Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

See also
Wikipedia talk:Writing better articles
Wikipedia talk:Article titles
Wikipedia talk:Quotations
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/quotation and punctuation

Spaces in endash

Following User:Tony1's revert of my edit, I would like to make a plea that the rule for spacing the endash when one or both items of a discussion must be changed. "Seifert – van Kampen theorem" looks horrid when compared to "Seifert–van Kampen theorem", and the latter is what I have seen at least in every good mathematical publication. It might be helpful to provide on the talk page here a reference to what some other style guides have to say about the endash. I can't find much in those one my own shelf. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Sławomir Biały. My experience is primarily limited to mathematical publishing, but it's a very consistent rule that en dashes are not spaced; this is true in American Mathematical Society publications, Springer-Verlag publications, Cambridge University Press publications, etc., etc. One never sees a spaced en dash. Ozob (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with spacing the endashes in the examples given in the MoS between cities or days. But now looking in the ACS style guide, I see that they recommend that endashes should never be spaced when between authors' surnames (e.g. van't Hoff&endash;Le Bel). So this rule, which Tony1 has previously asserted is universal, does appear to have this notable exception. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the Oxford Style Guide, en dashes appear always to be unspaced. It gives the example of Einstein–de Sitter universe (unspaced). Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

En dashes are always unspaced according to the APA Publication Manual. They do not give any interesting examples, though. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford Style Guide is just one publication of many. Is that the American Psychological Association's manual (it's shyte, IMO). I've changed it again, hoping this will suit. diff. I don't think it's wise to introduce subjective judgement as to whether "the lack of space is [not] visually awkward in some cases", so I removed that notion—we should not risk promoting arguments about "awkwardness" on article talk pages. Tony (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC) PS I personally hate the lack of spacing in your example, which now reads "Steiffert–van". That is what is awkward. Tony (talk)

Actually, if you read all three of the above posts, the APA, ACS, and Oxford style manuals all agree on this point: en dashes are never spaced. And I doubt all three can simultaneously be disregarded as "shite". I think it is time to reassess this paragraph of the text altogether. Do any major publication manuals recommend spacing disjunctive en dashes? I know it has been previously asserted that this practice is widespread in publishing, but I have found zero evidence of this based on the manuals that I have so far checked. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I keep the Chicago Manual close at hand, and so I can confirm it also does not use spaced en dashes (although some of its recommendations about when to use en dashes are not what one would expect). But at least the changes so far cover the original problem, which was the article Seifert–van Kampen theorem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The change regarding surnames looks OK to me. It's worthwhile to search for "Seifert–van Kampen" on Google Books and look at the examples that appear in print there. I found books by Springer, Cambridge Univ. Press, Oxford Univ. Press, the American Math. Society Press, and Wiley, all of which used an unspaced en dash in the name. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, CMOS gets confused about some things, and delivers pronouncements that look rather committee-driven (their "noun plus -ing" advice looks as though they can't decide one way or the other, which I guess is forgivable). They also don't always take their own advice. The 2003 edition (15th) is less oriented towards en dashes, which suggests a greater proportion of typewriter nerds, and people who write computer code, on the committee. Tony (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring CMOS for a moment, do you give any weight to the usage of actual professional presses, such as the five listed above? Can you point to which style manual does ask for a spaced en dash in Seifert–van Kampen theorem? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So the ACS, APA, CMOS, and Oxford manuals all agree that there are no spaces around en dashes. Although Tony1 will likely find fault in all of these manuals, even he should acknowledge that these four are at least among the ten most popular and influential guides currently on the market. I propose that we do away with the recommendation of spaced en dashes altogether so that our own manual is in accord with what appears to be the norm in the publishing industry, unless there are objections backed by some concrete sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Many hard-copy style guides do in fact recommend spaced en dashes, and none recommends unspaced en dashes when they are interrupters. Just why a few should insist on jamming together the innermost elements of spaced items is a mystery, and one that should not influence how WP does things on the Internet. WP is not bound to follow any particular hard-copy style manual: its style guide is shaped in relation to its own set of conditions – for example, the computer monitor, the display font(s) and sizes we use, and the readership. The notion that we should write jam together innermost elements is damaging to the meaning and readability of the text, and frankly is just bad practice:

• New York–Chicago route (that new transatlantic route from York to Chicago); or
• 19 September 1901–13 October 1979 (is "1901–13" a year range stuck in there? Or some kind of code?)

This matter was settled years ago here, and there is absolutely no reason to allow your personal distaste for "Seifert – van Kampen theorum" to blow out into a general anti-spacing campaign. Next we'll be told that we are no longer allowed the option of using spaced en dashes as interrupters – but instead must use solely unspaced em dashes—to cleanse the text of spaced punctuation. Perhaps we should change the rules on mathematical symbols to squash them up and save space:

• 4–2=2, rather than 4 – 2 = 2.

And no more 4 pm, but 4pm. What exactly is wrong with spacing an en dash to avoid ambiguity and reading difficulty? Tony (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Many hard-copy style guides do in fact recommend spaced en dashes, ..." – let me repeat my question: please name the one you are looking at when you say that. I would be interested in looking it up myself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I did a brief query using Google Books, and in the resulting snippets found several instances of recommendations of spaced en dashes in place of unspaced em dashes (e.g., p. 80 of Bringhurst 2004, ISBN 0881792063), but found no instances of recommending spaced en dashes when the items being separated contain spaces. So I'd like to see a citation about the latter as well. Eubulides (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that em dashes are often replaced with spaced en dashes. The thing we are looking at here are "disjunctive" en dashes, such as those that replace the word "to" or the ones that link multiple authors of a theorem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear – and I see that Tony's post above somewhat blurs this – we are here only talking about "disjunctive" en dashes, those to which the Spacing subheading of the MoS applies. I'm perfectly fine with spaced en dashes in place of em dashes. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Seifert – van Kampen theorem" might "avoid ambiguity and reading difficulty" (it doesn't for me; the spaced en dash looks too much like an "interruptive" one – like this one), but even if it did, that'd be not enough: it needs to be in actual use. Otherwise, it'd be like writing "seeked" because it's clearer than "sought". And I've actually read someone suggesting that, though not on Wikipedia. I concur with Carl in asking which source actually suggests "Seifert – van Kampen theorem". (I can't recall ever seeing anything like that, and as a physicist I read about things named after two people all the time.) --___A. di M. 20:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(Also, you want "4 − 2 = 2" with a minus sign, not "4 – 2 = 2" with a dash. And that is in actual use. --___A. di M. 21:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

Try again! "4 − 2 = 2" with a minus sign ... Art LaPella (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn C&P... fixed now.--___A. di M. 23:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Fowler's Modern English Usage and Fowler and Fowler's The King's English do not use spaces with their dashes, but they don't really discuss the distinctions among the dashes and it's not clear to me whether they intend their usage to be normative or not. (And, I should correct my claim above: In mathematics, nobody uses disjunctive spaced en dashes.)

Style guide lists a few more possible guides we might look at: AP Stylebook, A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, The Elements of Style, The Elements of Typographic Style, ISO 690, MHRA Style Guide, MLA Handbook, MLA Style Guide, and The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage. I'm curious to know if any of these approve of disjunctive spaced en dashes. At the moment, it looks to me like the typographic world is united against them. Ozob (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"In mathematics, nobody uses disjunctive spaced en dashes." OK, this came up towards the top of my first google search. Tony (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That citation is to a set of class notes, which incorrectly capitalizes the "van" in "van Kempen", so it's an example of how not to format "Seifert–van Kampen theorem". For what it's worth, my searches for the phrase found nearly universal preference for unspaced en dash. Anyway, rather than focus on this particular example, do you have a citation to a style guide recommending spaces in cases like these? That would be a much stronger argument. Eubulides (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So I tried looking up the style guides I listed above in Google Books. AP Stylebook, Turabian, ISO 690, MLA Handbook, and MLA Style Guide have no previews. Strunk is available, but doesn't discuss the matter. Elements of Typographic Style has only a snippet view; searching for "en dash" reveals the statement, "5.2.1 Use spaced en dashes – rather than close-set em dashes or spaced hyphens – to set off phrases.", which is nice, but not relevant to the present discussion. MHRA Style Guide suggests using spaced em dashes! (5.2, p. 26) But on p. 6, 1.3.5, it commands that en dashes shall be unspaced. The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage says to always used spaced em dashes, and gives a reason: The space makes it easier to break lines in narrow newpaper columns? It tells us not to use an en dash for this, p. 96. Later on pgs. 102, 157, 166, and 328 it tells us that a minus sign is an en dash, which is just wrong.

Unless someone provides at least one style guide that recommends spaced disjunctive en dashes, then I think this discussion is settled. Ozob (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know why this extended discussion is going on in the first place, when the The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage even recommends the use of the open set em-dash. Also you can find more info about this topic at Wiki: Dash. In particular, see the section,

According to most American sources (e.g., The Chicago Manual of Style) and to some British sources (e.g., The Oxford Guide to Style), an em dash should always be set closed (not surrounded by spaces). But the practice in many parts of the English-speaking world, also the style recommended by The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, sets it open (separates it from its surrounding words by using spaces  or hair spaces (U+200A)) when it is being used parenthetically. Some writers, finding the em dash unappealingly long, prefer to use an open-set en dash. This "space, en dash, space" sequence is also the predominant style in German and French typography.

