • Was Noetica correct to revert war against an edit which added that exact sentence, and nothing else? Not on any legitimate ground that I can see; the ground claimed is that Noetica's approval was not sought, which is a policy violation.

If this page is going to be stalemated, let it be by protection, not by a revert-warrior. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Time for an RFC on conduct, to settle this once and for all

I have collapsed the above discussion because it is far too long, and a nuisance for editors trying to work through the page and find things that really matter. And for another purpose. Let me explain:

This disruption has gone on far too long. Editors must be dismayed to find reams of petty bickering added each day, against the intention of this talkpage. They want to get on with the business of developing WP:MOS, but are continually hindered by a ruinous campaign from a tiny minority that will stop at nothing: misrepresentation, edit-warring, revert-warring against thoroughly discussed and consensual changes, outright lies, and failures to answer for those lies (or for anything else), and litigious threats against those who truly care most about this page, and about consistency and consultation.

I therefore call for an RFC against those at the heart of this turmoil. We cannot let this go on. The page is protected yet again, because of edit-warring and hasty, zealous insertion of minority opinion. This must stop.

I for one am now convinced, from the evidence above.

Therefore (and keeping things in order so those who want to ignore this can easily do so):

NoeticaTea? 04:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: just remove it

(This is about the "Follow the sources" section, which has been used by its author primarily as a justification for "ignore the MOS"; the discussion, what little there was, makes it clear that it was never accepted to mean that.)

I suggest that we just remove the non-consensus paragraph. It was put in with little discussion, over pushback by several editors, and without the realization by many that it was an opening gambit in a crusade against central style guidance, due to its ambiguous wording. It will obviously not be possible to fix it in a way that makes its author happy and also satisfies those in favor of the MOS as central style guidance for WP. As it has no agreed meaning, it's not useful. Agree? Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Strong support. If there is no genuine will to compromise on both sides, and if there are threats and incivility, the best solution is simply to remove this divisive, contentious, vague section. It never had anything remotely resembling consensus, and never served any good purpose. I tried; but obviously the "opposition" is not serious about reaching a harmonious resolution. Nor even interested in clear, civil discussion. NoeticaTea? 06:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I'd be fine with a few of the proposals mentioned above as well, but this is certainly among our options. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Condition If the template that this revert-warred mess is a guideline is also removed. This cannot be fixed as long as the present regulars continue to control it; most of Wikipedia ignores it now, which is why its sponsors need bots. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll take that as an oppose. Dicklyon (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support after careful consideration. Let's be kinder to our readers. And it's more practical to bin it. Tony (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the removal. GFHandel ♬  20:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Removing this would allow any editor to push their preferred style over the style used at sources. Seems to go against the general thrust of WP:V. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose We've got a lot of technical subjects that don't follow "grammatically correct" styles for the article titles because the sources almost never do. A grammar maven would tell you that you should always hyphenate Merkel cell polyomavirus, but we don't, because very, very few of our reliable sources do. There's no reason for Wikipedians to invent their own self-approved "grammatical" names when the sources are consistently doing something different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Coverage of businesses, charities, etc.

Do we have a policy on how we cover entities like businesses and charities who benefit from our coverage? I looked briefly and could not find one. Members of the media tend to avoid giving such entities gratuitous coverage, particularly when that appears on the front page of a newspaper... so I'm thinking about the things that we put on the front page of Wikipedia. Reasons for this concern:

  • Reader perceptions of balance and fairness
  • Do people really care about how much your charity raised or the anniversary of your business?
  • Does it seem like you're endorsing a charity that might be guilty of ethical violations?
  • If you find out later that they are guilty, have you misled readers?
  • How can you fairly filter out the shady charities?
  • Why is this business or charity getting free advertising?
  • If you set a precedent for giving gratuitous coverage to Charity X, how can you justify withholding coverage from Charity Y? Z? A? B? C?....

How do we feel about this? Should this affect our front page coverage? I think less so within an article since Wikipedia's coverage is continuous, unlike a newspaper, but how do we feel about the front page?

I'm really just seeking thoughts at this point. I'm not sure how I feel about this in respect to Wikipedia.--Jp07 (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to discuss this; the "Manual of Style" covers what words and characters to use, how to spell them, etc. The substance of what to write should be discussed elsewhere.
That said, I don't consider "Members of the media tend to avoid giving such entities gratuitous coverage, particularly when that appears on the front page of a newspaper..." to be true. I have seen numerous newscasts and newspaper articles published during a disaster that give explicit directions on how to donate to certain well-known charities. (Disclaimer: I am a disaster volunteer for one of the best-known American charities; that affiliation might influence my perceptions.) Jc3s5h (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I think disaster coverage should be considered an exceptionality. Where should this conversation take place? Wouldn't it fall under Category:Wikipedia_Manual_of_Style_(content)? (That won't link for some reason; just disappears). Thanks for your input. --Jp07 (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The page for the Category Wikipedia Manual of Style (content) states "This Category is concerned with the Manual of Style and stylistic choices affecting content. For the guidelines on content itself see Category:Wikipedia content guidelines." (Apparently placing a colon before "Category" in the link will prevent this page from being treated as a member of the category.) Jc3s5h (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This is probably WP:NOTABILITY, which covers which articles should exist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You might also find WP:SNARK to contain some relevant points. EDIT: Hm, it appears to have gone. Snarking was a phenomenon on early Wikipedia. Companies would have employees write favorable and sometimes false articles about the company. Then other Wikipedians would replace false information with true information less complimentary to the company. Then the company would complain to the admins, who would respond by pointing and laughing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPAMMER Art LaPella (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think much of this difficult question is covered in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and its internal links (e.g. "See also"), although that's generally directed to editors who themselves have some tie to the organization or business covered in an article. If you think a more general guideline about covering businesses and institutions (colleges, schools, hospitals, governments, charities, etc.) might be useful, perhaps you could either start an essay of your own, or propose new language at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest or Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view to include your concerns in a subsection or spin-off guideline. ¶ The insistence on secondary or tertiary sources, an insistence which can at times seem annoying, impossible, absurd or inappropriate, is very relevant to this issue: “Joe's makes the best pizza in town” is an untestable opinion that Fred's fans [let alone Fred] might naturally question; on the other hand, “Florence Fabricant of The New York Times declared in 2010 that ‘Joe's is New York's best pizzeria by far’ [date of review]” is a statement of fact (what Florence Fabricant wrote, not whose pizza is best) citing a WP:Reliable Source. However, balance is still needed; otherwise every Wikipedia article would look like a book cover, plastered with extracts of every favorable review. See WP:Undue weight and also, as Septentrionalis suggested above WP:Notability. ¶ A variant of this issue can be particularly vexing in the "Education" section of an article about a place. It's hard to give the reader interesting and useful information about schooling without naming at least a few notable or representative schools or colleges. But it's inevitable that the students, staff, parents and graduates of every school in that place will add its name, turning the section into a catalogue or directory of no interest to outsiders. See, for example, Staten Island#Education. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Start a thread at the Main Page. If you are slamming the DYKs, you will get an audience. And you may have some new info to share. People here want to debate hyphens versus dashes...TCO (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

p. 65 or p.65 ?

I'm accustomed to seeing page numbers written as

p. 65

(American) or

p 65

(British). But within Wikipedia I also find these:

p.65

and

p65

I don't recall that I've ever seen those anywhere besides Wikipedia. Are they conventional somewhere? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Not that I know of. The suspicion they are typoes is strong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
In what context are you finding these page numbers? In MLA citations, there should be no form of abbreviation for page numbers... i.e. it would appear as (Johnson 34) for Page 34 of Johnson's book. Associated Press Stylebook says that if page numbers are referenced in body copy, they should appear as Page 13 or Page 2B (for newspaper page numbers). I don't know if there is any Wiki style on that.--Jp07 (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Usually in citations. Examples I found by clicking "Random article": pp.86 at Kenneth H. Wood, p62 and p70 at Rugby union in Andorra, p.268 at Cashew nutshell liquid, and pp.100-3 at Fokker F.XXXVI. I don't know of any Wiki style specifically for page numbers. But even if there were, neither Wiki style nor styles elsewhere can magically make something disappear from Wikipedia. We don't have employees that can be fired for not obeying our megabyte-plus style manual. Page numbers in citations are misformatted in many ways. The most common are hyphens instead of dashes in page ranges, and carelessness with plurals such as "pp. 25" or "p 23–26". See the "page=" and "pages=" parameters in Wikipedia {{citation}} templates. Art LaPella (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
That's an awfully fatalistic outlook. It's nice to have a guideline for those who want to do some cleanup. You're right -- it's never all going to be fixed, but we can make it better, so I don't think we should resign to the inevitability of loosely edited copy.--Jp07 (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
From the looks of Kenneth H. Wood, I'd say the editors there have zero knowledge of WP style; firing them would be my first reflex, but maybe they can be rehabilitated and make valuable contributions eventually. In general, I'd try to follow the style used by the cite templates. Omission of spaces is so common as to not be a fun topic of discussion; esp. spacing after periods, even between sentences, which are amazingly commonly omitted by editors who otherwise seem able to write. Go figure. I do my part to make up for them, by putting two spaces between sentences. Dicklyon (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The quote was "But within Wikipedia I also find these: p.65 and p65 I don't recall that I've ever seen those anywhere besides Wikipedia." If "it's never all going to be fixed", then that is enough to explain why we find p.65 and p65, and that is a reality to be faced regardless of how urgent we think the problem is. Art LaPella (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new wording to the lead

I can't make head or tail of what's going on. Can someone point to where it's up to? Tony (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

  • No one’s talkin’ much; mostly waiting for the page to be unlocked (again) and once that occurs—like a U.N. helicopter dropping sacks of food on Haitian village after a natural disaster—there will be a crazy-crap scramble to “get while the getting’s good” and the edit history will read something like this:
  1. User:TCO
  2. User:Pmanderson
  3. User:Pmanderson
  4. User:Pmanderson
  5. User:Noetica
  6. User:Pmanderson
  7. User:Pmanderson
  8. User:Shakescene
  9. User:Noetica
{locked (again)} by Casliber

(*sigh*) Note who’s takin’ a heaping helping at what is increasingly looking like PMApedia. Greg L (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Given the current dynamic, I would suggest the admins just plan on leaving MOS locked for several weeks. If there’s a change to be made, let someone who can actually lead a consensus begin a talk discussion here, establish a consensus, post a {pretty please} tag here on this talk page, and have an admin make the change and button it back up. This is what happened over on MOSNUM during IEC prefix and date linking jihads and it worked just fine; those who didn’t previously have a life actually started waking up before 11:00 a.m. and discovered that the sun actually rises in the east. Greg L (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, protect it until Noetica, Tony1, and Dicklyon get bored, and find some other hobby to bully people in. It doesn't have to be me responding to a complaint; it can be anybody. Has anybody else besides the three of them gotten a word into this non-consensus non-English fraud for years? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The truth is more interesting, and more complicated: [16], [17]. You seem to have set Noetica off recently. But when "the mob" is all arguing with you, and you're the common outlier in these arguments, it's hard to see why you blame them for everything. Or why you lump me in there, just because I take the side of respecting the MOS. So what is "this non-consensus non-English fraud" that you refer to? Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
You know, I find myself agreeing with you periodically on issues and haven’t been shy to weigh in with you. With things locked down on MOS, I’m looking forward to seeing progress made with a real consensus from hereon. I figure it will take two to three weeks for the denizens that frequent this joint to receive an epiphany about how slick things work when people actually discuss issues and arrive at a civil consensus rather than run around in the prison exercise yard doing Turkish butt stabbings on the others. Greg L (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think you'll find a single edit I've ventured to make to the chief pages of the Manual of Style (MoS, dates & numbers, formatting, access, etc.) themselves, for a number of reasons, such as unfamiliarity with their contents, lack of BOLDness and disliking telling other people what to do. (I may have reverted some obvious external vandalism, as I would for any page.) That of course hasn't stopped me from offering a comment on the talk pages from time to time. ;-) —— Shakescene (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
What is a "Turkish butt stabbing"? Sounds interesting. Tony (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • In Turkey, the law is (or at least was) that charges of attempted murder can not be made if an attacker stabbed his victim below the waist. So to get revenge in Turkish prisons, it was popular to run up from behind your victim with a knife or shank and stab them in the buttocks. Here on MOS, if some wikipedian’s theology isn’t straight with regard to the proper position of a period relative to a close-quote, then here—apparently—one accuses (∆ edit here) four other editors of bullying and butt‑stabs them with the suggestion that they be topio-banned [sic].

    In any other place on Wikipedia, an editor lamenting about great injustice at the hands of four other editors (or three other editors in this particular thread) would be met with an incredulous “WTF! What part of ‘consensus’ do you not understand?!?” But not here… Odd, that.

    You know, an outsider looking into WT:MOS might think that there might be some validity to such accusations. It’s as if this crazy tavern has gotten use to that sole character sitting off in the corner with a white parrot on his shoulder raging about how half the patrons in the tavern need to be kicked out so he can have the place to himself and not have to listen to what he considers to be crazy talk with which he vehemently disagrees. But now that MOS has been locked down again, I submit—from the point of view of someone who tries not to get embroiled in things here—that it might be time to look at this failure to abide by consensus as (*sound of audience gasp*) disruptive. Greg L (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It isn't the one sole guy grumbling in the corner who is causing the problem here... others are starting to complain about the rowdy behavior and noise emanating from particular tavern. Its having an impact on the neighborhood. Sure, the regulars are having a great time, and think that this is the best tavern in the entire city... but the neighbors are mightily pissed off, and are starting to complain. That lone guy in the corner is trying to tell you to quite down before someone calls in the cops and shuts the place down. You might want to listen. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
You just proved why the admins were wise to have locked down MOS; everyone’s talking and no one is listening. There is too much animosity and zilch for consensus building. After MOS got locked down, things fell so silent here, Tony asked I can't make head or tail of what's going on. Can someone point to where it's up to?. The answer is that now that MOS is locked so no editwarring can occur (the ol’ “MY way or the highway”-way of doing things), everyone is just lost and life has no further purpose if they actually gotta talk and do consensus building. Without editwarring, WT:MOS is now like Paris the morning after Princess Diana died: you could hear a pin drop outside. Consensus building?? OMG, not THAT. Yeah… that. Greg L (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
And you do rather well at building consensus. You don't, unlike three editors I don't need to name, begin by dismissing all opposition as "lack of respect", or rather reverence, for this page, with all its flaws. It draws continual opposition from non-regulars (there's some on this page); I would like to consider the reasons; some people don;t. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Tell you what, PMA. My sense is that MOS has a disproportionately high percentage of Aussies and Brits. They want to ensure that participating on en.Wikipedia remains an enjoyable hobby for them too and that would be difficult if Wikipedia were Americanized beyond all comprehension. But they’re not bad joes from what I can tell. If I was at a square dance and someone didn’t want to take my arm for a do‑si‑do, I’d be quick to assume they’re some sort of asshole. But when you start complaining about the slings and arrows of great misfortune of four editors who don’t want to do‑si‑do with you, I’m thinking I’d be doing a quick double‑sniff of my arm pits.

Now, I notice that there are threads above about writing MOS consistently in American-dialect English. I notice people making arguments about “making a clean break” (I’m not sure that that means), and I notice people advocating adherence to known and respected manuals of style (which happens to be my preference). I am quite keen to the fact that too much of the “anything the first major contributor likes”‑compromise (wimp-out) has lead to articles—including MOS and MOSNUM—that are complete Mulligan Stew. There should be less of that.

I note that you are American, advocated that MOS consistently use American-dialect English, and it appears many others would agree to that. You perceive only hard-asses on your case? I see a lot of willingness to compromise and an awful lot of your input on this page. Noetica has 48 posts on this talk page. Tony has 23. Dicklyon has 30. I have 9. And you, PMA, have 55 posts. Do you feel like you are holding the American fort against the Aussie Indians? Is that why there is so much time devoted to addressing your objections?