That is enough for me to allow the open-set en dashes for disjunctive purposes. Skol fir (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The above quote is about a different matter: using spaced en dash as a stylistic alternative to unspaced em dash. That matter is already covered in the MoS, in a different part, and is not relevant to the discussion about spaced en dash for ranges and other disjunctions. Eubulides (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• No, no one is going to overturn a long-standing formatting requirement just like that, particularly in such a way that produces ambiguous and hard-to-read gobbledy such as:

19 December 2009–11 January 2010.

Just about every biographical article would be adversely affected by that construction alone. Harts prescribes spaced en dashes where there are spaces in the elements, but I am away from home at the moment and have no access to style guides. In any case, just what dead-tree style guides recommend is only part of the matter. Wikipedia is an online project, not a hard-copy one. We have our own particular readership and contexts. We are not dictated to by particular publications that set themselves up as house authorities or, indeed, more general guidelines. Tony (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

While I'm for the spaced en dash in general, it's just silly for last names. It's unanimously Schmidt–von Buren–Bellford theorem or Ansky–de Vries connundrum in every article, book, report, etc... that I've even seen.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see what the latest Hart's says. I looked around this elsewhere on the Internet, and found this comment by a Noetica:

"Many authorities, British and American, allow that an en dash can be used to replace a hyphen in forming certain compounds or phrases, perhaps flanked by spaces where spaces or hyphens are already present in one or more of the joined elements: Albanian–Greek trade talks; New Zealand – Australian rivalry; South-East Asian – Japanese tensions. Details vary, but this sort of thing is common. So is the en dash in marking a range: a 10–7 majority; pp. 23–39. Chicago minimises such uses of the en dash. Those are the basics. More could be said."[1]

In light of this, I propose that we change the MOS wording as follows (see updated proposal below):

"Spacing: Disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except that spaces are allowed when either item contains a space or hyphen (June 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but June–August 1940). Proper names typically do not require spaces around the en dash (Seifert–van Kampen theorem)."

This would not rule out our existing usage, but it wouldn't require it either. Eubulides (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The latest Hart's has this example (p. 84): "the New York–New Jersey–Connecticut area". Note the lack of spacing. I think we should do away with the recommendation that disjunctive en dashes be spaced, but that (per Tony's advice) allow an exception when used to separate dates. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to contradict Tony1's statement above. Does it give any direct advice about spacing or not spacing disjunctive en dashes? — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, we do not want people writing full date ranges with the innermost elements squashed. The current wording allows for last-name squashing, but as Noetica points out, the spacing is required to disambiguate and for ease of reading in many places. Tony (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I can easily find usages by high-quality houses in which date ranges are written with unspaced endashes. For example, "January 1, 2001–December 31, 2002" in Fig. 2 (p. 1399) of Cao & Lin 2008 (doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2007.12.030), an Elsevier journal; and "29 June–6 July" in Table 1 (p. 159) of Tan et al. 2004 (PDF; doi:10.1007/s00484-003-0193-z), a Springer journal. In contrast, I can't find use of spaced endashes for date ranges in either academic publishing house. Absent some advice from a reliable style guide (and Noetica's comments are merely in a blog somewhere), I don't see any evidence that spaced en dashes are common practice for this situation, outside of Wikipedia, and I see lots of evidence that unspaced en dashes are common practice for it. Eubulides (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

←Back to "Seifert – van Kampen theorem". The treatment in the literature is chaotic, as usual with hyphens and dashes. Writers, particularly scientists, grope towards something that they think might look reasonable and logical. Some give up for want of proper guidelines and just bang in the old (unspaced) hyphen they grew up with on the typewriter as school children and undergraduates. Some book and article editors clearly don't know either, and have a vague stab or leave their author's raw text as it is, enforcing consistency if you're lucky. A quick survey revealed several basic patterns and underlying motivations.

1. Most writers realise there's something inherently unsatisfactory about jamming a little hyphen blob in among this multi-word item, and opt for the en dash.
2. There's a definite trend to acknowledge that even an en dash, squashed in, resonates poorly with the gap between "van" and "Kampen". I suspect most writers don't explicitly ascribe this to an undesirable linking of "Seifert" and "van" as though they alone were the double unit, to be reverse-disambiguated only on the subsequent rightward fixation; nevertheless, the urge to insert some kind of space is there, and a space to the right but not to the left of the en dash is not uncommon. Unfortunately, this looks like the punctuation you sometimes see in lists ("The Beatles– Yesterday"), which almost always looks untidy.
3. While Eubulides dismissed with a wave of the hand my example of "Seifert – Van Kampen theorum" straight from the top of a google search, because they got the "V" wrong (should be "v"), the V is common, even if it is strictly speaking wrong. Here are examples of the mess out there, just in mathematics textbooks (no wonder the style guides can't agree or say nothing much about it):

• Seifert – van Kampen theorem and [this here])
• Half-way there: Steifer - van Kampen
• Seifert– van Kampen theorum
• Seifert–Van Kampen
• Seifert-Van Kampen
• Quite a few of this bumpety-bump: Seiffert- van Kampern theorum
• A French-language book gave up: Seifert Van Kampen
• A bet each way on the same page: "Seifert–van Kampen theorum", then "Seifert-van Kampen theorem"
• A spaced slash, OMG that's attractive: Seifert / van Kampen
• Another double-bet: "Seifert- Van Kampen", then "Seifert-Van Kampen" four lines later
• I even spotted an em dash, if you please ("Seifert—van Kampen"), but I've lost the link.

Now, as we've discussed before on this page, when there's a mess out there, we need to ensure that our own articles do better. We set the standard internationally for encyclopedic text, and we should not join the race to the messy typographical bottom. WP chose the best and most logical out there and has been applying it consistently ever since. It has served us well with full date ranges, it avoids ambiguity in multi-word place names ("South Australia – Northern Territory border"), and it is used for theorums and other surname-derived scientific items. Tony (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I quite agree that there is a lot of bad typography out there, but this doesn't address the point that "Seifert–van Kampen theorem" is used by many high-quality sources, as are date ranges like "January 1, 2001–December 31, 2002", and so far all the style guides we've found (including Harts) agree that unspaced en dash is the way to go for these sorts of examples, with zero style guides saying otherwise. (By the way, none of those Google Books URLs work for me; Google Books URLs are not reliable in general.) Given this apparent unanimity of style guides, why are we insisting that the Wikipedia style is right and that Harts etc. are wrong? Eubulides (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Every one of the Google Books URL's works for me. In my professional estimation it is not Google Books that has a reliability problem. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Google Books tends to behave differently according to which country your IP is in. They are operating at the very edge of what copyright laws allow, or even of what is merely tolerated, and obviously that differs a lot between legislations. No need for comments that sound like insults here. Hans Adler 08:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, google books screw up a lot of punctuation when it quotes the relevant search word underneath the entry title: spaces too. Now Eubulides, who says the publications that use the typography you seem to want are "high quality", and the ones that use spaced en dashes are not "high quality"? Tony (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• When I say the Google Books URLs don't work, what I mean is that when I follow them, I see a bunch of blank pages. I don't know whether that's because Google has blacklisted my country, or my IP address range, or whatever, but for the purpose of this discussion it doesn't really matter. Since I can't see the books, I don't know whether the books use high quality typesetting.
• I am not proposing that spaced endashes be outlawed in this case, only that they not be required. For the usage in question we have seen high quality style guides suggest unspaced endashes (with no style guides suggesting otherwise), and we've seen high quality publishing houses (Elsevier, Springer) use unspaced endashes. So why are we prohibiting unspaced endashes?

Eubulides (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So you want people to be able to write:

• 29 December 1918–19 January 1920
  

do you? No thanks: it's a shocker. I could not stand by and allow WP's formatting to be degraded in that way, with a two-year range (1918–19) stuck in the middle. It has worked just fine, and will continue to do so; until this small band of editors started complaining about the formatting of the theorum, no one has ever said a thing about it. I am unconvinced about allowing non-spaced punctuation in such items even in that, but it would be a much less egregious change that removing the well-established convention for dates and other items. I think the wording, as recently inserted, goes quite far enough, allowing people who have a bee in their hat about surname-derived multiple-word scientific items to use unspaced en dashes. Anything more would be unconscionable. Tony (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In general I would like to see more spaced dashes, not fewer, and I agree with Tony on the substantive case here. But Tony, you seriously need an attitude adjustment. And by the way, learn to spell theorem. --Trovatore (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

New Hart's Rules: The Handbook of Style for Writers and Editors, by R. M. Ritter, 2005, pp. 79–80 specifies unspaced en dashes almost exclusively. There's an exception for spaced en dashes as a "parenthetical dash", and there's an exception for en dashes used to replace letters. (They give as an example of the latter, "'F – – – off', he screamed." That's right, no extra space between the last dash and the letter "o".)

As a test, I'd like to ask everyone: How would you read the following sentences?

It was a cold January – December had been warm, but now Mother Nature had decided to punish us.

I hated Monday – Friday was my favorite day of the week – so I hit the snooze button and rolled over.

Now compare:

It was a cold January—December had been warm, but now Mother Nature had decided to punish us.

I hated Monday—Friday was my favorite day of the week—so I hit the snooze button and rolled over.

and:

It was a cold January–December had been warm, but now Mother Nature had decided to punish us.

I hated Monday–Friday was my favorite day of the week–so I hit the snooze button and rolled over.