I don’t really care what the reasons are underlying why there is so much disproportionate arguing by you here and so many changes to MOS by just little ol’ you (until it gets locked down), but now that MOS is locked, nothing gets changed until there is a consensus. If you don’t like the final consensus, you will just have to deal with it; I suggest you embrace an attitude of “Well, they’re wrong but the rules are that Wikipedia will follow the consensus view—right or wrong.” Now…

I’m American too. I also have a damned healthy respect for following RSs, not inventing things here under the delusion that Wikipedia Can LEAD So As To Change The World To Make It A Better And Brighter Place®™©, I have a healthy respect for crafting prose that is directed to a general-interest readership, and I expect that good prose never unduly draws attention to itself (unusual accents from Thailand that don’t normally appear in print encyclopedias, for instance). If you find yourself arguing a point that seems to be rooted in these foundation-level principals of mine, give me a holler; I can weigh in with my 2¢ if that’s what it takes to help build a consensus. But it’s time for everyone to start talking about what they propose needs fixing on MOS, be specific, stop attacking each other, seek consensus, arrive at a consensus, and respect the consensus. Greg L (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, let me clarify.
I do not advocate that only American be used (with the standard exception of articles on strongly American subjects). I never have.
I generally believe that any well-established and reasonably common usage should be permitted (this includes the majority Commonwealth usages); I do not believe I have argued for anything else. Sometimes one usage has stronger arguments for it than others; the reasonable way to deal with this is to present both sets of arguments, and let anybody who consults this page see which is more persuasive.
This page, therefore, is opposed by three currents of opinion:
  • Those who would genuinely like it to impose Americanisms.
  • Those who would like it to admit that there are several valid solutions to most of these questions.
  • And (since the solutions on this page are often non-standard as Commonwealth English, too) those who would like it to impose or permit Commonwealth English.
It is frozen, normally, because of revert-warring by a handful of editors, who want "strength" (that is, power), while claiming to be consensus - there is no evidence that they are consensus even on this talk page; protection is preferable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm… Quoting you, PMA: …there is no evidence that they are consensus even on this talk page. I’m not going to get embroiled in a debate on whether water under the bridge enjoyed a proper consensus or not. But I’ve seen your sort of language before and it has always come from an exceedingly tendentious hold‑out editor who was overruled by a clear supermajority of other editors and who resorted to wikilawyering as to why he should get his way notwithstanding. That sort of attitude will fly like a wet noodle during the lockdown. When an admin perceives a consensus exists for a change—even if you tendentiously and vociferously object—the change will be made.
I see a new world order on MOS. It’s coming. I predict that having admins act like kindergarden teachers to enforce order will result in an appearance that everyone “got religion” on consensus building and MOS will eventually be unlocked again. I predict two things after it is unlocked:
  1. Some editors will go back to the old ways: denying that a consensus exists and insisting—via strategic use of {IDONTLIKEIT} tags—on more and protracted discussion when others feel the issues are settled (protractum discussus ad infinitum).
  2. Behavior described by #1, above, will be addressed with extreme prejudice so that MOS can once again function like it is part of the regular universe.
As with elsewhere on Wikipedia, a normal, common-sense, Wikipedia-style consensus talks; tendentiousness walks. M’kay? Greg L (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
While I would certainly say that PMA has been the one in the wrong this past week and a half, there absolutely are times when the majority is wrong and the one person "denying consensus" is right. WP:IDONTLIKEIT gets called in because there are things in the MoS that are only here because they're trendy. WP:Consensus isn't supposed to be a poll; it's supposed to be weighted by what reliable sources say. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Quoting you, Darkfrog: there absolutely are times when the majority is wrong and the one person "denying consensus" is right. That doesn’t matter. It’s time you jettison that attitude. With rare exception (a smaller consensus trying to override a wider one, or a consensus that violates Wikipedia’s Five Pillars) Wikipedia goes with the consensus. Period. If you don’t believe me, brush up on Wikipedia:Consensus. It touches upon Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on and doesn’t have a caveat there for when that lone editor is highly confident that they are right and the others are wrong. You may feel the majority is wrong, but progress grinds to a halt whenever a minority editor digs in his or her heels and insists that his views are The One And Only Truth©™®. That attitude underlies why some editors are tendentious. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative writing environment, there will often be times when one has to accept that the rest are just heading the wrong way.

And, yes, I agree with you 100% that “consensus” is not only a head count but is also the strength of arguments. If there is a disagreement because the nose counts are not sufficiently lopsided but one group’s position is consistent and is well founded in Wikipedia’s five pillars and its rules, then go get an uninvolved admin to weigh in. Editwarring and tendentiousness is not an option.

Your above post only served to egg on PMA to more of the sort of behavior that is not permitted on Wikipedia. He is intelligent and highly dedicated to Wikipedia. Now we just need to turn him around and get him to work more collaboratively so the project can better benefit from what he has to offer. Greg L (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also supposed to care about reliable sources. When the majority of talk page contributors say X but the sources say Y, then the contributors who say Y are right and those who hold personal preferences and pet peeves above WP:RS are wrong. How are such cases supposed to be corrected if no one points them out, brings extra sources to light, and digs in his or her heels as you put it until the matter is put right? I fully agree that these things must be done politely rather than by edit warring or by calling for editors who disagree to be topic-banned, and that usually takes time, but if Wikipedia is going to be worth a darn, they must be done.
But let's say you're right and I should brush up on WP:Consensus... "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." What PMA has done this past week and change is more a matter of WP:CIVIL than WP:CONSENSUS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, I’ll buy that angle to a certain extent. But I think it is pretty clear that the need to lock down MOS sprang from a variety of factors. And among these factors is PMA’s observation that “the majority is wrong” (as paraphrased and egged-on by you), which is wholly incompatible with Wikipedia and its collaborative writing environment when accompanied by the attitude of “wrong means I won’t respect the consensus and will argue about it until the heat death of the universe.” We can’t have any more of that. The continual locking down of a WP page is indicative of intractable interpersonal issues that the admins are at a loss to deal with. I can pretty much guarantee you that if lock downs persist, there is going to be scrutiny to see if some admin-administered atomic wedgies solves anything. Greg L (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I have not been egging PMA's bad behavior. You know that perfectly well. The bottom line is that a good deal of what PMA is saying is right: there is a group of editors on this talk page who shout down changes that they don't like. Only the way PMA is expressing this is wrong. I haven't been telling PMA to go around shouting at people or revert war or make personal attacks. And when the majority is wrong, people should dig in until the heat death of the universe as you put it; they must simply do so politely. Otherwise, the page will never be improved. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
What majority? Consider this poll; 18-18, and (for a change) including some voices from outside our usual stalemate. Half of the opposes oppose as too strong, half as too weak; much of the support is perfunctory or grudging. That's three more or less equal parties right there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow. I haven't been here in days, but I just now came back and read this section, and I have to say that I agree with everything that GreyL has said here. Everything. Well said! (and I'm still chuckling at most of it!)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Meh. FWIW, I agree with most of what PMA has said here. The bull-headedness of a handful of editors who feel a sense of ownership of all matters stylistic has made reasonable discussion next to impossible. older ≠ wiser 22:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Where do we agree?

Can we please stop complaining about individual editors, and focus on figuring out a) where we agree and b) where we disagree... and then work towards reaching a compromise on those things we disagree on. That is how consensus is built. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's start with some sample statements (Blueboar may recognize them):

  1. The Manual of Style is a guideline meant to offer advice to editors about stylistic issues.
  2. It occasionally recommends one style usage over others, but these recommendations should be seen as indicating a preference and not as a requirement.
  3. Style usage in specific articles, and on particular points (such as the spelling of a specific proper name) may differ from the preferences indicated in this guideline and are governed by a consensus of editors at the article level.
  4. Decisions on style are based upon considering both the recommendations of this page and common usage in reliable English language sources.

Comment I suspect others like me aren’t going to touch this with a ten-foot pole. Already MOS’s lede states that it …is a style guide for Wikipedia articles that encourages editors to follow consistent usage and formatting. MOS is a guide, not one of Wikipedia’s Five Pillars. The distinction between a “rule” and guidelines is a gray area; a spectrum. In fact, the spectrum is so indistinct, WP:RULES redirects to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which states Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Interesting, “does not employ hard-and-fast rules” in that above quote is linked to Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, which calls for using common sense and to avoid instruction creep.

In short, it is memorialized all over Wikipedia—down to its DNA—that there are few hard and fast rules that editors must comply with; certainly that applies to guidelines. Now…

We all know that notwithstanding the adviso that MOS and MOSNUM are guidelines that are illustrative of what will often be best practices, how that applies to any given article or class of articles (or prolific bot operator) depends on the local consensus at that time, who is participating in the discussion on the talk pages (is anyone tendentious beyond all comprehension participating?), and what exactly MOS and/or MOSNUM are saying. The outcome of any given dispute can seemingly be randomly influenced depending on the pH of my pool. Certainly, what MOS and MOSNUM guidelines say is a big factor in persuading others who are weighing in on a discussion on whether to link something-or-other in Timbuktu; they can at times have a rule-like effect. This much is clear and that’s why we have editwarring on MOS when discussion breaks down and we start having editors claiming that their ideas have been anointed with the Holy Water of Truth as they battle bad and nefarious editors and override what can only be a false consensuses left and right.

So far we have PMA and Bluboar solidly establishing a splendid consensus of two. However, the enumerated principles seem wholly redundant and unnecessary to me given that Wikipedia couldn’t be clearer on this stuff. Moreover, most of we denizens of MOS have been on Wikipedia quite some while; this isn’t our first rodeo. Language like “It [MOS] occasionally recommends one style usage over others, but these recommendations should be seen as indicating a preference and not as a requirement,” when introduced at the very beginning of a fresh start tends to be perceived as a warning shot by holdouts across the bow of other ships in the harbor. It rather smacks of “If I don’t get MY©™® way, I reserve the right to do what I wanna do and let’s get that much really f*#king understood and memorialized up front.”

We all know what real-life import the guidelines on MOS have for articles notwithstanding that they are officially “suggestions.” That’s why we have some editors devoting half their waking life hammering away on their keyboards here on this talk page. If we are to make progress, I submit it is time for less posturing about the shape of the negotiating table for ending the Vietnam war and it is time to be more being specific about what you think needs improving on MOS. Greg L (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Greg, I agree with most of what you just said. The problem is that while we may understand that the MOS pages are intended to be "suggestions" and "advice as to best practice", there are editors out there who don't get that... there are editors who think the MOS is a set of rules that must be followed and enforced. The statements that I wrote (and PMA listed above) were intended to clarify and correct this misunderstanding. I think adding something like these statements to the policy would help make our intent clearer to readers. Blueboar (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
But those were totally lopsided statements, previously rejected, based on experience with what PMA is trying to do with them. If we change anything, it needs to be very clear that these suggestions are serious guidelines, and that when editors work to implement them, there would need to be a very good reason to push in a different direction. Dicklyon (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, PMA takes his four points from a suggestion I made in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposed new wording (above)... and while there were not many comments about it, the few comments that were made were mostly positive. I'm not sure where you get the idea that it was "previously rejected". Blueboar (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I interpreted Headbomb's "Way too watered down" as speaking for most MOS supporters. Dicklyon (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see ... I don't think that is a valid assumption. We should allow others to speak for themselves and not assume that one person speaks for everyone. Blueboar (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I second Headbomb. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2011 (UT)
Tnen that is the point on which we disagree, and on which most of Wikipedia disagrees with you. Please stop "enforcing"; this conversation should make clear that there is no consensus to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Could you remind me how you found a consensus against enforcing uncontroversial provisions, like uncapitalizing "summer" in most situations? I thought the objection was to edit warring over such minutia, not to correcting them once which seldom gets any complaints. Art LaPella (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Valid point. If you recommend that, more power to you; but do you need the mystic eminence of a Manual of Style for something so uncontroversial? Does anybody read, or use, the actually consensus points on this page?Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I was taught in school to uncapitalize "summer", but I wasn't taught to put dashes in ranges for instance, which you have endorsed. So I need the mystic eminence to distinguish that advice from the advice of many other self-appointed experts throughout Wikipedia. Few people read or use the Manual of Style, but in the context of "enforcing", the enforcer is ordinarily aware of many (but far from all!) controversial and uncontroversial points in the Manual of Style. Art LaPella (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I endorse dashing ranges because it appears to be well-sourced, and as a gesture of compromise. How much good that does you can see around you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, all I know is that I took a long hiatus from Wikipedia because of the snark factor. I think I've just come to accept that that's the way it is, and it's just going to stay that way because of the way the project is structured. I've made a few suggestions since I've returned -- not just on MOS; I'm not targeting anyone specific -- and they're frequently greeted with sarcasm, irritability, and an intense desire to follow the status quo. I also see that many other editors are frequently treated this way. So I think I'm going to retire from making suggestions, but if anyone would like feedback for an RfC, feel free to let me know.--Jp07 (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I would be disappointed indeed to see you, JP07, stay away from WT:MOS because of “snark factor.” If I have anything to do with it, a properly-arrived-at consensus will (once again) rule. Editors can “snark” up to a point, but if a general consensus can reasonably and clearly be discerned, and if that consensus view—for wikipedians experienced in this tradecraft—doesn’t induce shock & awe for violating now-established bedrock principals of technical writing now exercised on Wikipedia, then any and all tendentious and disruptive editors will be trampled under the hooves of progress like Messala in the chariot race in Ben Hur. Greg L (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what a snark is, and I don't have a chariot, but I have been known to revert with dismissive summary when an unsuspecting newbie messes us something against the advice of the MOS. I understand that I shouldn't do that, and I know others have done it, too. But these little behavior issues are not a reason to say just go ahead and ignore the MOS if you don't like it. We already know most editors ignore it; let's just focus on what advice to give, and also try to be nicer about how we encouraging following it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
If we restricted ourself to advice, and did not demand WP:FRINGE positions, it wouldn't be ignored anywhere near so much. Civility would help, but it is not the fundamental issue; this page does not persuade when consulted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I’m beginning to realize there is far too much “vortex phenomenon” surrounding PMA. If he has an observation or suggestion clearly intended to be helpful for a collaborative writing environment, great. If not, ignore him and move on. Greg L (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you agree with the statements above; you don't want this guideline to assert them, because I'm EEEevvvill. That makes as much sense as anything said in this debate. Since the question was what we agree upon, that was actually helpful.
Then we have Dicklyon, and possibly Headbomb, who disagree, on unstated grounds. They may indeed represent a vast majority of those who support the present text; it does seem to be supported by about three people. (We have a label for pages like that; we call them {{essay}}s.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I called you EEEevvvill?!? What the hell is wrong with you? There’s something about your style that creates a vortex surrounding you but it’s hard to put my finger on it. I could not possibly have been clearer about what I think about your little micro-RfC, above. Your cute little summary about what I supposedly believe (In other words, you agree with the statements above) will not bait me to further engage you. No wonder people get swept up in your wikidrama. Now…

Are you going to advance a specific suggestion on how to improve MOS and desist with your posturing and baiting about how you’ve been accused of being “EEEevvvill”? Yes or no?

Are you going to start abiding by the consensus view and stop being tendentious beyond all comprehension when the outcome is not to your liking? Yes or no? Greg L (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus on most of this page; there are a half-dozen editors who drive away all opposition to their views; they have most recently driven away Jp07. If calling propositions "wholly redundant and unnecessary given that Wikipedia could not be clearer" on something is disagreement, you have mastered the art of making words mean what you want them to mean; most people regard tautologies as truths. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Greg has a point. We should write and edit the MoS with the understanding that it will be interpreted as hard-and-fast rules by most Wikipedia editors. That means that when there is something that is a suggestion, that must be explicitly stated. That, I think, was the purpose of the disputed passage.
PMA, did you ask Jp07 why he/she left? (And DID he leave? It's a nice weekend; might've just gone fishing.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
This post seems clear enough that he is giving up this talk page, and perhaps others, and ceasing to pay attention to it, unless he is told an RfC on logical quotation is under way. I do not know whether he is leaving Wikipedia; I claimed only that he was driven away from this page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
He said his comments were "frequently greeted with sarcasm, irritability, and an intense desire to follow the status quo." But I don't see that happening here by your usual suspects, so who are you accusing when you say "there are a half-dozen editors who drive away all opposition to their views; they have most recently driven away Jp07"? Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Someone with "an intense desire to follow the status quo". From Jp07's point of view, after reviewing his recent contributions, I think I'm the most likely suspect, not half a dozen editors. Art LaPella (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Close, Darkfrog24, but not exact. I am saying that we don’t need to posture with a mini-RfC shot across the bow about a principal that is already clear as glass as to how guidelines are not officially binding. It says as much all over Wikipedia, including right at the top of MOS. So to start off a mini-RfC to drive home that point in half a dozen different ways smacks of posturing and pouting when it is so utterly unnecessary. What you did hit, right on target as regards my point, is that many readers interpret the guidelines as hard-and-fast rules. That’s fine; just as many editors couldn’t care less about what MOS says and will do their own thing.

More to the point (and more importantly) is MOS and MOSNUM are influential in forming the opinion of other wikipedians (the middle of the bell curve) who are busy debating what to do about various practices at various articles (and with bots) and the opinions of others are important because that establishes local consensuses. So let’s not play coy here and pretend that what is being debated on WT:MOS “are just a suggestions” because the guidelines we develop do have a real and meaningful influence on Wikipedia. We all know this (overtly or subliminally) and that’s precisely why there is so much conflict.