Rather than make a pronouncement, I want to ask: What do the dashes look like they are saying in these three renderings? Which look good, and which do not? Ozob (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Good examples. No doubt others can be cooked up of the New York–Chicago variety. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Rather than cook up examples, why not look at what high-quality publishing houses do? Let's take Tony's "shocker" example: it's standard practice in high-quality publishing houses to do it the "shocker" way. I used Google Scholar to search for "1 January 2001 31 December 2002" (in quotes) and found one example of it formatted with spaced endash, a PhD thesis at the U. of Canterbury, which is not a strong source. In contrast, all three instances I found at academic publishing houses used unspaced en dash (the sources are doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.07.038, doi:10.1080/00365540500525161, doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.03.005; these are two published by Elsevier and one by Informa). So, again, I see zero support for the notion that high-quality publishers use spaced endash, whereas I do see some support for the idea that some less-formal sources use spaced endashes. But most of the informal sources use hyphen! so clearly we cannot be relying on less-formal sources for advice in this area. Eubulides (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To me Ozob's point with these examples largely undercut's Tony's. As soon as we see something appearing in a wider context, the spaced en dash puts too much separation between its disjuncts, and can easily be confused for a spaced en dash qua em dash. The fact that publishers also seem to prefer the "shocker" way is also fairly compelling. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

For comparison's sake, here's Tony's shocker done several ways:

29 December 1918-19 January 1920

29 December 1918 - 19 January 1920

29 December 1918–19 January 1920

29 December 1918 – 19 January 1920

29 December 1918—19 January 1920

29 December 1918 — 19 January 1920

and here's a fun cooked-up example:

I wanted pizza, but I was in New York-Chicago-style deep-dish was so much better!

I wanted pizza, but I was in New York - Chicago-style deep-dish was so much better!

I wanted pizza, but I was in New York–Chicago-style deep-dish was so much better!

I wanted pizza, but I was in New York – Chicago-style deep-dish was so much better!

I wanted pizza, but I was in New York—Chicago-style deep-dish was so much better!

I wanted pizza, but I was in New York — Chicago-style deep-dish was so much better!

(I'd call that first one the "Freshman Special".) I'm not convinced that any of the options make the shocker look good, but I do prefer it unspaced. And while I had to bake the pizza example to get something so bad, I think it illustrates that you can't space disjunctive en dashes and then use spaced en dashes anywhere else. Ozob (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is your "cooked up" example is patently false. Chicago deep-dish is not better that New York-style. ;-) oknazevad (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC) (Sorry, couldn't resist)

Sir, you are an infidel. :-) Ozob (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe date ranges should be "squashed". They look better with a spaced en dash.  HWV258  03:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with HWV258. I’ve long been a Mac user and "into" fine typography and page layout. For Mac people, it’s trivially easy to use en and em-dashes. So, since about 1988, I’ve keep a keen eye peeled for the conventions professional publications used for en-dashes. Indeed, real-world practices are all over the map and publications that even have their own manuals of style fail to religiously adhere to them. Accordingly, it is impossible to point to the practices of notable, authoritative publications and periodicals to make a case for doing something this way or that. In a nutshell: MOS’ guidelines governing the use of en-dashes in ranges has long served us well. The newly added exception to the general rule is reasonable enough and I certainly see no need to expand the exceptions any further; to do so would result in a non-harmonious hodgepodge of punctuation style; that is not what we need in an all-volunteer, collaborative writing environment. The current guideline, IMO, produces text that is least ambiguous, most natural to the eye, and reads most smoothly. Greg L (talk)

I also agree that the newly added exception is adequate. Since Wikipedia is an electronic medium, it has one issue to contend with that is not required with printed media: wide variations in page width. Readers have different width screens, and have their browsers sized to various widths. This causes Wikipedia articles to break at various point in any text. If unspaced en dashes are required in more circumstances, this can cause line breaks at undesirable places, such as:

... 29 December 1918–19
January 1920

... 29 December
1918–19 January 1920

Of course these can be corrected by adding non-breaking spaces, but that is cumbersome. Squashing en dashes and adding non-breaking spaces creates larger non-breaking units of text, which is not as 'friendly' to various browser widths. Since Wikipedia is electronic, it should not be required to follow MOS for printed media. CuriousEric (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The previous comment seems to assume that high-quality publishers like Elsevier and Springer don't publish via HTML. That is incorrect: all the sources cited above are available via HTML and use unspaced endashes. So these publishers don't seem to have a problem with using unspaced endashes in an electronic medium. And that's OK, because wide variations in page width mess up date ranges regardless of whether unspaced endashes are used. The following line breaks are all possible with spaced endashes, and they're all bad:

• ........ 1 January 2001 – 31
  December 2002 ..............
• ......................................... 1
  January 2001 – 31 December 2002
• ....................... 1 January
  2001 – 31 December 2002 .......
• ............. 1 January 2001
  – 31 December 2002 ............
• 1 January 2001 – 31 December
  2002 .............................

In practice these line breaks are avoided by putting the date range near the start of a paragraph, or in an infobox, or inside {{nowrap}}, or whatever; and all of these fixes work equally well regardless of whether spaced or unspaced endashes are used. Eubulides (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is quite interesting: WP:NBSP says that non-breaking spaces should be used "on the left side of spaced en dashes, if necessary for comprehension", and later on the same page, WP:MOSDB says "En dashes are preceded by a non-breaking space per WP:DASH." At a bare minimum, we need to choose spacing rules that don't confuse the reader. My first impulse is that whenever a date has an internal space, we should require that that space be non-breaking, i.e., not 1 April 2010 but 1 April 2010. That avoids all of Eubulides's examples above. And I think we should do this regardless of the spacing of en dashes.

Returning to the spacing of en dashes: WP:EMDASH says that an em dash can be replaced by a spaced en dash. Do we really want to allow both that and disjunctive spaced en dashes? How would you read the following example? This time I'm not giving any hints:

They flew New York – Burbank – New York – Los Angeles had been the original plan, but bad weather forced them to reroute.

Ozob (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• They flew New York – Burbank – New York; Los Angeles had .... Or a period before LA. It's a little stumpy, so consider "They flew from New York to Burbank and back again; Los ...". On nbspaces, yes, they can be used, but you wouldn't bother for, say, full dates that open a bio article and clearly won't be at the end of the line. I think it's quite unnecessary to insert a nbsp between month and year in the example you give. The more clutter, the more we put off newbies and casual visitors from contributing. It's a matter of balance. I see some people putting nbspaces between every number and the word it numerates: that's boring (312 horses). Tony (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I would have put the period after Burbank. I read Ozob's example as "They flew from New York to Burbank. Flying from New York to Los Angeles had been the original plan, but...", with no mention of the return trip. Maybe the use of dashes instead of appropriate prepositions should simply be discouraged when there's a strong possibility of confussion. That said, this is far afield from the thread starting conversation about names in scientific citations, which seems to use unspaced endashes in most of the references dug up. I know that jibes with what I've seen in my scientific career. oknazevad (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when I originally thought of the sentence, I intended it as "... New York–Burbank. New York–Los Angeles ..." But that's why it's so striking: It can be completely misread because of the two different meanings of a spaced en dash. Whatever our rules on en dashes, contrived ambiguity like this should be forbidden!

Regarding non-breaking spaces, would you support requiring a non-breaking space between a month and a day? As in, September 1 or 29 February? Ozob (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I dunno how comes everyone is lumping all types of "disjunctive en dashes" together. There's a significant difference between ranges such as 29 December 1918 – 19 January 1920, which are usually in places (such parentheses, tables or infoboxes) where they don't play any grammatical role in any sentence (otherwise from 29 December 1918 to 19 January 1920 is clearer and commoner), and adjectival name pairs as in Seifert–van Kampen theorem. In the former, the space improves readability (though I can't see how 29 December 1918–19 January 1920 is ambiguous) with no drawback, whereas in the latter having a " – " identical to an interruptive dash in the middle of a noun phrase will eventually lead to garden-path sentences or actual ambiguities such as in Ozob's examples. The EU style guide, for example, in paragraph 2.19 says, "En dashes are used to join coordinate or contrasting pairs (the Brussels–Paris route, a current–voltage graph, the height–depth ratio)", with no mention of spaces whatsoever, but in paragraph 3.15 it suggests "€ 20–30 million, 10–70 °C" when "the symbol or multiple ... do not change" and "100 kW – 40 MW" "[i]f the symbol or multiple changes". I should point a COI here. I tend to pick up sequences such as "van Kampen" as one unit, probably also because I myself have a space in my surname; but this might not be the case for people in countries where spaced surnames are so rare that descendants of immigrants eventually CamelCase their surnames. --___A. di M. 10:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Endash proposal 2

The above discussion makes it quite clear that style guides and high-quality publishing houses use unspaced endash for date ranges (and other constructs where ranges contain spaces), and that there is not agreement among the editors here whether spaced or unspaced endashes should be used in this context. In the light of this discussion I propose that we change the MOS wording as follows:

"Spacing: Disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except that spaces are allowed when either item contains a space. Proper names typically do not need spaces around the en dash (Seifert–van Kampen theorem). A spaced en dash can lessen confusion in some cases (29 December 1918 – 19 January 1920).

As with the previous proposal, this would not rule out our existing usage, but it wouldn't require it either, and it would allow unspaced endashes as other high-quality publishing houses do. Eubulides (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Update in response to comments below: I trimmed " and can increase it in others (The June 15 – July 15 schedule – introduced the previous year – was unpopular.)" from the end of the proposed text. Eubulides (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Not big on your second (counter) example. When read out loud, its intended meaning is entirely clear, so it doesn't seem to be a good example of potential confusion. Other than that, it seems like a pretty good take on it. oknazevad (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The red-text example can be rewritten as:

• The June 15 – July 15 schedule which was introduced the previous year was unpopular. or
• The June 15 – July 15 schedule—introduced the previous year—was unpopular. or
• The June 15 – July 15 schedule (introduced the previous year) was unpopular.