Two ways to reduce this conflict is by respecting a consensus (which means individuals must stop having so damned much self-esteme and conviction that they have cornered the market on Truth®™©), and by stop trying to invent house styles when the issue is well addressed by authoritative and widely observed manuals of style and/or highly respected print encyclopedias. Greg L (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I disagree with you on the part about the "suggestion/guideline" status of the MoS being "clear as glass." I feel that saying so straight out is merited. As for following reliable sources, I am right with you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Darkfrog24: Well, clear enough without saying “It’s all just suggestions you ought to ignore.” It reads The Manual of Style (often abbreviated MoS or MOS) is a style guide for Wikipedia articles that encourages editors to follow consistent usage and formatting. This main page contains basic principles. Nice and succinct. That seems like the ideal tone to strike in the lede. Further saddling it with It occasionally recommends one style usage over others, but these recommendations should be seen as indicating a preference and not as a requirement looks like poor form. I suggest everyone just make sure what is written here is good advise so we can all be satisfied with the existing caveat. As I mentioned before, arguing about the lede at this juncture is akin to arguing about the shape of a negotiating table: counterproductive. Greg L (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's another point we may agree on. Worth citing above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A whole article vs an article full of holes

So we have another new country in the world and those at the South Sudan Project, it would seem, are busy bringing South Sudan and related articles up to speed. Good on 'em. But I just went there (to the main article) and found a couple of empty sections (empty, that is of anything substantial, though there were the {{main}} and {{Expand section}} templates). I proceeded to fix this and in the process ran into a couple more of my pet peeves. JIMp talk·cont 07:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Empty sections

Pet peeve #1

Why do we have empty sections? If there's something to write, write it. Don't just slap a {{main}} there and expect readers to follow the link. Put some text there even if you just copy and paste the intro of the main article. If, on the other hand, there's nothing to write, write nothing. JIMp talk·cont 07:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A “perfect” article would contain no empty section, but I can see nothing wrong with using them as temporary place-holders in articles actively under construction. (But then, I sometimes remove or <!-- hide --> such sections if they are older than a couple of weeks.) ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 17:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Subtopic stubs

Pet peeve #2

So there I was ready to copy and paste a few details from the main articles. What I found, though, was that a good number of these so called main articles were tiny stubs, some hardly worth a section of their own. I mentioned this on the talk page suggesting some be merged (at least till there's something worth splitting). JIMp talk·cont 07:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 17:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Meaningless intros

Pet peeve #3

Some of these stubs had so little to say that the author(s) had to resort to writing an intro like "This article is about ..." Don't tells about the article, tells us about the topic. JIMp talk·cont 07:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

For peeves #1 and #2, as you said, its a new subject and the editors working on it are on fire. I think we should give this at least two weeks before we upgrade its threat status from peeve to problem.
For peeve #3, you are absolutely right. Dropping into each article's talk page and leaving an explanation and a link to WP:LEAD should do the trick. Want a hand? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Compromise on WP:REFPUNC?

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (footnotes)#Compromise on WP:REFPUNC? -- Jeandré, 2011-03-21t12:46z

12:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Alt attribute

Hi all

The last bulleted sentence in the images section reads:

  • "Images should have an alt attribute added to the |alt= parameter."

It is a little confusing as the alt attribute is indeed |alt= and would mean we get |alt=alt= ??

I believe it should probably read more like:

  • "Images should have the alt attribute |alt= added to the image parameters." or
  • "Images parameters should have an alt attribute added as the |alt= parameter."

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This is quote an important question, anybody not too busy on dashes, hyphens and commas to comment? Chaosdruid (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I got it before, but if you want to write it clearer go ahead.TCO (reviews needed) 14:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not want to write it any more clearly than I have already suggested, I just want someone to change it to "Images should have the alt attribute |alt= added to the image parameters." as it seems like no-one is objecting. They can even add "to prevent speech reader from reading out the file name." if they want
As we are not admins we cannot very well do it ourselves now, can we? If I could have, I already would have :¬) 19:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Dash confusion

Resolved

I can't make heads or tail out of the blur of words in the two sections above. There appears to be quite a bit of lecturing, and a bunch of arguing in response, but I don't see anything concrete. Cut to the chase: What's the actual proposal? In other words, what is going to change in the MoS?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Noetica's proposal is behind the green line with the {{show}} button, headed (with improper formatting) The proposal itself; Kotniski's proposal, amended by several hands, is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dash draft. As a procedural matter, putting a proposal at a subpage with a clearly marked link seems better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Translation

There was very little guidance for translators in the MoS, so I've added some recommendations in the article about Wikipedia:Translation. Please add links to it in section 1.4 (Clarity) and 1.5 (Global view).--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Alignment of images in lead

Can someone point me at any discussion that preceded this edit? It's a topic of disagreement at Talk:Joseph Priestley, and since that edit is being cited as a reason for the change at that page I'd like to understand how it came about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no good idea how that got in the MOS and I hate the rule-pushers, who don't look at how an article really serves a reader, but try to dictate some wiki-uniformity when they don't have the work ethic or brains to really try to layout content and think of readers in the abstract. All that said, I think the image works just ducky on the right side. I think the looking in or out of the page aspect is way over-rated in terms of how it really hits a reader and you should think more of the overall layout (where would you want the pic if you had no idea which way the fellow was looking). That said, if someone is pushing you to stick an infobox in that glorious article...I have your back. Also, there are a shitload of very important (even "vital") articles that can use real work and should be the attention of interlopers...rather than trying to barge in and start arguments on things where there is very evident care and effort going on already.TCO (reviews needed) 13:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Am curious how you find the diff where text changed. I have a little something that is bugging me wrt pushing of (extra) wikilinks in captions which makes no sense given we want clean unformatted prose and that within the rest of the article, we don't require repetition of wlinks.TCO (reviews needed) 13:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I linked to it from the discussion in question (which does not feature "interlopers" trying to force rules down people's throats as so casually implied above; most parties involved have been involved in this particular discussion for two years). Odd that you would claim to have "no good idea how that got in the MOS" when you were directly involved in the last thread discussing the matter before it was changed, TCO. FYI Mike, there have been at least two discussions since that change which reference it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A. I'm very capable of forgetting a thread from December, Chris! Although I think if you read the content of my remarks, my views have not evolved much (although sometimes they may). B. I don't see how I am supposed to connect that thread to a certain change in the MOS (don't see the wording mentioned or me opining on it. C. Both versions to my quick read seem pretty similar and besides I don't see where infoboxes were mentioned in the thread you have me in in December. D. I am still interested technically in how we track down "when the text changed". E. I'm concerned after seeing you nominate a bunch of templates for deletion because you disagreed with their style (and got roundly defeated btw) that you are trying to "work the system" or get things in "policy" to support your style views. I'm sure you are a good guy or think you are a good guy (AGF, blabla), but maybe take a step back and consider how much you are helping build things versus how much having Internet battles you try to win.TCO (reviews needed) 15:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This section used to say that the guidance for images was a bunch of desirable things which might not all be possible. That is what common sense should still say; always ignore the rules when they inconvenience an article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

And/or, etc.

I heartily applaud your objective of encouraging clarity by discouraging use of the slash ( / ) to indicate a relationship or choice between two (or even more) words. Although the slash long ago became accepted by U.S. dictionaries as a legitimate punctuation mark, particularly in the increasingly ubiquitous and/or, this construction is all too often a mark of lazy and/or sloppy writing, in which the writer isn't willing/is too lazy to make up his/her mind ;-) —or, worse still, simply doesn't know exactly what he means. (BTW, among the few in the U.S. who even know the slash has a formal name, it's probably more often called a virgule instead of a solidus.)

One possible exception where there seems to be little ambiguity: in legal documents in the U.S., and/or seems to be generally accepted as meaning "either one, or the other, or both," with little confusion.

And while I agree in general that "sometimes or is ambiguous in another way," I don't think your example, "wild dogs, or dingoes, inhab it this stretch of land," is a particularly good one. At least in U.S. usage, the commas around "or dingoes" clearly set it off as an appositive a parenthetical alternative for wild dogs in this case, with no ambiguity or confusion—at least among those who are reasonably literate in the proper use of commas. Unfortunately, although I've seen much clearer examples of your point, I can't think of or find one right now. I'll try to find one. --Jackftwist (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

[Addendum: I amended my misuse of the term appositive above. --Jackftwist (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)]
Good comments, Jack. Now, "wild dogs" and "dingoes" are sometimes taken as equivalent, sometimes not. I take your point: with commas, the sentence might most naturally be taken to mean that dingoes are wild dogs. But this cannot be guaranteed, and there are respectable cases in which the commas would serve merely to distance the genuine alternative scenario from the main assertion. Wild dogsDingoes might have been mentioned as a distinct class, and here be mentioned again as possible inhabitants of the stretch of land; the writer thinks it less likely, and marks it as a secondary hypothesis between commas. You see? Sometimes context will diminish the problem, other times context will worsen it. The reader is the expert on when to get confused! Writers can be relied on not to predict such misreadings; so alternatives more immune to misreading are proposed. NoeticaTea? 00:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn’t “wild dogs (dingoes), inhabit this stretch of land” resolve the ambiguity?
As nearly as I can tell, “and/or” is now almost universally deprecated, even by lawyers who sometimes use it. It certainly finds no support in Garner’s Modern Legal Usage, which recommends “this, the other, or both”—as do many others. JeffConrad (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Jeff, of course "wild dogs (dingoes) inhabit this stretch of land" (omitting your comma!) would resolve the ambiguity in one direction. That's exactly what the current guideline proposes.
(I have amended my text above; I don't think my inadvertence affects this present point directly.)
NoeticaTea? 02:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Don’t OUP use the serial comma even when there is no series ;-)? I was just sayin’ . . . my response was more at the deprecation, which goes back at least to MEUF. Fowler seemed to reluctantly tolerate it in legal documents; were he alive today, I’m sure he would not.
Another alternative when there are more than two items: “x, y, z, or combination thereof.” JeffConrad (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Again Jeff, a glance at the current guideline shows that this sort of thing is covered: "Instead of x, y, and/or z, use an appropriate alternative, such as one or more of x, y, and z; some or all of x, y, and z." Personally I find those preferable to "combination thereof", which gets a nod from the wording "such as", anyway. If you think differently, take it further. Myself, I'm happy with the guideline as it stands, except that I would make this change: "With two possibilities, at least the intention ismay be clear; ...". That's more accurate. In fact "and/or" normally does cover the intention (on the default assumption of an inclusive reading for "or"), but with noisome breadth and redundancy. In practice, "and" or "or" alone will usually express the intention better.
NoeticaTea? 03:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
"and/or" means "and or or", which is equivalent to "or" in Boolean logic, which is one of the first things one learns when learning computer programming, which seems thousands of times simpler than the rest of the megabyte-plus unreadable Manual of Style. "X, Y, or both" strikes me as harder to understand than "X and/or Y" when X and Y are 20 words each. But apparently style manuals are united that "and/or" is too complicated. So whatever ... Art LaPella (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Art, the meaning depends on the audience. If we are to believe Garner (a lawyer), the courts have interpreted “and/or” to mean “one or the other or both”, which is essentially the same as the MOS. A quick perusal suggests that the phrase isn’t quite as deprecated as I had thought, but it finds no support in S&W, MEUF, GMAU, CMOS, and only the most tepid support in TCS; Fowler and Garner are especially hard in rejecting it; MWEU, a more descriptive guide, is more tolerant. MWEU and A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage caution that courts have made varying interpretations, and the latter cites two appellate cases in which each of three judges on the panel arrived at different interpretations.
We’re all creatures of habit, and my preference for rewording probably stems from that. JeffConrad (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
8-O I'm gonna take a look at that... What else could and/or possibly be taken to mean? ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 12:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Noetica, I was just mentioning a possible additional alternative from Form and Style for ASTM Standards that I’ve used for years (this time, I actually looked at the MOS before commenting . . .); I think the current wording for more than two is fine, and we probably don′t need any more suggestions. JeffConrad (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
In sum, we seem to agree that there is no big problem with the guideline for "and/or". Art, yes: of course the explicit "or", if it is read as a default inclusive "or", covers the case of "and". The implicit "or", suggested by the "/", is more interesting. People say "and/or" rather than simply "or" not because of the strict meaning, but rather because of the implicature involved. In other words, the implicit "or" is metalinguistic. The speaker is unsure whether saying "and" or saying "or" would be optimal in the circumstances, and therefore hedges. One plausible paraphrase for some particular utterance of "A and/or B", in which the implicature is forced down into the strict meaning (and keeping the explicit "or" inclusive):

"I am not certain whether it would be better for me to say 'A and B' or 'A or B'. I'm sure that 'A or B' is true, because I'm sure that even if A is false, B is still true, and vice versa; but I'm not sure about 'A and B'. So I should be asserting 'A or B' or I should be asserting 'A and B'; and I'm not going to work hard to determine which."

I leave as an exercise the question whether that metalinguistic "or" is best understood as exclusive or inclusive.
As a harder question, what is the paraphrase of a similar utterance of "A and/or B", in which the explicit "or" is taken as exclusive?
NoeticaTea? 10:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Obligatory Language Log link: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=52 (as well as the one it links to, and the one that one in turn links to). ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 12:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I started to compose an answer, but A. di M.'s link covers it. Art LaPella (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not very fond of wild dogs (dingoes) inhabit this stretch of land – I'd prefer wild dogs, also known as dingoes, inhabit. (In some contexts, the former might be taken to mean that wild dogs are a subset of dingoes: cf. a beam of muons (unstable elementary particles) is produced which doesn't mean that all unstable elementary particles are muons.) ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 12:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Jack, the answer is simple. If the wild dogs, dingoes, example isn't good enough, suggest a better one. That's the advantage of an electronic MoS. Even when it's already all right, it can be improved easily. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Darkfrog, as I confessed above, my memory fails me. I can't think of any of the good examples I've seen, and I haven't been able to construct one myself. (I'm often not very good at the latter. Mea maxima culpa.) But as the extensive discussion above illustrates quite clearly IMHO, the wild dogs/dingoes example is open to a number of differing interpretations. More later. --Jackftwist (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Further thoughts and/or musings

{Sound of Jack sighing.} Yet another example of the "Law of Unintended Consequences": what I originally intended as merely a compliment and a request for clarification of an example spawned a discussion that runs for 4 pages in a MS Word document (Arial 10-pt. font, narrow margins, 8.5"×11" page), all within 15 hours of the original post! (You'd think this was a discussion board on the issue of whether the U.S. deficit ceiling should be raised.)

But on the plus side, the "Wisdom of the crowd" has yielded some noteworthy insights on this admittedly minor, pedantic topic, but the various comments have pointed out potential ambiguities in almost all of the suggested constructions. On the other hand, Noetica says, ' "wild dogs" and "dingoes" are sometimes taken as equivalent, sometimes not.' (His user page seems to imply he's Australian, so I guess he should know, because according to MWC9, "dingo" is an Aussie word.) That adds still another level of ambiguity to an example that's already confusing!

IMO, it would be clearer to illustrate how or can sometimes be ambiguous if the example were one where one alternative is unequivocally correct. Assuming for the purpose of illustration that dingoes and wild dogs are identical (that is, neither one is a subset of the other), something along the lines of A. di M.'s suggestion seems clearest: "Wild dogs, also known as dingoes, inhabit...." Unfortunately, this is somewhat wordier, but clarity and brevity are sometimes incompatible.

I still haven't been able to find the example I mentioned in my original post. I've reviewed several of the usual suspects (S&W, MEUF, MAU, etc.), but to no avail. It may well have been in one of the (many) WP tutorials or essays on effective writing where I saw the example(s) I'm thinking of.

Jeff, I readily yield to your superior command of the use of and/or in legal contexts! Thanks for correcting me on that. (Note how carefully I hedged that statement, contrary to WP writing guidelines: "One possible exception where there seems to be little ambiguity....") --Jackftwist (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Jack, I am indeed Australian (how shrewd of you to work that out from the hint at my talkpage!); and it is indeed true that dingo and wild dog have been used to refer to the same animals. Only rarely these days, I think: but still the distinction is blurry, and it is still unclear what the relations are between the two terms. As placental mammals, dingoes are not anciently native to Australia; they of the same species as domestic dogs (Canis lupus), with which they have interbred for two centuries at least. And domestic dogs can stray, and become "wild dogs". See also how wild dog is used at the article Dingo. I don't think that such linguistic background knowledge is needed for the example to be useful. Do you? You might even be at an advantage if you had never encountered dingo before; and Australians too can be unsure what the writer intends by wild dog. It would depend on the context and the register, and the period and ultimately the idiolect of the writer.
Since we're having such fun quibbling, I'll remark on this (with italics removed):

Assuming for the purpose of illustration that dingoes and wild dogs are identical (that is, neither one is a subset of the other), ...

I wonder about your use of that is. Let's work symbolically, for generality; and let's be clearer that we are discussing sets, not individuals. Instead of "the set of dingoes" and "the set of wild dogs", let's have "D" and "W". So what you write becomes, with further trimming and fixing:

Assuming that D and W are identical (that is, D is not a subset of W and W is not a subset of D), ...

A problem. "D and W are identical" is inconsistent with "D is not a subset of W and W is not a subset of D". Every set is a subset of itself: A (which is identical to A) is a subset of A. So let's instead speak of proper subsets (no set is a proper subset of itself):

Assuming that D and W are identical (that is, D is not a proper subset of W and W is not a proper subset of D), ...

Still a problem. If D and W are disjoint sets (they have no common member) or overlapping sets, then "D is not a proper subset of W and W is not a proper subset of D" is true, but "D and W are identical" is false. So what does that is mean? I had thought most people use that is to mean "which is to say the same as" (choose what paraphrase you will), or perhaps "and furthermore". But you seem to have it meaning "and also, as a trivial consequence"; it is trivial and unhelpful because disjoint sets and overlapping sets also satisfy the longer criterion. Two examples that we might think odd:

Assuming that bees and camels are identical (that is, neither one is a subset of the other), ...
[Disjoint sets; neither is a subset of the other.]

Assuming that felines and pets are identical (that is, neither one is a subset of the other), ...
[Overlapping sets; neither is a subset of the other.]

Clearly we need a section on that is in WP:MOS.
 
NoeticaTea? 02:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC: Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

Resolved
 – NoeticaTea? 08:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The proposal in this widely advertised RFC has received solid support. There have been only 2 votes against, arguing 1) that the initiative would not be worth the effort, and 2) that WP:ACCESS should not be a part of the Manual of Style – a matter that may be pursued independently. There have been 21 support votes. Discussion should therefore focus on implementation, to be followed by action. NoeticaTea? 08:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS) has one central page (Wikipedia:Manual of Style, or WP:MOS). But there are other pages: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Hawaii-related articles), and many more.

Should all of those other pages be moved so that they are subpages of Wikipedia:Manual of Style? An example, after the proposed change: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles. The question has come up at the central talkpage (WT:MOS). This would be a large structural change; so it needs thorough examination with wide participation from the Community.

NOTE: The RFC remains open, but there is now a new section on the page:
Subpage structure for the Manual of Style: implementation.
Submissions are requested there also.

[Added 04:43, June 23, 2011 (UTC).]


NoeticaTea? 03:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Resources for this RFC

[Editors, please add to or improve this Resources subsection]

Summary of the case for subpages

[Editors who support the change, please develop a consensual case for it here]

  • There are very many pages in the Manual of Style, making it extremely difficult to find or survey particular guidelines – to consult them, let alone edit them. Even with tailored search options that we now have (see at the right side of WP:MOS), it is hard to find everything one needs, or to know where to contribute in talkpages.
  • Making all subsidiary pages strict subpages of WP:MOS has technical advantages. For example, with subpages it is much easier to find text using Google's highly refined searches. At present this can only be achieved in a limited and unreliable way using a combination of Google (or other external search facilities) and Wikipedia's internal search utility.
  • The change would capitalise on the underlying file structure. Just one simple example: it automatically provides a link at the top of each subpage back to WP:MOS itself – helping everyone, especially editors unfamiliar with the workings of the Manual of Style.
  • The use of subpages in WP project pages is permitted by WP:Subpages, and subpages are already used successfully in the RfC pages, Arbitration pages, and Reference Desk pages.
  • The unmonitored spread of guidelines can be efficiently checked in the course of this structural reform. See discussion of implementation, below on this page.
  • The implementation will provide an opportunity to review and refactor existing subpages (old drafts, misplaced discussions, surveys, or disused extensions of MOS pages). They can be relocated appropriately, by consultation. This will keep the overall structure rational and clear. Searches currently pick up material from those non-guidelines; in the new structure, they would not.

Summary of the case against subpages

[Editors who oppose the change, please develop a consensual case against it here]

  • The convention established in WP article space is that subpages are prohibited. The primary reason is that many pages belong to two or more categories, and hence multiple "parent pages" exist for any given article. The article space relies on (in lieu of subpages) Categories, Lists, and NavBoxes to implement hierarchical organization. WP project pages should conform to that convention (prohibiting subpages) for the sake of consistency throughout WP.
  • Unlike navigation by template, navigation by subpage will mean that rejected, proposed, and {{historic}}, pages will be a permanent part of this structure. For example, without subpages, if Wikipedia:Manual of Style (national varieties of English) is rejected, we take it out of the navbox and forget about it. With subpages, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (national varieties of English) will be permanently found on any search of subpages, forever more. There are already approximately 25 such rejected/proposed/historic MOS pages.

Votes for subpages

[Just single-paragraph posts here, numbered with "#"; discussion and replies below, not here]

  1. Support as RFC proposer (acting on the initiative of User:Mclay1). NoeticaTea? 04:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. Support. WP's software provides for a hierarchy of pages, and the MOS structure is a natural fit for that. The breadcrumb at the top of each sub-page makes for a more consistent navigational aid. WP:Reference desk uses the mechanism well, and as long as we don't use a forward-slash in any sub-page name, I don't have a problem with the MOS using sub-pages. GFHandel ♬  04:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  3. Support as original proposer. Renaming to the standard format of sub-pages will provide a nagivational link back to the main MOS page at the top and has no drawbacks. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  4. Support. Per GFHandel. Having thought about it for a while, I see significant advantages. The MoS subpages tend to be sprawling and poorly coordinated, and we owe editors and readers better. Tony (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  5. Support: McLerristarr | Mclay1 above took the words right out of my mouth. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  6. Support. Per discussion below (under NavBox topic). WP project space already does use subpages for RFC, etc, and it is useful. --Noleander (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  7. Support absolutely, as I've said prior to this. There are a ton of benefits to organizing these pages in a manner in which the MediaWiki software is able to recognize them as sub-pages to the main MoS page.— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  8. Support - I proposed it a while ago, and my reasoning can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 50#Move all Wikipedia: namespace pages in (disambiguation) format to /subpage format. There was a small consensus, but I guess I got bored or distracted. I would really love to see this happen. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  9. Support per what I said the last time. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 16:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  10. Why not? Although Special:PrefixIndex works either way. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  11. Support - Better search suggestions in search box. Marcus Qwertyus 04:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  12. Sure If someone wishes to make these changes... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  13. Yes, sure, fine, sounds reasonable. Herostratus (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  14. Yes, please. Imho this is a great idea, for the reasons laid out above, and also because even though it may seem like just a technicality, I'm convinced that having the subguidelines as subpages would automatically translate into greater efforts of streamlining it into one coherent guideline system (which it still isn't, quite), and an overall much less scattered perception. --87.79.230.11 (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  15. Support, as it will make it easier to browse the manual of style sub-pages. Thus improving usability. Dodoïste (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  16. Week support. Not a huge change and I'm quite partial to it; but the positives (which over-exaggerate search benefits) seem to slightly outweigh the negatives (which over-exaggerate the impairments from confusion). I guess WP won't fall apart either way, but having sub-pages is a little neater. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  17. Support. Guidance has grown like a coral. A good review is needed so it can be made coherent and easier to access for users. Lightmouse (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  18. Support Greg L (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  19. Support —James (Talk • Contribs) • 3:16pm • 05:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  20. Support. A sensible fix. Neutralitytalk 22:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  21. Support. Seems like a better way to keep things in order. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Votes against subpages

[Just single-paragraph posts here, numbered with "#"; discussion and replies below, not here]

  • Is it really any easier to manage or find text in subpages than it is the current way? Explain and I'll reconsider. Probably this all came out in the previous discussion, but I wasn't following it; someone needs to make a more convincing case before I would support such a disruptive change. Surely having a link back to the main page is easy to implement in the current scheme, without this change. OK, I'm semi-convinced that it might help, so I withdraw my vote against. Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I sympathize with the proposal: I've been lost in MOS hell, stumbling around in a maze, annoyed and confused. Reform is sorely needed. But - speaking as a WP user - I expect important pages to have NavBoxes at the top, and I expect those NavBoxes to contain a comprehensive list of all related articles. A hierarchy can be clearly shown in the NavBox. We even have a format choice of either upper-right corner, or a full-width Navbox (such as at the top of WP:AN). The current MOS NavBox is (no offense to those who have worked on it) could be improved quite a bit. Shouldn't we work on improving the NavBox first and see if it can address the needs? And if it fails, then resort to subpages? Following a discussion (below) I've become convinced that the subpages may provide some searching benefits; plus the hierarchical organization is a natural way to organize data, so I'm withdrawing my Opposition. --Noleander (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. Can see no practical benefit: surely vast majority of navigation is by links, searches and categories, not by guessing an address to type into address box. Probably little real harm in it, just seems pointless. Kevin McE (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. The Manual of Style, in spite of what I think of it in practise, is perfectly titled. It's compiled in the wiki-equivalent of an instruction manual, and is intended to increase internal stylistic consistency. But there is one page that does not fit under that umbrella. WP:ACCESS is primarily focussed on making sure we don't discriminate against the visually impaired; to treat, or give the impression that it should be treated as supplimentary stylistic guideline would be entirely wrong. Equally significantly, ACCESS itself being the trunk of a hierarchal structure makes a lot of sense: the trunk itself should be easy for a novice to understand, and where appropriate there should be more detailed how-to subpages, such as the data table tutorial. There are several other pages that could be consolidated into ACCESS subpages, if that's the direction of travel. If this does go ahead – and I certainly see the overall merit – ACCESS should be removed from the MoS, and revert to being a stand-alone guideline. —WFC— 16:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutral statements

[Just single-paragraph posts here, numbered with "#"; discussion and replies below, not here]

  1. Haven't really thought it through and have no strong opinion. Will let you all decide. I thnk my only take was to have subpages of article space content (as daughter articles feel too disconnected from mother articles...and the rest of the web has subpages of content...look at any corporate site). That said there were arguments that a daughter might have two mothers or whatever...plus I guess wiki is harder to be structured with than a thought out integrated website.TCO (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. Perhaps this is addressed somewhere in the voluminous discourse, but I think what a fuller reorganization is needed more than simply moving pages about. 1) I have no objection in principle to the core MOS pages being moved to be sub-pages of MOS. 2) I think there are many specialized MOS pages where the scope is limited to articles within the purview of a Wikiproject. I think this pages should be considered as supporting documentation for that Wikiproject rather than subpages of the core MOS. A consistent naming convention for such project-specific style guides might help to clarify both the scope of application and the relation with the core MOS (i.e., in cases of conflict , the core MOS takes precedence). older ≠ wiser 00:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  3. My only concern is that we not try to shoehorn a "one size fits all" approach to every disparate subject. From archaeology to comic books to Olympic swimming to what-have-you, I believe we need to retain the flexibility that we now have to address the unique specifics of each general topic.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  4. It really doesn't matter... (Also, there's an identical issue with notability guidelines, for what it's worth.) ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 13:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  5. Why not? In fact, since these pages don't follow any of the other customs of Wikipedia space, give them a separate MOS namespace - it will make it even easier to know what to ignore. Making it easier for careless dogmatists to watch these pages would ordinarily be a disadvantage; but with luck this will make MOS even less functional; and so less harmful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  6. I'm tending towards older/wiser and Tenebrae's comments 2 and 3 above. Something like Text Formatting or Dates & Numbers is really part of the M of S's core, and you'll often find similar clusters of editors discussing them, so it's probably best to make them slashed sub-pages. Even though different editors discuss Accessibility, that's also a core topic that might benefit from being attached as a sub-page [perhaps then more editors will pay it heed when it raises important points, and point out where it's unlikely to be followed for practical reasons]. Style guides for things like naval topics, heraldry & vexillology, railways, royal & noble titles, comic books, Hawai'i, and French-related articles, on the other hand, inhabit a kind of limbo between general style guidance and the WikiProjects to which they're most closely allied. While I'm not sure what convention or even category would best suit them, I'm leaning against making them subpages of an already-huge set of general guidelines. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  7. MediaWiki pages are organized based on a flat hierarchy, though it has the functionality (via features such as Special:PrefixIndex) to organize pages as anything except. However, I won't complain if it ultimately serves as a better method of organization, so I'm not going to oppose at this time. –MuZemike 04:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion and replies

[Editors, confine discussion to this subsection, please]

Dicklyon, how is moving the pages disruptive? We're not going to delete the resultant redirects so no links will be broken. Can you actually see any drawbacks to this move or are just opposing it because you don't see enough positives? McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe disruption is the wrong way to characterize it. It seems like a lot of work and churn. So explain what it buys us. Dicklyon (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

[Wavelength's very useful list of earlier discussion is a resource for this RFC, so I have moved it into a new navbox next to the list of affected pages. I hope no one minds. NoeticaTea? 01:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)]

Is that list intended as an alternative to summarizing the case above? Doesn't work for me. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
For clarity, I am revising my (unindented) message of 19:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC).—Wavelength (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an extract of what I said at User talk:Wavelength/Archive 3#Hi—WT:MOS/x and WT:MOS(x) (section 25) [I modified the reference to the location.–Noetica].

The "Wikipedia talk" namespace has many pages beginning with "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (". Apparently some of those are subpages of "Wikipedia talk" pages, whereas others are talk pages of "Wikipedia" subpages.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Noetica, I wish that I could be more definite about supporting your proposal, but the time that I have spent in pondering it has not fully cleared away my uncertainties about all the ramifications. Nevertheless, if one or more of the supporters is or are prepared to move (rename) all of the pages (including talk pages) affected by a supportive decision, and to update all incoming links to those pages (except those on archived talk pages), then I have no objection to the changes. Therefore, I am abstaining from expressing either support or opposition. Please consider the (possible) ramifications of the extract which I posted in my message of 15:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC). Also, what counts as consensus remains to be seen.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Heavens, that's all right! Who knows? I might change my mind also. But so far just new benefits from this idea keep occurring to me. I intend to say more later on; I'm too busy to give it my full attention right now. NoeticaTea? 01:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any mechanism that makes subpages easier to find than what we have now? Something like a dir (ls) command? Dicklyon (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorta kinda, apparently; prefix:WP:Manual of Style/ seems to do it. If the Search box had a nearby Help link, one would not need to guess at Help:Searching or Help:Search to find the search help. This would seem an easy thing to add . . . It’s hard to say how much of an advantage this would be over prefix:WP:Manual of Style with the current setup, but it’s hard to see how it would make things harder—hierarchical namespaces seem to have proven more effective than linear namespaces in many applications. JeffConrad (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
And I'm not saying it makes things harder; I just don't see how it makes things any easier. It's not different from a linear namespace if that's all the mechanism we have. Hierarchies are better when there are tools for navigating them. Where's the Finder? Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Finder??? Wikipedia is not a Mac . . . I’m not sure the hierarchical namespace would make things easier to find via search, but it could make things easier for those who maintain the files. One of the great features of Unix (which actually runs Macs) was the hierarchical file system, copied by most OSs that still survive. I could scarcely imagine trying to keep track of files on my computer with a linear namespace. I’ve avoided comment on this so far because I haven’t been following the discussion, and recognize that a little knowledge can be dangerous. JeffConrad (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sufficiently familiar with the Wikipedia MOS to make specific suggestions, but I am, however, very familiar with the Associated Press Stylebook, and I think they've established an effective organizational system in their MOS for journalists, and this stylebook has pretty much become the industry standard for journalism. I believe they also have electronic/web/iPhone editions. It might be appropriate to look to these for ideas on organization. --Jp07 (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a list (from here) of subpages of talk pages in a form similar to that of talk pages of subpages.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

How searching would be improved with subpages

Let's suppose I want to find guidelines that mention hard spaces; so I set out to search with this string (just to pick one way, not the best!):
"hard space" OR "&nbsp;" OR "nonbreaking space" OR "non-breaking"
How do I get all the guidelines I'm after? Let's try four ways:
Results like this weigh heavily in favour of our proposed restructuring. If all of the Manual of Style were in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style or a subpage of that, a Google search would retrieve all the target guidelines. (I would also want all the present overgrowth of subpages moved aside, so that only actual style pages were subpages of WP:MOS.) At present, all the guidelines dealing with hard spaces can be found only by painstaking and error-prone composite searching. What's more, Google searches are far more powerful than internal Wikipedia searches in other ways, beyond what we can explore here.
So the proposed change would make development far easier; and we could customise far better search boxes for users wanting to consult the Manual than we can now. If that involves using Google, so be it. In any case, it's time we recognised the larger potential of Wikipedia's style guidelines. They are useful (and beginning to be used) offsite as well. Google already loves Wikipedia! Let's harness Google to be an even better resource for retrieving material on Wikipedia.
I may have missed something; and my searches might be inept! But in that case, searching currently requires considerable sophistication. Under the proposed change, it would not. All of the above applies (with changed details) to Manual of Style talkpages too. Subpages, properly regimented, would make it much easier to track down previous discussion, no matter what corner of what talkpage or archive it might have fallen into – without false positive hits.
NoeticaTea? 10:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Were I doing such a search with Unix-like utilities, I would probably try something like
grep -lE "(hard space|&nbsp;|nonbreaking space|non-breaking)" Manual_of_Style/*
More complex approaches could be used for more complex directory hierarchies if the volume of data was sufficient to warrant the added complexity. Knowing nothing about the internals of the wiki search engine, I’m reluctant to suggest that this example is directly applicable, but it does seem reasonable.
Ultimately, it’s a matter of what is required to find the desired information. That several of us with considerable experience on Wikipedia have had to think about this suggests that it’s just too darn hard to find many things, including help and general policies as well as items in the MOS. If it’s challenging for veterans, imagine what it’s like for newbies. Reorganization of the MOS hierarchy may be only one part of a possible solution, but if it really would make a significant improvement, it’s something that can be done without much help from others (e.g., changes to mediaWiki). JeffConrad (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Question Under the current categories I can't see any MoS which is in two categories, however what would happen if such a situation was to arise? Gnevin (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Above, I make the argument that the MOS Navbox Template:Style could be vastly improved, and would help address some of the concerns that gave rise to this proposal. I'm willing to make some of the improvements to the NavBox. But, I'd also like to hear from the "supporters": What issues will a great NavBox not resolve? In other words, assuming that the MOS NavBox and MOS Categories were excellent in their design and scope, what benefits - if any - would subpages bring to readers? --Noleander (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI: I've solicited comments at the template Talk page regarding the proposal to add more detail/depth to the MOS NavBox. --Noleander (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Good that you've joined the discussion, Noleander. I've explored your draft of an improved template. Just now I can't see how it conflicts with the RFC proposal here. Wouldn't these reforms work well together? The conversion to subpages is a partial solution, enabling efficient and rational searches. But so, I think, is what you put forward just a partial solution, addressing a different feature of a complex problem (with no improvement toward rationalising searches, per se). Is it just that you prefer consideration of one idea at a time, or is there some other reason for your present opposition? I'm inclined to support both initiatives. NoeticaTea? 22:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps the two proposals (NavBox expansion & supages) would work well together. It may be that they are entirely orthogonal and complementary. To be candid: I'm a bit fuzzy on the search benefits that the subpage proposal provides (I read some of the search examples above, but I could not see the point the examples were making). Can you (or anyone) provide a very specific example of how the subpages would improve the search capability for a typical user? (a user that is not a black-belt in search syntax). After I get clarity, I may retract my "Oppose" !vote. --Noleander (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces.
—Wavelength (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've struck-out my Oppose !vote. My final comment is: If this is implemented, it should be widely publicized at the Village Pump, etc so that others could consider implementing it in other realms within WP (e.g. the naming conventions articles). Consistency is a good thing, and it's just not right for a couple of areas to use subpages (Reference desk & MOS) and others to not use it. --Noleander (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Subpages of project pages are already widely implemented (Wikipedia:Subpages) and widely known (http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Wikipedia:Subpages).
—Wavelength (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that link ... I see that now (for instance, specific RfC subgroups are subpages of the main RfC page, as in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography). But subpages are prohibited in article space, so they are a bit alien to many editors: it is a bit peculiar that they are prohibited in article space, but permitted in project space: but I can see the reasoning (the key distinction is that many articles belong in 2 or more hierarchies, but project pages often belong to just one). In any case, I like hierarchical organizations, and using subpages for MOS is sensible. --Noleander (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine, Noleander. I hope you will stay with this and contribute as we proceed. I want to look at your work on the template; it seems that several coordinated efforts are best. Somehow we have to manage this inevitable spread of guidelines – for those developing them as well as for those using them. See the list of affected pages (in a navbox above). Even that took some work to establish. We cannot easily be sure that it covers all pages of interest, or when new pages will need to be added to to it.