As there are preferred methods, I don't see it as a good example of spaced en dashes increasing confusion. I would suggest that the proposed wording (if we must have it) is simply ended after the date example in green.

 HWV258  21:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment; I shortened the proposed wording as you suggested. Eubulides (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with this version for the reasons adduced here and in the earlier thread. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• No way. You three are just trying to force your way towards shunting the long-standing usage of spaced en dashes everywhere towards the opposite. The current wording is just fine, thanks very much. It is unconscionable to allow people to write dates or multi-word ranges/to-from/opposition constructions with the innermost units jammed together. There is no reason to change. You've got what you wanted, for surname-derived scientific terms – WP should not be running with the lowest, most illogical standards out there, but the highest. Tony (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm also happy with this version. Ozob (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I would support this version as well, as it gives editors freedom to employ formats endorsed by common style guides. Users shouldn't need be burdened with learning Wikipedia-specific styles in addition to the widely-employed styles with which they are already familiar. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides's latest matra is that certain "academic" publishers are "high quality". Let me think about that. But ultimately, it doesn't matter. Most high quality" publishers use title case in subtitles, or to insert hyphens after "-ly" adverbs. Eubulides, are you next going to mount a campaign for title case, drawing on the practice of most "high quality" publishers? My reaction is, so ;what if other publishers use crap formatting? We take the best, not the worst, and this small band of people here is trying to change a long-standing rule to allow editors to use the worst. It's absurd. Tony (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's not personalize this discussion, please. So far, no evidence has been given of any publisher or style guide consistently using spaced endashes when the operands include spaces. On the contrary: we've seen examples of high-quality style guides (Hart's) and high-quality publishers (Elsevier, Springer) that use unspaced endashes. This is not a "campaign" to do anything other than to give Wikipedia authors the freedom to use the same sort of formatting that our best sources do. There is nothing wrong with writing New York–New Jersey–Connecticut area, as Hart's does. Eubulides (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Let's take the best of what the publishing world has to offer. So far, "the best" would seem to be represented by OUP, CMOS, APA, ACS, and New Hart's, and they appear to unanimously rule that disjunctive en dashes are always unspaced. Once again I think we need to ask if there are any major publication guides that recommend spaced disjunctive en dashes. So far that point does seem to have been lost in the din. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"...as it gives editors freedom to employ formats endorsed by common style guides. Users shouldn't need be burdened with learning Wikipedia-specific styles in addition to..."—now I'm getting worried; and I didn't sign on for this aspect. Like it or not, this is Wikipedia, and we have the right to have our own standards. It's not about whether any one editor can "get it right", rather it's how an editor's contributions can eventually be standardised. We have worker bees who will gradually apply our standards, and very often the original editor need not be cognisant of the syntactical change to their work. I reject any wording that allows the free-ranging use of MOSs from all sorts of sources (and ultimate inconsistency between articles). That way madness lies. We can do better.  HWV258  04:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think the current wording allows for "the free-ranging use of MOSs from all sorts of sources"? It doesn't appear to do so. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I was replying to the comment "...as it gives editors freedom to employ formats endorsed by common style guides" which suggests it does.  HWV258  04:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with HWV's concerns, and ultimately with Tony though to a less vehement degree. The long-established standard is quite sufficient as a standard for WP's purposes and variety of content – if any changes are merited (for proper names, etc), they should be introduced as the potential exceptions, where clarity or consistency dictates. Not the other way around. /ninly^(talk) 04:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Having made that comment I was referring the specific styles indicated in the proposal. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood, however let's be careful about the precedence we enable here.  HWV258  04:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The proposed change is not a device for letting editors use whatever style guide they want. It's merely a proposal to improve the quality of Wikipedia in one small area, by not requiring spaces where our best-quality sources say that spaces should be omitted. No wholesale precedent would be set: in no other situation that we know of is Wikipedia's style guide diametrically opposed to all high-quality style sources that we can find. Eubulides (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• I couldn't disagree more: it is just that: a free-for-all, "use whichever style guide you like" notion. The current wording has been significantly compromised by the addition of the last sentence: "Spacing: Disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight; the New Zealand – South Africa grand final; June 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but June–August 1940). Exceptions are occasionally made where the item involves a spaced surname (Seifert–van Kampen theorem)." It has already strayed too far from the stable, unambiguous formatting that WP has happily used for years, but unhappily it looks as though we'll be forced to accept it for the sake of keeping the peace. However, allowing that concession to be an immediate slippery slope towards do what you like shows how unwise it is: I am determined that it not be treated as an open door to formatting chaos in the project. I do not want to see one article entitled "New York – Ontario trade" and other entitled "New York–Ontario border": that is the kind of thing we'll get. I certainly don't want to read squashed date ranges at the top of bio articles, as you proposal encourages, with an unintended year range stuck in the middle, and the associated reading difficulty and aesthetic blooper.

Are the arguments now being dragged out just for the sake of winning? Are those concerning the dangers of line-wrapping serious? For example:
"Until the publication of the Seifert–van
Kampen theorem" (unspaced en dash) is just as likely as
"Until the publication of the Seifert –
van Kampen theorem" (spaced en dash).

We are already asked to insert a non-breaking space before a spaced en dash. I note that no one has ever complained that the date-stamp after your signature wraps onto the next line if it's unlucky enough to be in the wrong place; yet they can do that, and you've passed over examples.

(2) The examples of potential ambiguity provided above—in which spaced en dashes of different role are wound together—seem to be contrived for the purpose: any editor worth their salt will try to avoid the use of en dashes as interrupters right next to en dashes in their other roles; I have very occasionally had to ask for this to be addressed in FACs (like, once or twice a year). We have semicolons, commas and parentheses at our disposal for this very reason. Perhaps advice concerning this point might be added to the en dash section.

(3) "Users shouldn't need be burdened with learning Wikipedia-specific styles in addition to"—that reminds me of a certain user who has been banned from this page for persistent trouble-making: every publishing house has its own rules, unless they can't be bothered thinking about it and say to follow CMOS or the dreadful APA or whatnot. Here, we are more professional; people who have an anti-MoS agenda, please put up their hands, because we need to know whether this will be extended into a full onslaught on this style guide, casting everything it advises as second to whatever external style guide one wishes to invoke against it. My question has not been answered as to whether there will soon be a move to allow title case in our article and section titles, just because most publications do it. Tony (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

To answer your last question, nobody in this thread (certainly not me) is proposing to allow title case in our article and section titles: Wikipedia's section-title practice is common in other high-quality publications, and that clearly distinguishes the title-case issue from the endash issue (as spaced disjunctive endash is quite uncommon in other high-quality publications). In practice, unspaced endashes are no more (or less) ambiguous than unspaced: one can contrive examples that make either look bad, but these are rare in practice and are easily worked around (for both styles). The proposed wording does not encourage unspaced endash in date ranges: on the contrary, it gives date ranges as an example where spaced en dashes are apropos. As for "Are the arguments now being dragged out just for the sake of winning?" and "that reminds me of a certain user who has been banned": again, let's please comment on the topic rather than make unfounded speculations about motivation. Eubulides (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: I'd somehow distinguish the case of ranges from the case of name pairs functioning as an adjective (see my last post in the section above). But I can't think of any decent wording for that. Also, what would be wrong with Seifert–van Kampen theorem? When I remember to, I do the same for all surnames, regardless of whether there's a dash before them. --___A. di M. 10:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, what do you mean by "low standards" and "high standards"? Standards you dislike and standards you like? And are you proposing that we write "seeked" rather than "sought" because it's more logical, despite the latter being way, way more common? (No, I'm not serious, but it appears that you are when making arguments extremely similar to these ones.) --___A. di M. 10:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides, "Wikipedia's section-title practice is common in other high-quality publications"—nope, almost all academic publications still use title case. It was with delight that I found that WP doesn't. ADM, (1) could you ask Eubulides what he means by "high quality" publications? He introduced the concept; I subsequently used it with a sense of irony (hence my quotes). (2) By "logical", I'm not referring to the lexicogrammar of English, which is only selectively logical, but to punctuation. Your question has suddenly made me realise that punctuation is set to a much higher standard of logic than the lexicogrammar. Perhaps this is true in all written languages; it's certainly the case in English. Tony (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• "almost all academic publications still use title case" That's certainly not my experience. Perhaps my branch of academia is different? Anyway, I just now visited my favorite Wikipedia article, Autism, and looked at its first 10 refereed academic sources that contained section headers, and found that about half of them used Wikipedia-style sentence case section titles, and about half used title case. Just for the record, the sentence-case sources were PMID 18258309, PMID 18414403, PMID 15858952, PMID 15749245, PMID 17168158, the title case users were PMID 17967920, PMID 19478850, PMID 17367287, PMID 17967921, and one source (PMID 19128068) used both styles: title case for major sections and sentence case for lower level sections. (A couple of the sources used small caps; I am counting small caps as lower case in the previous list.) So the argument that Wikipedia is almost alone in using sentence case does not hold water.
• "could you ask Eubulides what he means by "high quality" publications". I've given Elsevier and Springer as examples of two publishers that generally use high quality typography (though of course the quality varies among the enormous number of publications that both houses generate). The PMIDs listed in the previous bullet are also from publications of good quality, some from Elsevier and Springer, and some from other high-quality academic publishers such as Annual Reviews and Nature Publishing Group. None of these guys are perfect, but they're all respectable examples.