Now, are you inclined to modify the "Case against", since your change of heart? I suppose it could stay, until someone opposing comes along and works on it. (You might consider a support vote, of course ☺.) NoeticaTea? 00:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder: I've rewritten the "Case against" to capture the only sensible argument against I can think of ... mostly for the sake of justice and balance :-) But I do support it, and will so !vote. Indpendently, the MOS Navbox improvement is still a good idea, and (baring any objections) I'll implement that in a day or two. --Noleander (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In his vote against subpages, Kevin McE said the following.

Can see no practical benefit: surely vast majority of navigation is by links, searches and categories, not by guessing an address to type into address box. Probably little real harm in it, just seems pointless.

As I understand the proposal, it does not require "guessing an address to type into address box". [sic] However, one who knows the name of a subpage could add to what is already in the address box, for example, by adding /dates and numbers to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and producing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/dates and numbers. That option constitutes one more benefit to from the proposal proposed changes.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
[I am changing "to" to "from" and "proposal" to "proposed changes".—Wavelength (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)]
Technically, spaces are converted to underscores in the address bar, but the procedure can be used for navigation.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we have a new namespace? MOS:Chemistry for example. The Chemistry MOS has numerous sub-pages already, and it seems a mouthful to have WP:MOS/Chemistry/Compound classes [18], for example. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Rifleman, the issue of what to do about "legacy" structuring, such as the Chemistry MOS subpages you mention, would be better dealt with in Implementation, below. The reworking will have to take account of all such local solutions, in setting up an overall structure that can be navigated and searched by all. There are probably lessons to learn from what editors have done before. I note that some of the Chemistry subpages are genuine components of that MOS; but some of them are mere drafts, right? That may need sorting out, for reliable searching at least. NoeticaTea? 04:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. To my knowledge, only Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/Elements/draft is a draft. We never got around to integrating WP:ELEMENTS' work. All the other level 1 subpages have been discussed and ratified by the current members of WP Chemistry/Chemicals before going live. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments on neutral statements

Here are some remarks about neutral statements (see above) made so far. I hope this will encourage others to address them if they see the need. In some cases we can clear up misconceptions, or answer the inevitable concerns that have arisen. I would like to thank the editors for their generally constructive observations; we do need to take note of them. NoeticaTea? 04:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

On Statement 1

TCO seems to favour this sort of exercise, but expresses some general reservations about the details of the structure. I think we have to get on with filling out the details (see Implementation, below), so that such concerns can be allayed. NoeticaTea? 04:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

On Statement 2

Older ≠ wiser wants "a fuller reorganization [...] than simply moving pages about", and fills in some details, while thinking that "perhaps this is addressed somewhere in the voluminous discourse." I think it is addressed to some extent. We certainly need to keep our dialogue clearly signposted, so newcomers can follow the trend. The need for some sort of hierarchy is noted; but I would add that nothing in this proposal seeks to overwhelm or diminish the needs of special areas. It's basically a very rational restructuring, one of whose benefits is that we can harmonise existing guidelines for the Project. Harmony is not hegemony! NoeticaTea? 04:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

On Statement 3

Tenebrae raises a similar and perfectly understandable concern: "that we not try to shoehorn a 'one size fits all' approach to every disparate subject". Again I would stress that the aim is to restructure, rationalise, and review. Many editors are worried about the unmanaged spread of guidelines; some speak of "instruction creep". They can be reassured that this initiative will counter that tendency, if we keep focused as we proceed. NoeticaTea? 04:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

On Statement 4

TreasuryTag reminds editors that "it really doesn't matter." Myself, I will concede that the heat death of the universe is a larger problem; but we must choose our battles, right? Enough people can see the merit of this restructuring for us to take it seriously – and to spend time getting it right. NoeticaTea? 04:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

On Statement 5

[I am reluctant to deal with this statement, which I fear does not indicate good will toward the work of editors at this page.] NoeticaTea? 04:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

On Statement 6

Shakescene resumes some themes from 2 and 3. At least initially, though, the pages targeted are the 57 advertising themselves as part of the Manual of Style (see the left column of the Links to 82 affected pages). There are further questions about the rest, and about naming conventions for example. I think the restructure provides an opportunity to examine these issues progressively and methodically, with the fullest consultation. Sure, some pages will clearly cohere, and make up the Manual of Style; and the Manual should be rationally organised and consistent. That does not deprive special areas of their special provisions; nor does it deny non-Manual pages their own role in the Project. NoeticaTea? 04:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Procedural points

[Refactoring points, and any other matters of procedure, here please]

As proposer of this RFC I have refactored subsections for clarity and order. And I have moved material – putting some into well-labelled navboxes where this will keep things readable, especially for anyone coming new to the discussion. I have assumed that no one minds; and others can do the same, of course. Please raise any concerns in this subsection. NoeticaTea? 23:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Noetica, if you still wish to convert the subsidiary pages of WP:MOS to subpage format, and if you do not see any problem involving subpages of talk pages, then please do proceed with the conversion at your convenience (possibly with the assistance of one or more helpers), because there seems to be no substantial objection from anyone at this time. If the proposal languishes without implementation, then this will have been another case of time and thought expended, perhaps wastefully. Let us declare consensus for this proposal.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
[I am revising my message of 19:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC).—Wavelength (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)]
Agreed, Noetica. I assume that you are unfamiliar on a previous proposal on this topic (Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 50#Move all Wikipedia: namespace pages in (disambiguation) format to /subpage format) which went the same way. I believe all points to the negative have been soundly addressed, and general opinions range from "great" to "no clear benefit", which is as good as you can get on EN. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 12:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I have set up a new section below on this page: #Subpage structure for the Manual of Style: implementation.
Go to it! Keep it active but orderly, and let's work out how best to do this thing. NoeticaTea? 04:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We have fairly clear guidance against refactoring without consent; I do not consent. This practice inhibits discussion, and prevents agreement on anything than simple accept/decline. If this practice continues, as here, I shall ask that Noetica be blocked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Our "fairly clear guidance" says "Relocation of material to different sections or pages where it is more appropriate", and in this case, the appropriate material for each section was labeled. You may debate those labels, but I can't imagine Noetica being blocked for his paragraph organization, and I can't imagine how suggesting a block can even be considered constructive. One would ordinarily leave alone material accompanied by a threat like "explain themselves to an admin", but such language is getting to be a habit. Art LaPella (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Separate namespace is a much better idea

Apologies for the new section: this is a huge RFC and it's difficult to know where to put it. PMAnderson is the only person so far to have suggested simply co-opting MOS: as an entirely new namespace for these pages. I think this is fundamentally the best solution by far:

  1. Searching is even easier (search by namespace is trivial)
  2. A clear sign that the MoS is a fundamental part of Wikipedia
  3. Far shorter full page titles
  4. All the benefits of the sub-page approach as well

Am I missing a reason why this has apparently not been raised more often? Are there any drawbacks to this approach?

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea too, CC. I guess I'm not alone in being put off by the motivation offered for it by PMAnderson!
I see no drawbacks; but I had thought it would be difficult to get accepted. In some quarters the Manual is not well received. Some of the mud sticks, and unfair as that is, it is a reality we must contend with.
Now, given the huge support we see for the present RFC, we could simply close it now as resolved in favour of the proposal. We could suspend the separate Implementation discussion for now (see below), while someone starts a similar RFC testing the namespace proposal. If you want to do that, I would certainly want to assist. I DO propose a structured, orderly approach like the one I instituted for the present RFC. "Huge" it may be; but far easier to navigate than the usual, I submit. NoeticaTea? 11:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • For the record, I also support the idea of creating a new namespace specifically for the MoS. However, that's for later on. In the meantime, we should do this proposal.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Subpage structure for the Manual of Style: implementation

The subpage RFC currently under discussion on this page has overwhelming support. No one speaks strongly against it so far, and some editors urge that we go ahead and do it. I agree that we should press on with this valuable reform; but we need to discuss the details of its implementation. So here I sketch a systematic way to proceed, taking full advantage of what the change will allow.

Proposed stages

(Stages 1 and 2 can be undertaken at the same time; but the elements of Stage 2 will require careful sequencing.)

Stage 1: clear the way
Existing miscellaneous subpages of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style (hereafter called WP:MOS) to be relocated

This is a necessary step in the overall process, since the present structure is a mess. See this list of current subpages:

I propose that we discuss options for relocating all such non-guideline subpages, both existing and future.

Discussion of Stage 1

[Editors, confine relevant discussion to this subsection please]

The discussions should be moved to Wikipedia talk:, where they will supplement the talk archive searches (they should have been there in the first place). Redirects cause no harm, provided they point to the correct source. Some might find them annoying when looking at list of subpages, so they can be deleted (provided all inbound links are edited). Pages such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register are merely an index of decisions made by consensus in relation to the MoS. These serve as a supplementary index of sorts, so I don't think the current location is inappropriate, even if it is slightly inconsistent. Drafts should be located at either the future title and marked as "proposed", or in user-space. If editors wish community involvement with their draft then it should be in the logical proposed location, so that everyone can easily guess its location, can easily stumble across it, and can automatically understand its purpose. If the proposer does not wish outside involvement, then standard practice is to keep it in user space until it is ready. So Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dash draft should be at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dashes. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

For clarity, this is the list of all pages beginning with "Wikipedia:Manual of Style". This includes current subpages and (proposed) future subpages. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Johnny, the matter may not be entirely straightforward. (See a related concern I have just added about exact naming, for Stage 2 below.) We need to think through how Wikipedia searching will work, using the prefix system. And also web-searching (such as with Google), which is only going to get more important, given Wikipedia's preeminence on the web. Did you mean exactly what you wrote: "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dash draft should be at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dashes"? Please amend for accuracy, or clarify.
Your list is handy. See also Links to 82 affected pages in the RFC above.
NoeticaTea? 07:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
About Dashes, what I meant exactly was that it should be at the proposed title, whatever that ends up being in future. Worst case you could have "/Dashes (draft)", but I still think the exact proposed title is ideal. Are you questioning me about Dashes specifically, or about formatting of all MoS titles? BTW, in contrast to the link I posted above, this is all pages beginning with "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/". The ending "/" makes a big difference, and this is what we can base the pre-built searches off of. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
To minimise possible ructions with local editors, could the moves be preceded by a notice on the talk pages? Tony (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Stage 2: progressively move Manual of Style pages
Existing pages to be moved one by one, with full consultation, and checked for consistency in the process

As a great advantage of the subpage proposal, we can take the opportunity to check each new candidate subpage for internal consistency (and general quality), consistency with WP:MOS itself, and consistency with others that have already been brought in as subpages. This was not proposed in the RFC; but it was always clear that the proposal was part of a larger purpose: to contain the unexamined and disorderly proliferation of guidelines. I am proposing that we set up that reform now, while there is an opportunity. We can take our time. Reform has been tried before, but too hastily and without a clear enough mechanism. Along the way it may be found that pages can be merged (mutually, or into WP:MOS); or that some can be abandoned. I suggest we start with WP:MOSNUM, because it is obviously of major importance. WP:MOS itself, and all other pages of the Manual, must be in accord with its provisions.

We also need to discuss the exact form that titles of subpages should have, to keep things absolutely clear and simple, and especially to optimise searching under both Wikipedia- and web-searching.

I propose that we discuss an order of procedure for these careful progressive moves; or if people take a different view, for alternative ways to implement the proposal approved in the RFC.

Discussion of Stage 2

Support. Consistency between the main MoS and subpages/subsections actually strikes me as more important than the subpage/subsection issue itself. We should plan to do this regardless of the outcome of the rest of the current proposal. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, because of the political turbulence affecting this page it's hard for people to focus on practical details. Unfortunately WP:MOS is yet again under protection. We can't easily adjust pages for consistency under such conditions. I suppose it's a matter of "watch this space", for now. NoeticaTea? 22:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Deferring implementation

We have achieved consensus for the proposal to convert subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style to subpages of WP:MOS (see details of the RFC above), but the implementation has not been thoroughly discussed. I now suggest that we defer it for a short time, until the state of WP:MOS and conditions on this talkpage are suitable. I intend soon to post a suggested schedule for this. NoeticaTea? 09:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What are we waiting for?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I have suggested that we wait a short time "until the state of WP:MOS and conditions on this talkpage are suitable". As I suggest above, that may mean:
  1. WP:MOS (as hub of the new structure) is unprotected and conveniently editable.
  2. Conditions on this talkpage are suitable: that is, it is not embroiled in perennial politics over the basics (what is a manual of style? should we have one?), and it is somehow relieved of personal animosity.
That's what I'm waiting for, and I will soon propose a schedule for moving things forward. What are you waiting for, and what are you proposing to do? ☺ NoeticaTea? 23:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Well... that's kinda what I wanted to know. If you feel that you're too embroiled in politics to be comfortable doing this, then someone else should step up. I'd be glad to do it myself, but I don't want to step on any toes in the process. Incidentally, the idea that we need to wait for unprotection of this page strikes me as being kinda silly, if only because this proposal really has nothing to do with changes to this page (but, maybe that's just my view).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Ohms (V = IR), I have said that the page is embroiled in politics; I do not say that I am. My being portrayed that way, and indeed named as an arch-villain ripe for the pillory and a perpetual ban, has little to do with reality. I structured the RFC, and saw to it that the underlying consensus could emerge clearly, all without politics spoiling things, and I would like to continue now with implementation.
No one has objected – or could reasonably object, I think – to progressively monitoring for consistency as pages are brought in as subpages of WP:MOS. But to achieve that, it will be necessary for editors to collaborate in making technical adjustments (at least) to WP:MOS and to the added pages. There is no rush; and we should get it right. That's why I suggest a delay while present large issues are sorted out. (I could point to a problem from inattention in last year's efforts to coordinate MOS pages; it has repercussions even now.)
If you favour a different approach, by all means get editors together, and get on with it! I have no ownership, of course.
NoeticaTea? 04:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the point of waiting is. This is a fairly simple but long process. I'm going to start moving pages now. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia's motto is "Be Bold" but not "Be reckless". I would recommend that those undertaking this proposal proceed slowly. Start with just a few pages and look carefully for problems. If no issues are seen, the process can be accelerated. I am concerned about categories mostly. I don't understand exactly how Mediawiki handles parents and children categories for subpages of pages. I hope that those wanting to start this move figure out exactly how Mediawiki does that. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Jason, I agree that caution and close scrutiny are needed; and also I suggest monitoring pages for consistency as part of the process (see earlier comments). I see that McLay1 has already moved some pages, including miscellaneous subpages of the sort that I thought we could look at removing altogether, or systematically relocating. And then McLay1 stopped, without reporting to this page. A pity. Still, that's Wikipedia! At least there is an unambiguous consensus, and it can be acted upon when editors are interested in addressing implementation more attentively. Just now there is too much other action, so I have not even posted the schedule that I promised. Later, when the weather is more agreeable. NoeticaTea? 05:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
The hardest part is moving all the talk page archives. As far as I can tell, that's the only thing we have to watch for. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit protection

It doesn't bother me personally if this page can only be edited by people with special privileges. However, the present banner wording, "This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved", has been in place for as long as I can remember and is starting to look a little tired. Does anyone even know any more exactly which subset of the regular stream of (healthy and to-be-expected) disagreements it refers to? If the intention is to protect indefinitely (which seems to be the present de facto situation), then perhaps a more appropriate message could be found. 86.160.85.2 (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion, which is still going on, is about whether the MoS should have a passage advising editors to consult sources in special cases. The main issue is whether or not such a passage weakens the MoS, whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, etc. etc. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Since the most recent unprotect, the edit war dispute centered on the insertion of a very restrictive section on hyphen usage [19]. Discussion of the "follow the sources" section mentioned above was ongoing, but not involved in any edit warring or protection events, as far as I can tell. Dicklyon (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

em or en dash for fluorine-fluorine bond?

I am seeing em dashes in the "Fluorine" article. Looking at our guide, it seems that an en dash makes sense. Maybe if one actually uses the letters to write out some formula in text (ala C-H bond), than the em dash makes sense. since you're really writing a structural formula at that point. But I would assume when we are using words, it is just normal usage of a dash to substitute for the word "to". I admit not knowing how this is handled in the real world...and if our Wiki guidance is unclear, than let's just do what most people using English do. But if we have a Wiki rule, just let me know and I will follow. And I looked at MOS-chem and it did not have guidance either.TCO (reviews needed) 07:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

En dash, obviously. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Yup, en dash. And when it's a repeated word (like "protein–protein"), it's somehow less likely to be confusing. I'd have thought much easier to read as symbols, too: C–H bond. The musicians use en dashes for chords (C–E–G). Tony (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Headbomb.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
It'd be nice for it to be the same length as the = for the double bond and the ≡ for the triple bond... Test:
Hyphen En dash Em dash Minus sign
C-C
C=C
C≡C		 C–C
C=C
C≡C		 C—C
C=C
C≡C		 C−C
C=C
C≡C
On my system, the hyphen is way too short, the en dash a little too short, the em dash too long, and the minus sign just right; YMMV depending on your font, I suppose. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 13:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

WAIT! Our minus sign is different from both the hyphen and en dash? Am still getting used to using an endash instead of hyphen.  :-) TCO (reviews needed) 14:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not "our" minus sign; it's up to whoever designed the font that your browser is using; they're not all sensible. Dicklyon (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
In my font the en dash is just a tad too long, but the minus sign is still just right. Given that minus signs, plus signs, equal signs, and identity (≡) signs are designed to be compatible with each other, generally by giving them equal widths and equally centered heights, whereas there is no explicit correlation to either dash, I suspect a minus sign will be the most universally compatible symbol. — kwami (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

'et al.'

In the MOS:FOREIGN, can we please document 'et al.' in the "Common usage in English" examples? At present the {{Citation}} template's |display-authors= option causes 'et al.' to be displayed without italics. I would like to be able to use that option, but I have seen the lack of italics raised as an issue in the FAC forum. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Is somebody disputing that et al. ought to be italicized, or complaining that it has not been?
In the latter case, one solution is simple: don't use the {{citation}} template; it's a crutch to supply italics and punctuation for those who don't know what's needed or how to make italics. I used to use them until I realized that doing my own formating was easier and faster as well as more flexible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The opinions I found are mixed on italicizing "et al." [20] [21] And of course your own formatting isn't easier or faster if everyone has to look up things like "et al." on their own. Art LaPella (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Do not use italics for:
  • foreign phrases and abbreviations common in English (i.e., phrases found as main entries in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 2005). — Publication Manual of the American Phycological Assocition, 6th edition
et al. in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
And now that I look at MOS:FOREIGN, it states "not to italicize words that appear unitalicized in major English-language dictionaries." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
(Responding to the point of Septentrionalis) There are reasons other than formatting to use templates such as citation. It's easier to mechanically process template invocations than raw text, for example. This is helpful for some uses. Quale (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't follow; programs shouldn't be processing our text; they are too prone to error. It is much easier to handle raw text by hand; you don't have to edit out all the attribute calls. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
No. First off, programs "process our text" all the time. What do you think the wikimedia software itself does with wiki markup to produce HTML? As an example of that sort of processing that isn't built into the wikimedia software, it is possible to automatically compile bibliographies and the like by parsing citation templates. Doing that by hand is not easier. I think you are not a programmer, or you would know that editing out "attribute calls" is trivial, infering semantic information from raw text is not. HTML itself provides both a positive and negative example of this. Quale (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. It's worth pointing out that unsighted readers are wholly reliant on the processing of our text to read articles at all, and if the only semantic information we can give them on a particular bit of text is whether it's italicised or not they're going to have a very hard time parsing references. "Crutch" indeed, in more than one sense. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Italicization and punctuation are the only information given to sighted readers for parsing references. Any screen reader which does not convey it is not adequate to read our text, let alone our references. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure the view from your ivory tower is stunning. Down here on the ground, we're going to continue to work on improving the semantic markup our tools generate so that the screen readers we have (rather than those some guy on Wikipedia thinks we should have) can make best sense of the meaning of our content. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Black background light text?

Someone has put some tables at Boris Gelfand with black background and light text. I don't like it but can't find a style guide advising against it. Is there one? Adpete (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if there's not, following "normal practice" is usually preferred unless there's a good reason to do otherwise; be bold and see if anyone comes up with a reason to object to fixing it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
It fails color contrast per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility). There are also issues per WP:MOSFLAG in that the icon should be accompanied with the name of the country in text. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 03:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I just decided to be bold. As for the flags, that's an ongoing battle I've given up fighting. Adpete (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
It at least needs country names. I kicked around Europe for a while, but I don't know half of those. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 03:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Why have the icons at all? I would have one column, saying Moscow, but Calatrava, Spain Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

English Wikpedia in common English language !

After been redirected from "petrol" to "gasoline" (a word that isn't used even across the Atlantic, they just say "gas") I write this in some anger. And I strongly suggest that UK english ("the Queen's english" if You like) should be used in Wikipedia, and never any other kind of secondary-language like american-English. For the following reasons:

  1. All English language is descended from the UK.
  2. It's the UK English that is taught in schools worldwide.
  3. For all them who don't have English as first language but can use it, american (mis-)spellings like "color" just causes confusions.

. I'm neither from the UK or any other country were English is the primary language. 83.249.32.242 (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Really? I'm honestly surprised by this: in my experience, most people who have English as a second language seem to type in American English, or something closer to that than to British English (or maybe it's just that I'm less likely to recognise users of "the Queen's English" as non-native speakers). Unfortunately some confusion is inevitable, but since English Wikipedia is based in America and read all over the world, I don't think consensus for one variety of English throughout the encyclopaedia is likely. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually taking Hong Kong as example, even though we're taught British English in school, our English teachers specifically state that both British and American Englishes are acceptable, including mixed usage within one sentence, albeit unencouraged. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the original poster is right—american is ruining the language. For what it′s worth, the SOED doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with most of the words cited. But perhaps we’ve just managed to corrupt OUP. JeffConrad (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Not a bad piece, for "an ex-American resident", whatever that was intended to mean. Dicklyon (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
People think the Americans are ruining the language? Most English speakers these days live in India. Have you seen what THEY are doing to it? Rumiton (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
There aren't very many first-language English speakers in India. Most of them learned it in school. That doesn't count as much, as a general rule, though there are exceptions. --Trovatore (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Hilarious. "The Americans imported English wholesale,"? Really? That's an... interesting take on history. lol
The attempted point about baseball phraseology making it's way to England is...overwrought, as well. Brits play Cricket after all, so things like "bases" and "strikes" are hardly foreign concepts. Oh well.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
You're on a bit of a sticky wicket there, Ω, perhaps you're thinking of rounders? . . dave souza, talk 13:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
hehe, I was wondering if someone would bring that up as I was typing that sentence. Yea, to be completely accurate Baseball's direct ancestor is probably rounders, but... the lore generally says Cricket. <shrug>
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
There's also the basic lack of research. Anyone who has actually used AOL in the UK in the last, what, fifteen years has been treated to "you have eeee-mail" in the plummy tones of Joanna Lumley. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Why did the resident change his citizenship? Or did he mean “ex–American resident”? Or “former American resident”? JeffConrad (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Henry Louis Mencken documented the history of this rhetoric, from John Witherspoon, onward, in 1948; one would have expected it to die out by now. The American colonists spoke English when they arrived; they still do - as the Australians do. In many cases the American idiom is older, and the British have changed their language; the fuel the British now call "petrol" was originally called "gasoline" and the OED quotes the Pall Mall Gazette and the Duchess of Sutherland as using it; petrol is a French loan word. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Whatever. But lots of Americans (the majority, I think) are not of English ancestry; in particular, a sizeable fraction of them is of Irish ancestry, and the Irish pretty much did import English from England. :-) ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 12:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Quite. Half of Webster's "innovations" were digging up archaic spellings that had gone out of use in the UK. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
While I find the original poster's assertion that American English is less valid than British English is inaccurate and a bit insulting, if Wikipedia were to suddenly require only one variety of English throughout (perhaps cosmic rays destroy the part of the human brain capable of dealing with inter-article inconsistency, I'm just sayin') I would vote for British. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I wonder how British media deal with American quote. Will they change the A.E. to B.E. of the original context? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
As for the specific example by the OP of color, I think even non-native speakers are likely to be familiar with it, being used in all kinds of technical contexts (e.g. HTML and CSS). ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 12:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, until a few years ago, the most common ancestry in the U.S. was German, and it was since before the Revolutionary War. I think 23% of us had some German ancestry as of 1990. Germany has probably since been surpassed by Mexico. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Re: "Germany has probably since been surpassed by Mexico." It would probably be more accurate to have said instead "... surpassed by Hispanics" instead of "... by Mexico." Many of those who cross the U.S. – Mexico border (both legally and illegally) are from countries in Central and South America who have only traveled through Mexico. (And by "only traveled through," I don't intend to imply that the trip was easy, just that these immigrants aren't originally from Mexico.)
[Note: I specifically don't want to get into the intense controversy, both within this immigrant community and outside it, concerning which terminology is most appropriate, particularly between those who favor Hispanic and those who favor Latino (fem. Latina). I don't know what the views are on the older geography-based term Latin American.]
A. di M.: re "the Irish pretty much did import English from England." I should think the Irish (except for descendants of colonists who immigrated to Northern Ireland from the British Isles) have a rather different perspective on how English became the dominant language in their country, not to mention the Scots and Welsh. "Import" probably isn't their first choice for the appropriate descriptive term. ;-) "Compulsory adoption" might be a more accurate term, although like "import," it too has controversial political connotations. (I don't know about the Cornish, and I apologize if I've left out any other national identity within the UK for whom English supplanted a previous language.) --Jackftwist (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe the current WP policy on the use of British and American English is imminently sensible because it's by far the most practicable course of action.
There would be insurmountable practical difficulties with trying to enforce either version on those who are either native speakers of or have learned the other. Spelling differences (colour vs. color, etc.) would be the least significant problem! It's often said that English is one of the most difficult languages in the world to learn, partly because there are so many exceptions and other irregularities. (I don't know what the technical linguistic terms are to describe these general types of grammatical differences.)
  • First, there's the problem of the distinction within the UK itself between "British English" and Oxford English. Which should we use? (JeffConrad's comment above may partly address this point, but most of us Yanks aren't familiar with differences between various British dictionaries, and I don't recognize what "OUP" refers to anyway.)
  • Also, wouldn't it be extremely difficult and time-consuming for users of either version to re-learn significantly different punctuation rules, which are already difficult enough? And the rules for collective nouns are bewildering enough in both variants, e.g., "the Army are ..." or "Manchester United are ..." (British) vs. "the Army is ..." and "Manchester United is ..." (U.S.).
Perhaps it would be more productive for WP's purposes if users instead devoted all that time and effort to contributing WP content, a back-log elimination drive, or other WP project.
  • Idiomatic expressions would be another difficult area. Would U.S. users have to learn to write the "bonnet" and "boot" vs. "hood" and "trunk" of a car? Or "garden" instead of "yard"? "Forms" vs. "grades" when referring to one's year in school?
I initially thought the original poster was being facetious. I find assertion that American English is less valid than British English is not just inaccurate (see Darkfrog, above), it's intellectually meaningless and absurd. (And I think it's far more than just a bit insulting, contrary to WP policies.)
E.g., is British English less valid than Oxford English? For that matter, is either version of English superior to French, German, etc.? (Our English Mother Tongue itself contains innumerable influences of older French, German, and other dialects, not to mention Latin and ancient Greek.)
Is blue a superior color to green because because green is blue adulterated by yellow? Is tea with milk and sugar inferior to tea with lemon? (Which reminds me, I need another cuppa.)
These are all purely matters of taste, and as the saying goes, there's no arguing about taste. (Just because it's a cliche doesn't mean it isn't correct.)
Finally, the assertion is also blatantly inconsistent with the WP principles cited at the top of this Talk page: be polite, avoid personal attacks (which I take to include attacks on the native languages of other users), and be welcoming. --Jackftwist (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I also thought the original post was not to be taken seriously. For an interesting essay on this topic, see "America is Ruining the English Language," by John Algeo in Laurie Bauer & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language Myths, 1998. Penguin Books: London. pp. 176–182. This piece provides some reliable observations on this topic. I'm not implying that all of the observations here are useless—only that, like many discussions here, it's sometimes difficult to separate what is unsupported speculation and opinion from what is more generally accepted by those who have extensively studied this area. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Airborne 84: Excellent point. My screed was prompted only because some of the subsequent posts seemed to support the original, to a greater or lesser degree, or at least take it seriously. --Jackftwist (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I do indeed mean that Mexico alone, without any assistance from other Spanish-speaking countries, has sent more people to the U.S. than Germany/what is now Germany has.
Ireland is a rather unique case with regard to English. Most conquered countries retain their own languages, and there are a few reasons why Irish did not. The big ones are that Irish Gaelic did not have much of a written culture and that the state had a monopoly on the jobs that poor people wanted their kids to grow up and get, like police officers, mail carriers and other steady-pay public servants. So we have schoolteachers making marks on sticks for the number of times that each student slipped up and spoke Gaelic in school, giving the sticks to the parents, and the parents administering the corporal punishment. The loss of so much spoken Gaelic may be a tragedy, but it is one that the Irish themselves at least had a hand in. Of course, quite a bit has been done since to recover Gaelic. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps Wikipedia should be written in Welsh or Cornish... after all, English descends from "foreign" imports like Anglo-Saxon, Danish and Norman French... each of which was "imposed" on the native peoples after invasion. Or not. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Very droll, Blueboar, and an excellent point: i.e., that English itself is a major exception to Darkfrog24's assertion that "Most conquered countries retain their own languages...." That generalization may in fact be true, but there seem to be numerous notable exceptions, in addition to English in England. (Back to that later.)
Darkfrog24, your example of corporal punishment with the notched sticks seems to be consistent with my term "compulsory adoption," as does being compelled to learn English to get a good job. (And weren't the native Irish discriminated against in those jobs in Ulster, anyway?) As for your contention that "Irish Gaelic did not have much of a written culture," the WP article on Irish Language contradicts that claim:

By the 10th century Old Irish evolved into Middle Irish, which was spoken throughout Ireland and in Scotland and the Isle of Man. It is the language of a large corpus of literature, including the famous Ulster Cycle. [Emphasis added.]

Back to the fate of native languages in "conquered countries": How many "conquered countries" in the Western Hemisphere ("The New World") retained their own languages as the dominant one? (Unless we quibble about whether the various civilizations that existed before they were colonized are equivalent to "countries" in this context.)
(1) According to the WP article on languages of Canada, it has an official bilingual policy at the national level (but not necessarily at the provincial level), and English and French are the first languages for about 80% of the population. So French did survive Britain's conquest of Canada, but only as the first language of about a quarter of the population, concentrated primarily in Quebec. And the "Aboriginal language groups" survive only among a small minority of the population.
(2) According to Languages_of_Bolivia, that country has nearly 3 dozen official languages, but (Castillian) Spanish is spoken by about 75% of the population.
(3) In the U.S. English is the de facto national language, but there is no official language at the federal level. (Four states officially recognize a second language in various legal statuses, although none of them are the language of any of the indigenous Native Americans (American Indians). And two of those languages—Cajun (or Cadien) French and Spanish—themselves aren't strictly the original languages in those states, either, because they displaced the original indigenous Native American Indian languages.