Eubulides (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(out of sequence) I'll observe further that of those two groups of PMID refs, the former group are all to journals with Title Case used for the journal name, while the latter group are to journals with ALL CAPS for the journal name. Compare Acta Paediatrica to PEDIATRICS. It appears that the chain of decreasing priority styles simply flows down from a different starting point, in a more refined equivalent of MSWord's Heading1, Heading2, etc. In some if not all cases it may boil down to the use of a registered trademark to protect the style in which the journal title is shown, as the simple, commonly used English words "Nature" and "Pediatrics" would not be eligible for such protection, only their expression in a specific typographic style, a difficulty not faced by journals with compound titles. But of course that's just my OR. LeadSongDog come howl 21:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What concerns me at the moment is that Wikipedia should be beautiful and clear. We all acknowledge that, spaced or unspaced, improper use of endashes can be ambiguous or misleading. So we're left with trying to do as well as we can within the limitations of conventional punctuation. I think that the best option, in this case, is to follow the most common practice—which would be unspaced en dashes. Tony, I realize that you're about to object that they're ugly, that things get "jammed together". Sometimes that does happen, and this is why the proposal above permits a space. But most style guides agree that most of the time, spaces make the two sides of the dash too spread apart. Most of the people here think that too. You're also about to object that changing this style guideline would change long standing practice. Well, so did ending date autoformatting. Sometimes consensus moves. And also, I know that you feel like a few of us are pushing you quite hard. I intended not to push you specifically but to change the MoS. But you've been a strong and a good advocate for the existing practice, and the MoS will be better because of that. I would be happy to address other members of the opposition. When we finally do reach consensus, I believe Wikipedia will be more beautiful.

You have a good point that we shouldn't allow articles entitled both "New York – Ontario trade" and "New York–Ontario border", so maybe the proposal as it stands isn't sufficiently prescriptive. (Perhaps we could mandate unspaced en dashes, except when the items being connected contain an internal space and when the words adjacent to the dash could be interpreted as a range?) I'd like to see a specific counterproposal from you. What would you like the MoS to say? Ozob (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment; it led me to propose a further improvement; please see #Endash proposal 3 below. Eubulides (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

When you (Tony) said "we need to ensure that our own articles do better", what you exactly mean by "better"? I think a style is "better" than another if it is less confusing and more easily understandable for the readers (which, IMO, usually boils down to what the readers are more familiar with). YMMV; but it's better to make sure we're not talking at cross-purposes. --___A. di M. 12:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony's first comment that loosening our recommendation on spacing will lead to a "free-for-all" is pure demagoguery. There is nothing outlandish about the idea that punctuation needn't be absolutely mandated. Indeed, as Tony points out, an editor is free to use commas, colons, parentheses, and so forth rather than dashes in many cases. Yet how can there be "freedom" in this aspect of writing, and not an apocalyptic "free-for-all" that Tony cautions us urgently against? Secondly, I also disagree with Tony's point that the MoS guide has "already strayed too far from the stable, unambiguous formatting that WP has happily used for years", and in fact I find quite the opposite to be true. Prior to the "compromise" solution, the MoS failed to capture what has been a de facto editing standard on Wikipedia, and what is certainly a de dicto standard in the rest of the world. The article Seifert–van Kampen theorem used the standard unspaced en dash for quite some time, and there are certainly many more examples of this same formatting that I will not list here (Riemann–von Mangoldt formula, for instance). It was only because of a change in the apparent status quo that I became aware of our somewhat idiosyncratic use of spaced en dashes and raised the matter here. I am a firm believer that the MoS should strive to be descriptive rather than prescriptive: that is, it should attempt only to codify the best and most common practices of experienced editors. Prior to the current "compromise", exactly the opposite was true of the guideline. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the prevalence of stylistic free-for-alls and ensuing editwars are the reason that MOS exists. Even with MOS being very explicit there is a lot of stylistic chaos (e.g., I cannot count the number of times, even in the last week alone, that I've had to fix things like "February 3 2009" and "3rd Feb. 2009", etc.) Specificity here is a Good Thing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If this is truly just a matter of preventing edit wars, then surely the best thing to do is bring our own MoS into accord with that of the majority of off-wiki publication houses. As has been repeatedly attested above, every reliable style guide says that disjunctive en dashes are always used. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Endash proposal 3

"maybe the proposal as it stands isn't sufficiently prescriptive. (Perhaps we could mandate unspaced en dashes, except when the items being connected contain an internal space and when the words adjacent to the dash could be interpreted as a range?)" That's a good idea, and I would favor such a change as well. Here's some proposed wording to do that.

Spacing: Disjunctive en dashes are unspaced (the New York–Sydney flight), except that spaces should be used if either item contains a space and the words next to the dash could be misinterpreted as a range (29 December 1918 – 19 January 1920, because without spaces the "1918–19" could mislead the eye).

I am not withdrawing the #Endash proposal 2 wording; that wording would be OK too, though I think this new proposal is a bit better. Eubulides (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Updated in respose to the comments below, by adding 'because without spaces the "1918–19" could mislead the eye' to the example. Eubulides (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, "New York" contains a space. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This looks closer to standard practice here and elsewhere than the other proposals. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• Huh? "29 December 1918 – 19 January 1920" is a range. Is there a typo? --___A. di M. 19:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  To help clarify this I added 'because without spaces the "1918–19" could mislead the eye' to the example. Eubulides (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  I'd use an example where the lack of space would create a real possibility of misunderstanding, e.g. €10 – 100 million (without the spaces, the bottom of the range could be taken to be ten million euros, rather than ten euros). I think many readers wouldn't even notice that the string "1918–19" in the middle of "29 December 1918 – 19 January 1920" happens to equal the string used to refer to a 24-month period, until told so. --___A. di M. 20:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  A better example would be welcome, but I'm afraid "€10 – 100 million" isn't a good one either, as even with the spaces I interpret it to mean 10 million euros to 100 million euros. I chose "29 December 1918 – 19 January 1920" because it was mentioned so often in the previous discussion. I also see no ambiguity with unspaced endash there, but the proposed wording doesn't claim there is an ambiguity, only that it can confuse the eye. Perhaps someone could propose a better example? Eubulides (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  The problem with the date example is that even with the spacing it looks more like a range and less like a disjunction. Maybe it's the case that all disjunctions should be unspaced, and ranges should be spaced if and only if either side of the range itself contains a space? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, I don't follow this comment. A range is a disjunction. Perhaps you meant "all non-range disjunctions should be unspaced, and ranges should be spaced if and only if either side of the range itself contains a space"? If so, that rule would be OK too, except perhaps for the difficulty of stating it clearly and concisely. Eubulides (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  The term disjunction is a bit misleading for a general readership since usually the elements being described as grammatically in disjunction are usually practically being conjoined (as in 1918–1919, a conjunction of two years). I think eliminating it would probably make the rule of thumb a lot clearer. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  ... just noting in passing that the New York–Sydney flight is not a good example either, given that the next bit says spaces should be used if either element contains a space (as in New York). Sssoul (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  No, the next bit of wording says that spaces should be used "if either item contains a space and the words next to the dash could be misinterpreted as a range". In the New York–Sydney flight this misinterpretation is implausible, so spaces should not be inserted around the endash. The wording that's currently in the MoS is incoherent, as the text says that spaces should not be used with proper names, but the examples use spaces with proper names such as "New York". Both #Endash proposal 2 and #Endash proposal 3 fix this obvious bug in the MoS. Eubulides (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  It is not implausible: it is impossible. There's no airport in York, and even if there were one, if we meant that we'd write "the new York–Sydney flight" with a small en. --___A. di M. 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  My pedantic side demands me to inquire just how it is that either form is superior to the flight from New York to Sydney. It also has some difficulty with the idea that 55 weeks equals 24 months. LeadSongDog come howl 22:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  By "24-month period" I meant 1918–1919 (two years); unless I misunderstood, it has been claimed that if the spaces around the dash in 29 December 1918 – 19 January 1920 were removed, the result would be ambiguous as the "1918–19" resulting in the middle could be taken to refer to such a two-year period. --___A. di M. 22:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  On the other hand, if one attempts to read the disjunction as 1918–19, then one is left with the unlikely garbage "29 December" and "January 1920" at the ends. Recall that above, Eubulides searched on Google Scholar for "1 January 2001 31 December 2002" and got some results which used unspaced en dashes. I plugged "December 1918 19 January" into Google Scholar and went looking. In fact, the first relevant hit I came to was "6 December 1918-22 October 1994", and it was on page 22 of the results. It's an obituary from Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, Vol. 44, (Nov., 1998), pp. 239-252, [2], and the date range appears as a subtitle. I went out to page 36 of the results before giving up. I don't think that 29 December 1918–19 January 1920 looks good, and apparently, neither does anybody else! Maybe we should just prohibit ambiguous en dashing in prose (I presume that in tables, infoboxes, etc. it will be clear what is meant)? Ozob (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  Surely there's a typo in the previous comment, as that source (The Royal Society) uses an unspaced endash (not a hyphen) in the date range: "6 December 1918–22 October 1994". So this is more evidence that an unspaced endash is common in date ranges of this form among high-quality publishers, even when there's an internal substring such that "1918–22" that would convey the wrong impression if looked at in isolation. By the way, searching Google Scholar that way is reaaally inefficient, as most of the "hits" won't be date ranges at all. You'll have better luck with queries like '"December 2004 5 January"' (that is, with double-quote marks around the query). This query gives me 8 results, of which two are date ranges: one of those is from Springer and uses unspaced endash, and the other is from RBF Consulting (a lower-quality source) and uses spaced hyphen. When I went looking for examples, that's the general pattern that I found: the amateurs used hyphens or slashes, often with spaces, and the pros used unspaced endashes. Eubulides (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed there is a typo. I cut and pasted from the Google search results, but that gave me a hyphen instead of the original en dash. Ozob (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• The new flight from York to Sydney. Good one. There is no consensus for any of these proposals. Tony (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) New York–Sydney flights will begin next year looks (to my eye) much more like there will be additional flights from York to Sydney; while New York – Sydney flights will begin next year looks like flights from New York to Sydney will commence in the near future. If you allow unspaced en dashes where one of the items has internal spaces, you make room for ambiguities. I'm content with recommending spaced en dashes where at least one of the items has internal spaces as standard (allowing an occasional exception for multiple surnames, where there is much less chance for ambiguity). I don't want to have to read text two or three times to extract the intended meaning and our present wording suits my reading style fine. --RexxS (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  The trouble with "recommending spaced en dashes where at least one of the items has internal spaces as standard" is that from all evidence it seems to be standard nowhere but here, and conflicts with established usage in many cases. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  I read both of the examples above as "Flights from New York to Sydney will begin next year", never as "New flights from York to Sydney will begin next year." So for me and how I read, if the latter meaning is desired, then there is no solution with en dashes. I suggested before that maybe we should forbid ambiguous en dashing. I'm coming to like this idea, as all the examples put forward are convincing me that en dashes are a very tricky thing. (And I used to think they were so simple!) Ozob (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

←David, I thought you'd like to know that I received notification yesterday of "the 14th Biennial International Conference on Baroque Music at the Queen’s University, Belfast, 30 June – 4 July 2010". On the now-infamous "Steiffer – van Kampen theorem", I've already provided examples demonstrating that there is no established usage out there, including textbooks that use the spaced en dash; thus, the notion that spaced en dashes "[conflict] with established usage" is hard to justify. Tony (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

He was Seifert, not Steiffer. See Herbert Seifert. Ozob (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure one can find many examples of brochures and the like that use spaced endashes for date ranges. But it's rare among higher-quality sources. I just now searched Google Scholar for that particular date, and found just one example doi:10.1093/em/can139 of it. This was published by the Oxford University Press, which used an endash "30 June–4 July 2010". In contrast, if you search the web, you can find many lower-quality sources that use spaced hyphen, or unspaced hyphen, or emdash, or even weirder combinations (such as an emdash with a space after but not before) to make the same announcement. So again, we see that a higher-quality source is using an unspaced endash for date ranges. I agree that in the wider world of self-published sources and lecture notes, one can easily find spaced endashes for that theorem, but the established publishing houses and style guides are uniformly in favor of unspaced endashes for disjunctions like that. Eubulides (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to spaced en-dashes in date ranges. I do object to them in the names of mathematics results. Between those two extremes, I don't have as strong opinions, but I would like to see either agreement that the spaces should only be used in ranges, or an example of a non-range disjunctive en-dash that a plurality of stylebooks or other sources would space. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides, it's the queer notion of "high quality" and "low quality" sources that gets me. The "14th Biennial International Conference on Baroque Music at the Queen’s University, Belfast, 30 June – 4 July 2010" came in a letter from the Bach Network UK, along with its scholarly journal Understanding Bach. Shall I relay your concerns to them? On OUP, well ... let me tell you I've edited one book to be published by them. Hmmm ... like to have a look at their house rules? I can send them if you wish. Tony (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's safe to say that the Oxford University Press journal Early Music is edited to higher professional standards than promotional letters from the Bach Network UK. Even their scholarly journal Understanding Bach is lacking, as it uses unspaced hyphen for disjunction in the most-recent article published in it, with examples like "3-4 January 2009", "1734-35", and "the Buttstett-Mattheson controversy".[3] Eeeuwww; this is clearly bad style; but it is a new standalone journal and I suppose they'll learn eventually. Anyway, if those OUP house rules mention disjunctive endashes, then it'd be good to know what they say. Eubulides (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The OUP managing editor replied to my emailed enquiry about en dashes that they were required (I had to ask, since the matter wasn't mentioned anywhere in their house rules). I had the distinct impression that they hadn't thought much about the details of en-dash usage, and while their use was definitely required, beyond that it was left up to writers. Hmmmph. So it was up to me to reign in chaotic usage among the 20 or so chapter contributors. Tony (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, right now Wikipedia is as chaotic as the usage of those chapter contributors. Looking at Emmy Noether, one finds unspaced en dashes in the infobox, in section headings, and in prose. On 2003 Pacific hurricane season, however, every en dash is unspaced, excepting only the en dashes that appear in links to other articles. And both of these articles are FAs. Ozob (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how the use of unspaced disjunctive en-dashes in our FAs, consistent with the use of unspaced disjunctive en-dashes by high-quality publishers discussed earlier, constitutes "chaos" in any sense of the word. I was peripherally involved in the FA discussions for the Noether article and I remember consistency of dash usage being carefully examined in that case (the issue there being more em-dashes vs spaced en-dashes as punctuation between clauses of sentences). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

While "Seifert – van Kampen theorem" is attested, it is a very minoritarian usage, so saying "there is no established usage out there" sounds like a stretch to me. By that count, there's no established usage for the past tense of "seek", either, as both "seeked" and "sought" are attested.[4][5][6][7] Also, I can't see why most of you insist in treating ranges and adjectival compounds the same way. "Los Angeles–Chicago flight" is a construction exactly parallel to "London–Chicago flight", except that one name happens to contain a space and the other doesn't; therefore, spacing one but not the other would be illogical, and even slightly distracting if the two happened to be found in the same paragraph. On the other hand, "10–40 MW" and "100 kW – 40 MW" are not parallel constructions; can you see why? ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 16:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't. I read "10–40 MW" as "from ten to forty megawatts" and "100 kW – 40 MW" as "from one hundred kilowatts to forty megawatts"; to me they are both ranges.

You have a very good point about the parallelism in "Los Angeles–Chicago flight" and "London–Chicago flight". The MoS would be wrong if it told us to write something like, "The Hurricane Katrina relief supplies were shipped New York – New Orleans and Chicago–Biloxi." Ozob (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I referred that to the fact in the first range, one piece (the unit of measurement of the bottom) is implicit, but not in the second. "10 – 100 million" vs "10–100 million", where the bottom of the first range is taken to be 10 and the bottom of the latter is one million times as much, would be a clearer example of what I meant. OTOH even the former is likely to be misunderstood as from 10 million, except in contexts where it's clear one could expect a range spanning seven orders of magnitudes. ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 23:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support either proposal 2 or 3. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: On what authority is it asserted that parallelism of the construction is the only or even most important consideration? I would say that prevention of ambiguity/confusability trumps it, considerably. And I'm a consistency fan. "Los Angeles–Chicago flight" is a misleading example, because most en.WP readers are familiar with these names and recognize them immediately, with no possibility of confusion. This might not be the case with a construction like "a slow Mallu-Chhitt–As Salatah al Jadidah route". Several proponents of rewording would oppose a spaced en-dash here (on the basis of the two terms being proper names, on the basis of the "London–Chicago flight" parallel, or both), which would be a very bad editing decision in my view. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  I had never heard of either location before, and yet I had no problems in understanding the phrase. And there's nothing to stop you from writing "a slow route from Mallu-Chhitt to As Salatah al Jadidah". ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 18:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  Agree with A. di M., the free text form is better. Not to put too fine a point on it, but adding wikilinks makes that even more legible as "a slow route from Mallu-Chhitt to As Salatah al Jadidah". By the second use, the reader has already seen the names and is so less likely to stumble. LeadSongDog come howl 19:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I never suggested the free-text form wasn't better (I didn't address that issue at all). What I did address is the assertion that the unspaced version is always better than the spaced one, which you haven't counter-addressed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please don't vote: The discussion is still going, and we haven't reached consensus yet. Ozob (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

En dash Proposal 4

In rereading the previous subthread, it appears that the previous proposal caused confusion because it spent too much time on mechanics, and too little on motivation (the motivation being clarity). We also saw further evidence that major academic publishers such as Oxford University Press and The Royal Society use unspaced endash, with the only counterexample being a lower-quality source (a promotional letter from a musical society). Clearly there is not a universal consensus among editors here about spaced endash when a disjunct contains spaces: some would ban spaced endash entirely (since that's what major academic publishing houses do), some would always require spaced endash (since that was in the MoS for quite some time), and some would favor a compromise.

In the spirit of compromise I propose the following replacement wording:

Spacing: Disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except that if either item contains a space, a spaced en dash should be used if needed to avoid confusion (29 December 1918 – 19 January 1920). Unspaced en dashes typically suffice between proper names (the Seifert–van Kampen theorem).