[Usage Note re Native Americans: The issue of the preferred terminology is still controversial in some circles, and there is no officially recognized term, although "Native Americans" is still in wide use. But when the Smithsonian Museum opened its National Museum of the American Indian in 2004, it chose the museum's name only after close consultation with and concurrence by a large number of tribes from throughout North and South America, the Caribbean, and Hawaii, including almost all the tribes in the U.S. (See http://www.nmai.si.edu/subpage.cfm?subpage=about ) ]

Yes, but I was trying to point out that much of the compulsion was performed by the Irish themselves on their own children rather than English directly forcing the Irish to stop speaking Gaelic.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are Welsh English or Cornish English articles in here. I've seen one in South African English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I said the Irish imported English but I didn't specify whether they imported it for themselves or for their children. Also, I wasn't only talking about the countryside in the west, but also about cities and the east, where English had become widespread before compulsory schooling. As for the second points, differences between local varieties of formal standard written Commonwealth English are generally minor enough that an article in good New Zealand English will be extremely likely to be also good Welsh English; but once Template:Scottish English was nominated for deletion and one of the reasons for keeping it is that some technical terms e.g. in the Scottish legal system are different than those of England, and articles about Scotland should use the former. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 19:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Identity

I am currently in a dispute with another editor at Talk:Wandering Son#Pronouns on whether or not to refer to fictional transgendered characters by their assigned sex or internal gender. My question is, should the second bullet point at MOS:IDENTITY that refers to the gender of a character apply to fictional characters or works of fiction?--十八 05:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a similar issue at Birdo that was solved by applying the "latest gender identity" criteria. I agree that this should be discussed at WT:MOS and that at the very least, the MOS should be updated to make clear that any adopted criteria should be explained within the article or the talk page, and consistently applied. Diego (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The reason used then to justify applying the same guideline to a fictional character, is that the naming issue is nonetheless affected by the same requirements about pronouns for transgender people, which is keeping a neutral point of view. Diego (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
But the reason that "latest gender identity" is held to be neutral is that it is presumably the viewpoint of the subject and those who are polite to the subject, and therefore the consensus view; basically BLP. But a fictional character has no point of view. Therefore I would suggest the following, which may well come out to the same result:
  • How do independent sources (you know, the ones which establish notability) refer to the character?
  • How does the author refer to the character (in interviews and so on)?
  • How does the narrative voice refer to the character?
  • What do the other characters say? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Point 1) Independent sources, such as reviews given at Anime News Network (1, 2) and Mania use assigned sex pronouns. Point 2) Japanese doesn't use gender specific pronouns, so this isn't applicable. Point 3) The English publisher's website and the translation provided by Crunchroll use pronouns that refer to their assigned sex. Point 4) This is the same as in point 3 and can be verified the same way.--十八 20:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Those might be applicable to Wandering Son, but they can't be generalized to the MOS. The problem found at Birdo was that the existing sources conflicted about the pronoun used, so your point 1) usually won't be helpful. That's why the self-identification either by the fictional character, or the official gender assigned by its author if that exists, would be an unambiguous way to provide a single unified criteria. Diego (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes - most times I would think - that works, sometimes it doesn't. When a character is crafted from a single set of hands, yes, the comments of the author(s) hold sway. But characters that have gone through multiple creative hands and had a change of gender added or removed by later authors invalidate that criteria. And then there are the cases where the gender element of the character is changed, simplified, or ignored in translation.
From the stand point of purely plot sections, I can see sticking with the character's self identification in the vast majority of cases. (This is a guideline after all and there are going to be exceptions.) But when dealing with critical commentary, stick with the gender used predominately in the secondary sources either used or usable. And in those chases where the gender issues is removed in translation and that is a notable section of its own, treat the character as what it is, an piece of intellectual property - a non-gendered thing.
- J Greb (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
But what should be done when secondary sources do not predominately use one gender but they are split roughly evenly? That case is likely more common that the case you refer of several authors changing the character's gender, and in that case the latest one could be preferred. (offtopic - My watchlist informs me that +33,333 characters were added yesterday to this page). Diego (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
"He or she" is an option. So is avoiding the pronoun; if it doesn't clearly indicate the character, it risks confusing the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
That would be a start. It would also be nice if English had progressed to a standard, accepted prounun for the situation. As would looking for a bench mark for "predominately" - simple majority or a target percentage. Personally, if it's roughly a 60/40 split, err to the 60 is a pronoun is unavoidable unless using a direct quote. If it's closer to 50/50 and a pronoun is unavoidable look at the history of the article. If it's currently stable continue with what is in use. If it isn't, attempt to find an article level consensus and make it stable.
Remember, we can bang out a rough what to do, but we cannot cover every situation. A lot is going to rely on editors working together on the odd cases.
- J Greb (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
"He or she" is not an option, is a cop-out. It would be admissible if used only once to establish the convention used within the article, but when adopted it tends to be used every time the pronoun appears. It would be the equivalent of enumerating every possible POV in every sentence of a controversial topic in order to keep a NPOV. I think the MOS should enumerate the possible options (sticking to the sources if they agree, sticking to the author/copyright owner stances, using it or singular they), and directing the editors to make a decision according to whichever option provides the less ambiguity. Diego (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Point of order: The English publisher and Crunchyroll are not the original source of the manga or anime, and ANN and Mania are essentially fan websites. Any pronouns used by any of them are not necessarily correct (especially since gendered third-person pronouns are rarely used in Japanese). -Nongendered (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The links from ANN and Mania are accepted reviews under WP:ANIME/RS, and seeing as how pronouns are rare in Japanese, then an official English source is the obvious next step, since we're discussing about them in English using English pronouns.--十八 03:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
ANN and Mania are still, however, fansites, and if I'm not mistaken then they are run by cisgender people. It's always POV when a cisgender person uses "he" for a trans girl (or "she" for a trans boy). -Nongendered (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Source bias is always going to exist. If all of the usable sources we've got have the same bias it's a moot point.
- J Greb (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There's another case, Torikaebaya Monogatari, where the characters' gender-non-normativity is said by the text to be a curse which is lifted. What should their pronouns be? --Malkinann (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Re "a fictional character has no point of view" (Septentrionalis, at 19:08, 19 July, above): Could you cite an authoritative source for this assertion? I believe it is mistaken, or at least not a view that is universally accepted. See Point_of_view_(literature) . A recent lit-major graduate assures me that, at least among the English (or literature) department faculty her university, maintaining a single character's point of view (p.o.v., to distinguish it from WP:POV) within a given narrative (vs. dialogue) section is required in well-written fiction. When the author switches from one character's p.o.v. to another's in the narrative, the author must clearly but subtlely indicate the change. (One common, unabtrusive technique for doing so is leaving extra space between the paragraphs where the switch occurred.) Maintaining consistency in each individual character's p.o.v. increases decreases the risk of creating ambiguous passages that confuse the reader (e.g., "wait, which character is thinking this" or "whose eyes are we observing this scene through?"). And failing to maintain consistency in characters' p.o.v. clearly distinguishes a rank amateur from a writer who's had professional training. The major exception to this practice is when the author uses an "omniscient narrator." Of course, many exceptions exists among established, well-known writers. But as they say, you have to master the rules before you can break them. (And there's also the problem that the quality of publishers' editing isn't what it used to be.) (BTW, if you meant "point of view" in the narrower sense of "having an opinion" instead of its technical, literary sense, isn't it still true that characters have whatever opinions the author chooses to give them at any particular time?) --Jackftwist (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as which pronoun is proper to use to refer to a transgendered character, perhaps the commonly accepted practices among transgendered people themselves might suggest a possible approach. At least among the transgendered people I know and those who support them and their cause (in a large, metropolitan city), the accepted etiquette is generally:

  • When the person has assumed his or her transgender personna or role (i.e., in dress and assumed manner), the person is referred to using the gender-specific pronoun appropriate for the transgendered personna. For example, Australian performer Barry Humphries and his staff always refer to his inimitable stage character, Dame_Edna_Everage, as "she" and "her," "never mixing the character with Humphries himself." As the latter quote implies, when the person is not in-personna, the pronoun appropriate to the person's "assigned gender" is used. ("Assigned gender" is such a beastly, Orwellian-sounding phrase.)
  • Significantly, our area's major local newspaper typically follows this same practice, as, does the LGBT community's press, of course.
  • But a major exception is often followed by many in the gay transgendered community (vs. some straights who cross-dress): even when they're not dressed in their personna's role, they still very often address and refer to each other as if they were fully in-role. (Much in the same way that members of some groups refer to each other by terms that would be considered rude, or even taboo, if used by an "outsider" to refer to them.)

Other LBGT communities may follow other practices. Visiting your local drag show or bar and talking to the performers and audience (i.e., field research) would help you understand their protocol in these matters. (Just be sure to reward the performers generously for their show!) --Jackftwist (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If it avoids any confusion to say that a fictional character has no feelings to hurt (outside the fiction, by treatment like ours), please regard the change as made.
We are not here to address any community to the exclusion of the rest of the English-speaking world. Suggestions that we do so smack of adopting a point of view. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
(1) I agree with your first point above, but I don't understand how the second point applies to my comments. Reading your point literally, that certainly wasn't my intention, and I don't see how my post suggests or implies that. Perhaps you could elaborate?
(2) I had intended, but forgot, to mention in my post that it seemed to supplement the 4 very sensible criteria your first post suggested. My apologies for omitting that reference.
(3) I corrected an error in my post above (at the strikethrough). In the process of editing and revising my post after composing the draft, I accidentally reversed the logic of that sentence. (The demon alter-ego of cut-and-paste strikes again!) --Jackftwist (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"well-known"

Hi, at Hyphen it says:

"... the hyphen is represented by a hyphen-minus ( - ), which is well-known and easy to enter on keyboards."

I don't think "well-known" should be hyphenated here, and my understanding of the Style Guide is that it is of the same opinion. However, since this exact example is not given, and since it would be so incredibly dumb to get this wrong in the opening paragraph of the article on the punctuation mark itself, I would like a second opinion. 86.179.118.35 (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

An anglicism, slightly dated, but sound. It distinguishes well as an adverb, closely linked with known, from well as an adjective. Whether to use it, or to rely on the reader rejecting well "healthy" as ruled out by context, is a matter of taste. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
If that is the consensus, then I believe WP:HYPHEN should be changed, because I interpret it as saying "... is well known" should not be hyphenated. "A hyphen is normally used when the adverb well precedes a participle ... even predicatively, if well is necessary to, or alters, the sense of the adjective rather than simply intensifying it (the gesture was well-meaning, the child was well-behaved, but the floor was well polished)." "is well known" makes "well known" a predicate adjective. "well known" isn't known in a different way; "well" intensifies the word "known", as in the guideline's phrase "simply intensifying it", like "well polished" not "well-meaning" or "well-behaved". Art LaPella (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Art, in specifying a condition under which "well-X" should be hyphenated, this provision does not imply exclusively under those conditions. Perhaps also including examples of "well-known Y" and "a Y that is well known" would help clarify? In this case, I think the hyphen is not needed (though some books do it that way [22]). Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The passage on well does imply exclusiveness, by itself; the correction is the bullet, two points up, on light-blue handbag. Art did not see that because the section is too long now. The solution, therefore, is not to lengthen but to combine those two sections into one, perhaps adding to the earlier bullet that a very light blue handbag need not be hyphenated, but well-behaved is. But again, consult a good dictionary would cover the whole unread thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure, more examples would help clarify this specific example, since it evidently wasn't intended to mean what I thought it meant. Of course you've probably read the rest of this section: the main effect of adding more clarity in the MoS to one specific example, is usually to help increase the total MEGO effect of the manual, and ensure that Wikipedia's amateurs won't use the Manual enough to affect most articles. Art LaPella (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


There is a difference between the well known X and X is well known. In the first, having well as an adjective is grammatically possible, but semantically unlikely; in the second, well as an adjective is ungrammatical. But we are dealing with a third case; well known and easy could be read as three adjectives; again, the absence of a comma could be enough of a signal of the adverb, and it's a question of taste, not of rules, whether it is.
But, yes, WP:HYPHEN should be simplified dramatically; most style guides say "consult a good dictionary," and so should we; it's better advice than the present verbose invention. Most of MOS could be usefully replaced with "don't be confusing" to the great blessing of Wikipedia.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree WP:HYPHEN and everything else should be simplified dramatically. I think there would be more benefits than problems with going back several years; such an old version survives largely unchanged at the subpage-free Simple English Manual of Style. Yeah, I know, off topic ... Art LaPella (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It says, for exmaple:
The hyphen (-) is used to form compound words, such as "well-known". The en dash (–) is used to specify numeric ranges, such as “open 9–5”. The em dash (—) can be used to link clauses of a sentence—like this one—as can the spaced en dash ( – ). Other dashes, such as the double-hyphen (--), should not be used.
Covers four sections in as many sentences. A different example ("Austria-Hungary"?) that's always hyphenated, and we'd be set. Oh, well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I think I'll leave it alone for now! By the way, I do not think "consult a good dictionary" is adequate advice for many types of hyphen usage. Hyphenated compounds can be created on an ad hoc basis, and dictionaries obviously won't list every single one of probably millions of possiblities. Instead, the rules need to be explained, which dictionaries are unlikely to do. "Consult a good style guide" might be more appropriate, but then what's the point of having a Wikipedia MOS? 86.179.5.38 (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    • On this topic, very little use. The fifteen bullet points and paragraphs under WP:HYPHEN are admittedly incomplete ("Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here..."); yet it's already too long to be read. There are so many bullets that Art, who knows this page well, got lost in them.
These are not "rules." Hyphenation is a matter of idiom, which is not bound by rules; it has tendencies, which differ in strength in different decades, different countries, and different authors. The descriptions of these tendencies are largely correct, but some of them are controversial; some of them would make Wikipedia look stupid if taken literally - and all too often they are.
We cannot teach the subtleties of English in a page or a dozen pages; it could not be done in a volume. (Several volumes have tried.) Fundamentally, whether to use a hyphen or a space in a given sentence is a matter of which makes the sentence clearer, which may depend on the whole sentence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The whole point of a Style Guide is to prescribe (or at least recommend) rules. If you are going to be defeated by things like hyphenation rules then there is zero point in having a MOS. 86.179.5.38 (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
You may be right; certainly there is only epsilon point in having a style guide that even those who wrote it can't follow and can't find rules in - as we have now. There is even less use in a style guide which makes the wrong recommendations. For example, the single paragraph quoted above would be helpful, and should be uncontentious; I remain in hope that someday we will have a Manual of Style which is actually useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Dashes: a completed consensual draft for inclusion in WP:MOS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The draught as written version of the outcome of the recent consensus discussion is accepted. It is to be hoped that discussion on updating Wikipedia:Manual of Style will move elsewhere, and a consensus has been achieved here. Any further acrimony here will be unhelpful. Acting as arbiter secondary to this motion at Requests for Arbitration, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}

This section presents the results of voting and discussion under ArbCom instructions (see summary earlier on this page); see Dashes: a new draft on this page for the most recent developments. Casliber (an ArbCom member) has undertaken the oversight of this process, so I draw it to his attention for action, rather than any other admin. Editors: please restrict all comments and discussion to the appropriate subsection below.
– Noetica (stewarding the process on this page, and managing the draft and its revisions)

Preliminary notes

The context

  • Structure of voting at the dedicated subpage was determined during two weeks "to finalise the questions". The great majority of questions that emerged concerned the content of WP:DASH, the guidelines for en dashes and em dashes in WP:MOS (the main page of Wikipedia's Manual of Style). No question arose concerning the established role of WP:MOS in recommending punctuation for the text and titles of Wikipedia articles. Voting also confirmed that the community expects consistency between title and text.
  • The voting page attracted contributions from 60 editors. In almost all cases, the existing content of WP:DASH was endorsed by a clear majority. Where there was doubt (occasioning very useful discussion), there was an opportunity to amend the guidelines to reflect the wishes of the community more accurately; but the whole text was rewritten (with valuable input from an earlier attempt by Kotniski).
  • The draft below achieves a workable and well-crafted consensus, according to the following editors who monitored subsequent revision on this talkpage (11 in total):
    • Noetica
    • Kwami
    • Greg L
    • Dicklyon
    • Tony
    • Colonies Chris
    • OhConfucius
    • Lightmouse
    • GFHandel
    • Jackftwist (subject to a certain non-content change in the whole page; easily agreed)
    • ErikHaugen
  • The following editors dissent from this finding, and contend that the draft does not deliver a consensus (2 in total):
    • PMAnderson
    • JeffConrad

Features of the draft

  • It is long
    These guidelines need to accommodate many points of view and requested features. They are designed to forestall accidental or intentional misreading occasioned by lack of detail.
  • It is simple and rationally organised
    Examples account for most of the length; the principles themselves are simple and memorable.
  • It delivers singular recommendations
    The only divided recommendation is for choice of en dashes or em dashes at the sentence level, which will never arise in the determination of titles for articles.
  • It therefore offers definitive, consensus-based solutions
    The simple principles and the many carefully chosen examples give clear guidance in the deployment of en dashes and hyphens: in article text and (most usefully) in article titles.
  • It includes some points on hyphens and slashes
    WP:HYPHEN and WP:SLASH, coming before and after WP:DASH, need some work as follow-up. But much has already been covered, in the present drafting.
  • It fits with long-established consensual guidelines
    These rewritten guidelines follow naturally from the earlier ones that they replace, but also accord with existing guidelines for dates and numbers on the page, and with detailed provisions at WP:MOSNUM. They conflict with no policy or guideline on Wikipedia.
  • It can be polished and improved if consensus ever changes
    Those not liking features of the new guidelines can rest assured. Nothing is locked in forever.

The completed draft

Click on "show" at the right to see the entire draft:

Request to ArbCom

Consensus is now established. (If not, certainly the nearest and most useful approximattion that can be achieved in a collaborative environment, across different parts of the English-speaking world.)

As editor stewarding the process at this talkpage, on behalf of my colleagues I request immediate incorporation of the draft into WP:MOS, for the smooth running of the Project and toward the peaceful resolution of certain recent disputes, and any future ones involving the choice of en dash or hyphen.

(Some small fixes will be needed: the three headings that use the markup <big></big> should be headings at the appropriate levels for the page, with correct markup. And two new shortcuts need to be made; they currently appear in red.)

I also request, through Casliber, that ArbCom now deliberate on what other actions might be taken under its injunction and resolution in the present case, to conclude a long and trying episode for all concerned.

NoeticaTea? 13:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Dissenting view

This represents a small clique of editors, ignoring two lengthy polls. On both of those polls, half of the editors opposed making dashes mandatory, as this draft proposes. This is not consensus; it does not reflect the style guides which are the reliable sources the sources for any . The changes required to fit this draft to the results of this poll, and to JeffConrad's survey of the sources are relatively small, and suggested

above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Noetica's claim to ownership of this page and this process can be seen by the fact that this objection was blanked - by Noetica. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Quoting you, PMA: On both of those polls, half of the editors opposed making dashes mandatory, as this draft proposes. Hmmm… Indeed, a 50/50 split didn’t leave Noetica much clear guidance around which to craft a proposal. So… if Noetica changed the 50/50 split regarding dashes to the outcome you like, then would it be a “consensus” and “good” and stuff like that? You’ve screamed over and over here now as to how any new votes must come down on the side of 50/50 splits that you favor. I assume if everyone caved to your wishes, the small clique of editors would magically become wise brethren wordsmiths in powdered wigs.

    Tell you what. One thing you and I agree upon is that Wikipedia has no business trying to change the English language so that diacriticals from Vietnamese, Mongolian yak herders, and similar languages are used here. I find the arguments from proponents of doing so to be uncompelling (like “German diacriticals have been commonly used in English for centuries and it would be *hateful* {*enunciated properly with a lisp*} to limit it to just German; plus 32-trillion-combination font technology gives 16-year-old wikipedians the power to to Lead By Example and Change The World So It Is A Better One©™®—but we will all need 300-key keyboards in the future or learn to copy-paste a lot from Wikipedia”).

    Why not save your ammunition for something more productive? How say you and I team up and devote our energies to ensuring wikipedians not try to change the very alphabet the English language uses? Your tendentiousness in combination with my ability to give atomic wedgies to editors who have shit-poor arguments would make a formidable force to be reckoned with. Greg L (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

    • Greg, you are too trusting. There was no 50/50 split at all. But your points using PMAnderson's suspect premise are legitimate all the same. NoeticaTea? 22:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I also don't recall any poll where "half of the editors opposed making dashes mandatory." What do you suppose he is referring to? I don't even recall the subject coming up. Dicklyon (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
        • He refers to the same thing as this comment, which in turn refers to this (search it for "15–14"). Art LaPella (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm not finding any place where anyone said "mandatory" besides PMA himself; there's was at least a small majority who didn't want to talk about "options"; is that all he means? Certainly there has never been a poll about "making dashes mandatory", as there has never been one an any other punctuation mark. In fact there seem to be quite a few editors for whom periods and capital letters are not considered mandatory; someone usually just cleans up after them. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Art, and Dick. Art, that does appear to be what PMAnderson is referring to. It is unhelpful that he sends us on such chases. The context, of course, is entirely missing in his use of such figures. Just part of the detailed analysis of mine that you link:

... That's a simple majority (15–14) accepting it without any option; and that's a clear majority accepting it in one way or another (22–7). Only 7 out of 29 favour giving a choice. Nothing in WP:CONSENSUS obliges us to accommodate every minority preference in a manual of style. That's not what manuals of style are for. Last, we don't know what those 7 would say to this question: "Do you want a manual of style to set a simple uniform guideline for everyone?" That number would have been 8, remember: but I gave up my opposition to the principle for the larger good: consistency of style on Wikipedia. In fact, I would have held out and maintained opposition; but Jeff was so adamant, and the principle is so widely accepted in America, that I yielded. ...

There's quite a bit more; and it concerns just one of the many questions that were voted on. The figures that PMAnderson continues to misquote appear to be the best he can do to distort an overwhelming majority favouring the approach that this consensual draft has taken, after his search for the nearest approximation to an Achilles heel.
So it seems to me, anyway.
NoeticaTea? 01:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Okay, looking over the draught, which indeed looks succinct and easy to read (nice job!), I can see that it aligns with the consensus-gaining page well, but was wondering why I couldn't see any specific mention that there was consensus they'd be in article titles, given there appeared to be consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting#En_dashes_in_article_titles. Or am I missing something? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes; that violates our title policy; Noetica has also been in the lead in revert-warring there without discussion or consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Casliber:
Ah, the specific wording of that question:

When naming an article, do not use a hyphen as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title, for example in Eye–hand span. To aid searching and linking, provide a redirect from the corresponding article title with hyphens in place of en dashes, as in Eye-hand span.

It links to WP:TITLE. There is a minority view (put forward by PMAnderson) that WP:MOS can have no bearing on article titles, so that this question was just about redirects.
But in fact, WP:MOS has always been concerned with punctuation in all parts of an article, including the title. WP:TITLE and its adjunct pages are silent concerning punctuation. See my point at the top of this section:

No question arose concerning the established role of WP:MOS in recommending punctuation for the text and titles of Wikipedia articles. Voting also confirmed that the community expects consistency between title and text.

This is all quite normal. That's how manuals of style work: they recommend punctuation and the like, regardless of the preceding choice of wording.
That is commended to ArbCom as a background assumption, which is necessary to achieve resolution of the disputes that brought this on. It would be appropriate for ArbCom to certify that WP:MOS continues to have that role.
To put it another way, the point is more general than that question on the polling page suggests. If we narrowed it to a matter of keeping an en dash in the title (rather than a hyphen), it might seem as if that's all there was to it. But in fact, the role of WP:MOS embraces punctuation in titles in all sorts of ways.
Something of the provision is kept in the new draft (concerning redirects, right at the top), but in a way that does not prejudice that generality.
That said, the background assumption that WP:MOS recommends on punctuation for titles is resoundingly affirmed in the voting. If ArbCom will certify this as an outcome, that will be sufficient. We couldn't do it in the draft! There will, of course, be partisans claiming that whatever WP:MOS declares about itself internally, it is a "mere" guideline, and is trumped by policy. In reality there is no conflict between policy like WP:TITLE and the guidelines at WP:MOS; they have different functions. That hasn't stopped all manner of factionalising – which is one of the hugely disruptive things we have been trying to resolve.
NoeticaTea? 15:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Late change: I have in fact amended the draft to include the exact wording of that question as it was posed in the polling, Cas. I am certain that none of those who have supported my stewardship of the draft will object; and if you think it belongs there, I take your advice. It has overwhelming assent in the voting. But my point remains: we will need an external certification of WP:MOS's role in this respect generally.
NoeticaTea? 15:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple of comments (in order of importance, so you can stop reading when you get bored):

  • “Iron and cobalt retain their identity” – ITYM “iron and cobalt retain their identity” (see Use–mention distinction). The former is not necessarily the case if you slam iron nuclei into a cobalt target hard enough, but you still want a dash in that case. :-)
  • I think the deprecation of ex~prime minister except in quotations and titles is a bit too strong. The improvement in clarity in former prime minister is about as marginal as the effects of the latter being one syllable more, IMO; that should be left up to editorial judgement. And, if anything, clarity is more important in headings due to the lack of context. (If the problem with the former is that people disagree on whether to spell it with a hyphen or a dash, we ought to discourage all phrases with several spellings each of which is considered non-standard somewhere, including colo[u]r, travel[l]ing, etc.)
  • Some of the examples seem a bit implausible to me: "Where is the—", she said, but then realized she held it in her hand, boyfriend–girlfriend problems – just how often do you think that will occur in an encyclopaedia? (Not a deal breaker, but all other thinks being equal I prefer examples taken from actual articles – preferably featured ones – to ones which appear to have been made up by someone very bored.) Others are redundant: what does the one about Darwin's birds exemplify that the ones before it don't, or a carbon–carbon bond that iron–cobalt interactions doesn't?

― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 19:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A di M:
  • For iron and cobalt, no: it is a question of use, not mention. TMTCFY: This is not about each component word retaining its identity in the construction, but iron and cobalt. Even if iron and cobalt were transformed in the interactions, they retain their identity for the semantics here. Cf. particle–antiparticle annihilation.
  • Your opinion about ex~prime minister is noted. This was the most difficult guideline to find an equitable compromise for. It is unfortunate that you were unable to join in till now, but remember that the schedule was made clear two months ago, and the discussion and negotiation have been exhaustive, running a week late as it is. There will be opportunities to tweak things later; but you will understand if I oppose extension of that process right now.
  • Same with the examples. They have been chosen with great care, and have been on the table here at WT:MOS since 23 July. They were here, and I called for comments, four days before your wikibreak began. Answers for you:
    • Boredom? Tell me about it ...☺. Note the use of real, linked cases lower in the draft; and others are from real articles, without that being noted (the complexity would not be worth it). Yes, more real-article examples would be great, if they make the points with precision. Please go get them. I for one will be happy for them to be used instead, later.
    • The redundancy is superficial, or only apparent. The "Darwin's birds" case is a paradigmatic two-dash instance, to set beside the one-dash instance that follows it, and the aberrant three-dash instance that follows both. It therefore differs from all the preceding examples, and has its expository place.
    • A carbon–carbon bond has occasioned discussion earlier at WT:MOS, and is genuinely difficult for some editors. This is the only case in which two instances of the same word flank the dash, for one thing. There are two examples using iron, for make a contrast using a common ingredient.
  • I hope that editors will see the need to focus on concluding this phase. WP:HYPHEN and WP:SLASH will need attention next, to improve their alignment with these closely related guidelines. In the process we can surely adjust these present details once again. I think several editors are exhausted by now. I have not taken a break during the months of this process, but stayed with it to do what I could toward a resolution. That is as irrelevant as anyone wants to make it; but perhaps it is beneficial for all of us just to move forward now. I too could find ways to remain stuck at some impasse or another; but don't you think we've had enough?
NoeticaTea? 21:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, electron–positron annihilation was indeed what I was thinking about when I wrote “you still want a dash in that case”. I'm not sure identity is the best word for what you mean here, but I can't think of a better one right now. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 00:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Git-R-Done! – Back in May, we voted on a compromise proposal that would have (hopefully ) ended the bickering over the use of en dashes and the role of the MOS, at least for a while. It got almost 50% (was ahead until Ohm's law switched sides, and finally ended up behind at 16–18 after an MOS supporter opposed weakening the MOS this way). Those in favor were in many cases reluctantly so, hoping to just stop the fuss. Those against it had various reasons, mostly not because they wanted to keep bickering, but that's what we've had to do, more or less, for another 10 weeks now. Some thought it was too prescriptive; some thought it was not prescriptive enough; many thought that encouraging article-by-article decisions ran contrary to the purpose of having an MOS; some thought that since they didn't know an en dash from a hole in the ground, the MOS should just prohibit them. It looked like overall people wanted a prescriptive MOS (with a few exceptions), but we still needed to work out exactly what it should say. So we looked at every provision in detail, splitting some into tiny pieces, so we see where people agreed and where they didn't. Many good ideas came out of it. A few areas were left without obvious consensus. Noetica took on the job of redrafting a version that would address as many of those expressed concerns as possible, and did a remarkably good job, I think. Yes, we still have some room to seek a better consensus on when an en dash can be spaced; and on when one should be used in a compound involving components with spaces or hyphens. These are the areas where the style guides seem to be most mixed, or most British–American differences are; they are NOT the areas that have led to arguments and edit wars in article naming and such, so they shouldn't suddenty be seen as so important as to hold up the process. Even with these admittedly imperfectly settled, we should "Git-R-Done". Further escalation to appeal to anti-MOS sentiments, and misrepresentation of old arguments to stall or derail the process will not help. Let's put the MOS back on track, closer to a true concensus than ever, and go from there, back to discussing minor changes one at a time. Thanks, Noetica; you are right that the new draft is "consensual" from most of us; even Jeff, for all his nit-picking, has said he is not adopting it; it's too bad that we were not able to get much constructive help from PMAnderson, but that's where we are. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Dick. Um, is that exactly what you meant: "even Jeff, for all his nit-picking, has said he is not adopting it"? NoeticaTea? 02:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
No, that's a typo; probably I was thinking "not opposed to adopting it". Rough week. Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Dick, my vote remains opposed. But we should recognize that it’s based only on a couple of comparatively minor points; I agree with most of the draft, as I’ve indicated several times. But I think we clearly failed to reach consensus on a couple of items:
  1. Spacing of en dashes when one or both of the endpoints includes a space. In particular, it’s absurd to assert consensus for “28 mm – 17 m” because it wasn’t given in the examples (perhaps my fault, as I did the breakout), and because only two people even mentioned it.
  2. Use of an en dash rather than a hyphen between open compounds (e.g., “Chuck Berry–style lyrics”, and perhaps as well for “post–Civil War period, a usage that I support). Clearly, I could have done a better job in the breakout here as well.
  3. Complete disregard of the “quality of arguments” aspect of WP:CONSENSUS.
I agree that the first two issues have nothing to do with the edit warring that began this process, and also that most of the differences here reflect differences between non-OUP British practice and that in (North) American practice. Incidentally, I’m not sure where Dick and I differ on “North American” practice; I used the term only as an alternative to describing everything in detail for each instance. I shall be happy to indicate what I mean by this if it’s really necessary.
Finally, there is the issue of what constitutes “consensus”. Definitions in Webster’s Second, Webster’s Third, Webster’s Collegiate, the American Heritage Dictionary, and the Shorter OED range from majority to unanimity; the most common sense, shared by usage guides that consider it in greater depth, is of “general agreement”, with which I agree. General agreement, of course is tough to quantify, but I’m not sure it differs markedly from “clear majority” (which is also tough to quantify). I think it safe to say that the US healthcare reform bill adopted in the last Congress was anything but consensus—the vote was barely more than simple majority, but arguably far more significant was the bitter division between the two sides. WP:CONSENSUS further complicates matters with the “quality of arguments” criterion, which seems reasonable enough to me. But what seems more important is that it clearly indicates that “I (don’t) like it” carries almost no weight, and here it seemed to count for almost everything. I cannot say which is right, but do feel safe in saying that the two conditions cannot coexist. It’s much like an engineer who continually signs off on parts that are found to be out of tolerance at inspection: either the engineer is allowing for a possibly defective product, or the tolerance is unreasonably tight. Clearly, the proper course of action is to determine which is the case and act accordingly. I don’t think that was done here. JeffConrad (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

[This response was started before the “do not modify” request. If the decision is to move it, please delete it, because it makes no sense outside this context. JeffConrad (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)]

That's cool, you can wind this up here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Error on Article: Anglo-Saxon "Wotan"

Will someone please ctrl+f or command+f "Wotan" and replace it with "Woden"? "Woden" is an Anglo-Saxon form of the theonym, whereas "Wotan" is from Old High German. Thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

He means this article, at MOS:#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines, and their adherents. Art LaPella (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Got it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Dash guidelines: toward a conclusion

The long process of finding or confirming consensus for the dash section (WP:DASH) of WP:MOS is drawing to a close. ArbCom, through admin and ArbCom member Casliber, has set 16 July 2011 as the date to finish up and to review consensus.

The evidence at the voting subpage is clear, with a huge response from the community to a poll that was advertised at many forums and talkpages, over the weeks since that page was started (11 May 2011).

  • 60 editors have contributed at the voting page, with 687 edits.
  • The content of the consensus, along with further development of the guidelines, has been discussed at the discussion subpage: 15 editors contributed, with 265 edits.
  • Kotniski made an "exploratory redrafting" of the dash section: 3 editors contributed, with 10 edits.
  • Kotniski's draft has been discussed by 4 editors, with 49 edits. There has been no discussion there for two full weeks (since 28 June).

Given that voting and discussion have been so comprehensive (but practically at a standstill now), and development of the exploratory draft so limited, I intend to initiate discussion right here, by way of summarising and reporting back the main talkpage. Building on Kotniski's valuable work, in a few hours I will post a more developed draft for the dash section, and suggest a framework for concluding discussion – at this central forum for MOS development.

NoeticaTea? 04:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let's do something. Art LaPella (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, too. I had made a suggestion or two for where to go from Kotniski's good start (see my comments and his at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion#A_draft). I think he has incorporated many of the suggestions from the lengthy discussion, but there is further we can go to simplify and clarify the structure. If I recall correctly, there was considerable support for more and better examples, broad enough to clarify the range of uses described for the en dash, and fewer and simpler "cases" or "rules". If you're willing, go for it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
It is not consensus. It ignores strong disagreement on the issues at hand, as usual. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Pmanderson, obviously some people disagree - if there had not been disagreement, this case wouldn't have been placed before the arbitration committee. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
That appeal was started and populated by those who disagree with the present text; which is why I dispute restating the present text, and claiming it to be consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with this

This utterly ignores the absence of consensus on the points at issue.

1 is a useful section; emphasis on the primary meaning of the dash is always welcome; but the parenthetical use of dashes is not distinct from the abrupt change in meaning or construction – it's a special case in which the original intent of the sentence is resumed.

4 and 5 ignore the strong disagreement in the poll on those points; sections 5b and 6c (about a third of the comments). This also ignores the several recommendations to strengthen the recommendation to avoid compounded compounds, including Tony's (section 5c).Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Majority vote?

If more people support it than oppose it, of course we should ignore the opposition. Why should opposition outweigh support? If the majority of users think that the guidelines are fine and think the opposition is wrong, then, sorry, but that's just tough luck. It's impossible to please everybody. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's frank. No wonder MOS has so much turbulence; just because you ignore the opposition does not mean they cease to oppose. Who else agre4s with this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
If we go with simple majority voting, and "ignore the opposition", then we'd be changing our practices drastically, and Wikipedia would stop working as well as it does. Decisions are made here by consensus, not by "majority rules". -GTBacchus(talk) 20:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
That's just it: majority often stands in for consensus around here. Take WP:LQ. The overwhelming majority of sources say one thing, but the overwhelming majority of contributors to this page say something else, so that's what made it into the MoS. WP:Consensus says that it ought to be about who has the most logical argument, but it doesn't always work that way.
Can anyone remember even one time when something that wasn't the personal preference of the majority (regardless of whether it also had other virtues) went into the MoS? It looks to me like if WP:LQ gets replaced, it would be the first time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Principles, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2#Principles, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan#Principles
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_123&oldid=1245260112"