I'm not withdrawing the #Endash proposal 2 or #Endash proposal 3, either of which I could also live with. The point of this proposal is to have a simple commonsense rule that allows existing practice and is consistent with what seemingly every major academic publisher does. Eubulides (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I can live with any of these proposals. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• How about, more strictly: en-dashes in ranges of dates should be spaced when the dates in the range contain spaces (29 December 1918 – 19 January 1920). All other disjunctive en-dashes should be unspaced, even when the items being separated themselves contain spaces (1901–1978, the Seifert–van Kampen theorem). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  This would lead to The European theater in World War II was active 1939–1945, concluding with the 16 December 1944 – 25 January 1945 Battle of the Bulge, which I think looks a little bit odd. Ozob (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  I still don't know why we don't engage in writing English wherever possible: The European theater in World War II was active from 1939 until 1945, concluding with the 16 December 1944 to 25 January 1945 Battle of the Bulge? Wouldn't that approach be the best way of removing the need for this debate?  HWV258.  02:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  I agree that words are often better than symbols. However, I think we should design our style manual to be robust against even the most contrived situations, and this is one of them. In my proposal below I simply forbid such nonsense, which I think is the most reliable way to handle it. Ozob (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  So the spaced en dash as interrupter is "nonsense" too? You haven't complained yet about exactly the same logic that spaces it – the presence of spaces between the adjacent words. That is why we don't write them unspaced–like that. Em dashes in that function are regarded as being sufficient large to cope with no spaces. Tony (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  I meant that contrived examples that are willfully ambiguous or confusing are nonsense. Sorry for the confusion. Ozob (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  I would also be happy with David Eppstein's wording proposed above. I agree that prose containing mixed spaced and unspaced en dash for related items should be rewritten to avoid the jarring inconsistency, but that's true no matter what rule is allows spaced en dash (including the current MoS's rule). Eubulides (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

En dash Status Quo

My head is spinning, and other editors will suffer the same fate. Why introduce a quite new criterion ("if needed to avoid confusion"), which itself will cause confusion and result in lots of queries here on individual cases. You need to have thought through the issue to know the potential for confusion, and that is asking too much of the poor editors, who just want quick, simple advice; that is what the established rule provides, with a simple principle: spaced element(s), spaced dash; unspaced element(s), unspaced dash.

The current wording is a compromise, remember: that sentence Eubulides inserted at the end about the blessed Stifle it–van Camp thingeme as an exception. Let's stop torturing it and leave as is. Tony (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The status quo requires spaced en-dashes in disjunctions of spaced items in contradiction to all the evidence presented above that shows that unspaced en-dashes are used by most/all stylebooks and high-quality publishers. The status quo is "Tony gets his way against the consensus of most of the other editors in this thread". I don't see this as a compromise at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be turning it into a personal matter. It's Tony against you. No, many other editors have expressed opposition to changing the status quo. Tony (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support: The issue is becoming a) far too polarized in the case of certain editors, and b) far too scattered and random in the case of everyone else. We cannot meaningfully come to consensus on 6 or more competing proposals, especially when new ones are arriving at the rate of 3 per day (i.e. doubling in under 24 hours). This (the whole meta-thread, not this sub-topic) should simply be closed as {{Resolved|No consensus; discussion restarted in new thread.}}, and a new discussion topic on the matter opened, devoid of any proposals anyone is being asked to !vote on and which are clearly causing some participants considerable irritation. Let's see what emerges from that before rushing to change anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• "that sentence Eubulides inserted at the end about the blessed Stifle it–van Camp thingeme as an exception" First, I didn't insert that sentence. Second, "Seifert–van Kampen theorem" is not an exception: the universal practice among high-quality publishers and style guides we've found is to use unspaced en dashes in similar phrases, such as "New York–New Jersey–Connecticut area" (Hart's), "von Hippel–Lindau syndrome" (doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.11.013, Elsevier), etc. Wikipedia's current style rule not only fails to describe really happens on Wikipedia, it prohibits what high-quality publishers invariably do. Eubulides (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

En dash Proposal 6

I think the following proposal is the one that would be most consistent with itself and with outside style guides:

Spacing: Disjunctive en dashes in prose are unspaced. For example, 1914–18 or Navier–Stokes equations. En dashes remain unspaced when one of the items being joined have spaces. For example, New York–Chicago, not New York – Chicago, and 29 December 1918–19 January 1920, not 29 December 1918 – 19 January 1920. En dashes also remain unspaced when one of the items being joined has a hyphen. For example, Gell-Mann–Nishijima formula, not Gell-Mann – Nishijima formula. Disjunctive en dashes outside prose, such as in tables or infoboxes, may be spaced.

If a sentence would be unclear with an en dash, then it should be rewritten to remove the confusion. For example, New York–London flights will begin next year could be interpreted to mean New flights from York to London ... or Flights from New York to London .... If both interpretations are plausible in context, then the sentence should be rewritten so that it is unambiguous.

Ozob (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Update: Revise the last paragraph. Ozob (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support (mainly): Yes, that is agreeably consistent and verifiably agreeable. But really, you can imagine a context where New York–London flights is misinterpretable? Anyone capable of that majestic feat of misinterpretation is certainly clever enough to misinterpret New York–Chicago flights (direct!) as well.—DCGeist (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's weird. Tony (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  I'm weird. :-P Ozob (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This is fairly extreme in its repudiation of spaced disjunctive en-dashes, but I'm still willing to go along with this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I just don't believe that 29 December 1918–19 January 1920 looks better than 29 December 1918 – 19 January 1920. Aren't we getting a long way away from the original idea of allowing other styles (something I disagreed with anyway)? The current text looks like dictating a particular style.  HWV258.  04:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, this proposal is very prescriptive, which could be a disadvantage. But it has the advantage of being consistent, simple, and in agreement with outside style guides.

  I agree that an unspaced endash in a standalone date may look bad. This is why there's an exception at the end for dates not in prose. In prose, I think it looks fine. Ozob (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: Indeed, the preceding looks much worse and is a head-scratcher; it forces the reader to stop and ponder.—Finell 04:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just curious: Virtually every reputable style guide in the English language disagrees with you. What do you make of that?—DCGeist (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• You could also address the point raised: the 1918–19 in 29 December 1918–19 January 1920 is a head-scratcher. Why would we want to interrupt the flow of reading?  HWV258.  05:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm happy to address that: I don't find it a head-scratcher, and nor do virtually all reputable style guides in the English language, which suggest a preference for precisely that style. What do you make of that?—DCGeist (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• There are those here that do find it a head-scratcher. This is WP, and we will let consensus here decide our style. That's all that matters.  HWV258.  05:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Don't lecture me about consensus. Would you like me to lecture you about consensus? No, I thought not. Be respectful with those you disagree with, as I have.—DCGeist (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• To tackle your point: have you considered that with over three million articles (and with the most consensus-driven MOS creation process imaginable), perhaps they should consider adopting parts of our style guide? We have developed (quite happily) the standard of a spaced en dash between the birth and death dates in our biography articles. If this proposal gets up, every one of those will be changed. For what benefit? Because it matches the style in some other MOSs?  HWV258.  05:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• That's a fair argument. (See how nice it is to be respectful, friend?)—DCGeist (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• "every one of those will be changed" Well no, the actual Wikipedia consensus out there is about halfway between the alleged "status quo" and Category:Hyphen Luddites. Choosing the C's in Category:American farmers as a random sample, I found 9 spaced en dashes between birth and death dates, one unspaced en dash, one unspaced because there were years only, 8 with no birth–death range, and 6 hyphens! Art LaPella (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ah. Now, if I had your attitude, HWV258, I would take advantage of Art's research to start lecturing you about laziness, or deception, or something else inimical to "this is WP". But I'm not going to do that. You know why? Because I don't assume that, just because you disagree with me, you're full of crap.—DCGeist (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks Art LaPella for nicely demonstrating what happens when people take "standards" from wherever they choose. To DCGeist, I'm seriously hoping that in the cold, sober light of day you might back-track a little from your comments as my post didn't warrant them. Specifically, Art's research lends support to my statement. I referred to birth/death pairs, so the "8" are excluded. Of the 17 remaining cases, 15 will be altered by this proposal, so that's 88%. 88% (while not being "all") of the number of articles we have that contain birth/death pairs is still a lot of updates to WP (and my point-of-view is that the result of those edits will be to make the text less readable).  HWV258.  21:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• My point was that the hyphens won't be changed by a new proposal, for the same reason the hyphens haven't been changed by the existing guideline. Art LaPella (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• No one has got around to changing the hyphens yet (although I believe there is a good script that does it). Of course, when they do get changed, they will fall in line with the current (or by then, new) standard.  HWV258.  00:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. Nothing in my support for Ozob's proposal shall be construed as support for Chicago's oppressively bready pizza over, say, Sal and Carmine's on Broadway and 101st.—Native New Yorker DCGeist (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  You and I are locked in mortal combat, like Ahab and Moby Dick. I shall vanquish your pizza, even at the cost of my life. Ozob (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Then it's two against one. Think you can handle it, Midwestboy? On a lighter note, I support the proposal. It's far more consistant with the standard practice as shown in the various publishers' and reference style guides examined as part of this discussion. While we are not bound by such, it does fit the spirit of Wikipedia as a recorder of facts, not a maker of one. And, frankly, I fail to see how it could cause any confusion in anything but the most contrived examples, which are covered by the rewrite clause. oknazevad (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I support this proposal too. I would also support it if the sentence "Disjunctive en dashes outside prose, such as in tables or infoboxes, may be spaced." were removed. Eubulides (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support the instruction, but the wording is bloated. I might come up with something equivalent but more concise later. ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 10:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose – everything else aside (I agree with the other opposes and see no point in restating them), it appears contradictory. It states that the ambiguous ‘New York–Chicago’ should be used instead of the more logical ‘New York – Chicago’, but then it explains the problem with using the identically ambiguous ‘New York–London’. – MTC (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  Neither of those are ambiguous in certain contexts. They flew New York–Chicago, for example. I suspect that all truly ambiguous situations are rare and contrived. Ozob (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternate solutions for some of the wretchedness

Tony has given examples where an unspaced en dash is inherently ambiguous or requires a double-take. In other examples above, spaced en dashes used where only an en will do become ambiguous, or at least ugly, when used in conjunction with spaced en dashes used as an alternative to em dashes. At least this bit of wretchedness can be solved by deprecating the use of en dashes in place of em dashes. This change would have two additional advantages: (1) it would give Wikipedia another precious little bit of consistency; and (2) spaced en dashes used as em dashes are ugly. In professional publishing, this usage of en dashes is rare.

Also, just because an en dash can be used as a contraction doesn't mean that it always should be. We still have serviceable prepositions in to and through.—Finell 04:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: first, since readers may interpret a spaced en dash as replacing an em dash regardless of what our manual of style says on the issue, no ambiguity is resolved. The way to resolve ambiguity is to just write it out in words, as in the previous proposal. Second, I believe the current guidelines provides a reasonable amount of flexibility to editors in formatting articles, rather than enshrining the aesthetic opinions of only one group of editors. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Support deprecating use of spaced en dashes in place of em dashes. Actual em dashes are easier to read — no double-take is required, whereas I do often observe myself having to do a double-take on this alternative use of en dashes. (Actually, spaced em dashes are even easier to read than unspaced ones — less crabbed — but em dashes of any stripe are much better than the alternative spaced en dash.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actual spaced em-dashes — such as you use above and I am using here — are specifically disallowed by WP:MOS. But I like using them in talk pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I'd replace the allowance for " – " and "—" with the allowance for " — " and "—". ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 22:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A broader perspective

So far, we're just discussing the "Spacing" sub-sub-point; but part of the problem is that the text above is nearly unreadable. I'd propose this:

Proposed revision of point 1

1. To indicate disjunction. In this role, there are several applications.
   • In ranges: 17–22 December, 100 m – 10 km. They are unspaced when only one element changes between the extremes of the range (e.g. in 10–20 kg only the number changes, while the unit stays fixed), and spaced otherwise (e.g. in December 2009 – January 2010 bot the month and the year change). This construction is most useful in parentheses, tables, and the like; in sentences, using prepositions (from December 2009 to January 2010) is usually preferable.
   • In constructions such as the xxx–yyy zzz, meaning "the zzz between xxx and yyy", "the zzz of xxx to yyy", "the zzz by xxx and yyy", etc.: Canada–US border, blood–brain barrier, time–altitude graph, Michelson–Morley experiment (named after two individuals Albert Michelson and Edward Morley; compare with Lennard-Jones potential (with a hyphen), named after one individual John Lennard-Jones). In this case, en dashes are typically unspaced. (In some cases, spaced en dashes can be clearer, but in other cases it can create confusion with the use of spaced en dashes as an alternative to em dashes.)

About half the words of the current point 1. ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 16:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you hide the proposal, I don't think people will read it. There is at least one typo in it: "100 m –10 km" is missing a space after the endash. While this proposal is clearly better than what we have, it insists too much on spaces around endashes: high-quality sources uniformly omit the spaces around the endash in "December 2009–January 2010" (e.g., doi:10.1080/00396330903461682, published by Routledge) and in "100 m–10 km" (e.g., [8], published by Pergamon) and we shouldn't prohibit this practice. I do like the brevity of the proposal, though. How about this rewrite instead?

1. To indicate disjunction. There are two main roles:
   • To stand for to or through in ranges (1895–1910, 17–22 December). In prose sentences, complicated ranges are often better spelled out, as in The data were gathered from 16 December 2009 to 15 January 2010. Ranges should also be spelled out as needed to avoid confusion, for example if negative numbers or other dashes are involved (−10 to 10).
   • To stand for and, to, or versus between independent elements, as in Canada–New York border, a 3–1 score, blood–brain barrier, Seifert–van Kampen theorem, Michelson–Morley experiment (named after Albert Michelson and Edward Morley); contrast to the hyphenated forms Lennard-Jones potential (named after one individual, John Lennard-Jones) and Sino-Japanese trade (where the prefix Sino- lacks lexical independence).

   Spacing: Disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except that if either end point of a range contains a space, a spaced en dash may be used if needed to avoid confusion, such as in ranges involving multiple units (100 kW – 40 MW) or dates (16 December 2009 – 15 January 2010).

Eubulides (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the typo. I prefer "from ... to" rather than "from ... through". Dunno about "uniformly"; the EU style guide suggests "100 kW – 40 MW", but then, it suggests half spaces before percent signs. ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 21:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks: the EU style guide is a counterexample for the case when units change. (The NIST style guide says that in this case one should always spell it out, which may be because they didn't want to deal with dueling style guides...) The EU style guide is not a counterexample for date ranges, though: it says unspaced endashes should always be used for those. I've changed my proposal accordingly. Eubulides (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC) PS. I changed "through" to "to" in the examples, and moved some examples into the spaced category to help make that clearer. Eubulides (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"100 m–10 km". OMG, I wish I'd had that example before. It is the very reason the squashed en dash is not recommended. Don't you love the m–10? Really easy to read. It's the very reason no one writes en dashes as interrupters–like this–i.e., because of the spaces in the immediate vicinity. Tony (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely that would be "100 m–10 km" ;-) In regard of the choice between "to" or "through" for the free text form, I would observe that using "to" avoids the BrE/AmE bifurcation on "thru". Of course the meanings are different in cases such as dates. "Through"/"thru" imply the end date is included in the range, while "to" is ambiguous on the inclusion.LeadSongDog come howl 15:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Through is never used in UK English to refer to a span of time or dates. Kevin McE (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"Never" is a bit strong. "through 1 January" gets 29 hits on google UK (vice 5 for "thru" and 825,000 for "to") LeadSongDog come howl 17:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? I thought nobody does that because they have a different semantics than the unspaced en dashes—there are spaces in the immediate vicinity of this, too—and yet many people (especially in the US, I think) don't put spaces around the em dashes. (Indeed, to me both unspaced em dashes—like this and spaced em dashes — like this seem to be definitely more common than spaced en dashes – like this for "interruptive" dashes.) ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 18:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Too hasty

Why was this edit made (with a comment of This version has drawn the least objections, so it seems to be closest to consensus)? WP does not work by forcing changes based on "closest to consensus". As far as I'm concerned, we are still debating whether any change is needed.  HWV258.  04:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. There doesn't seem to be consensus one way or another on ANY of the proposals. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  What the article had before certainly wasn't consensus—that's why we've been talking, after all. The discussion is a bit quieter now than it was a few days ago, and that version seemed to me to best reflect consensus, so I changed it. If you don't like it, WP:BOLD! That's how we got started, and I certainly won't be offended if that's what keeps us going. Ozob (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  This is a style guide, and we should not be to-ing and fro-ing on a style guide. Editors could be reading and digesting this recent change right now. As subsequent changes have happened on the page, a simple revert is not that easy. Ozob: Could you please undo your change until we are all certain that consensus have been reached? Thank you.  HWV258.  04:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  I undid the change for now. There's no rush. Eubulides (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  If you don't like my edit, I would much prefer if you substituted your own preferred version. The present consensus, whatever it may be, is not for the old version. Furthermore, I don't think we can reach consensus if we don't make bold edits. Because I believe in WP:BOLD, I made the MoS reflect consensus as closely as I could. Where it fails it reflects my own failings. I am sure that with the input of others it can be made better, but I do not think that the right way to do that is to remain fixed on a rejected version. Ozob (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks. I applaud your desire to be bold—but only in article space. In MOS space we need to wait for a real consensus before changing guidelines. We only shoot ourselves in the foot (in terms of being useful) by editing asymptotically.  HWV258.  05:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  Oh, and just for everybody else's reference, here is precisely what I put on the MoS page. It's very slightly different from what Eubulides proposed above:

  1. To indicate disjunction. There are two main uses:
     • To stand for to or through in ranges (1895–1910, 17–22 December). Prepositions such as from and through are then omitted, for example, He served 1939–1941, not He served from 1939–1941. In prose sentences, complicated ranges are often better spelled out, as in The data were gathered from 16 December 2009 to 15 January 2010. Ranges should be spelled out when needed to avoid confusion, for example if negative numbers or other dashes are involved (−10 to 10).
     • To stand for and, to, or versus between independent elements, as in Canada–New York border, a 3–1 score, blood–brain barrier, Michelson–Morley experiment (named after Albert Michelson and Edward Morley); contrast to the hyphenated forms Lennard-Jones potential (named after one individual, John Lennard-Jones) and Sino-Japanese trade (where the prefix Sino- lacks lexical independence).

     Spacing: Disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except that if either end point of a range contains a space, a spaced en dash may be used if needed to avoid confusion, such as in ranges involving multiple units (100 kW – 40 MW) or dates (16 December 2009 – 10 January 2011).

  Ozob (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  I like this version too. I agree that the current version is badly broken (it's not even internally consistent). I reverted only because I wanted to give other editors more time to comment. Eubulides (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• WP:TLDR; there is way too much verbiage to read through here about a blooming dash. Why are any changes needed, and what is the nustshell version of the six proposals? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, there is, isn't there? Here is my interpretation of events: Someone moved Seifert–van Kampen theorem to Seifert – van Kampen theorem to reflect MoS conventions on spaced en dashes. But spacing en dashes between authors' names is just not done in mathematics, where the Seifert–van Kampen theorem originates. So there were edits to this page, then reverts, and then the present discussion. The major points as I see them are beauty and clarity. We agree that there is a lot of bad en dash typography out there, but we don't agree what looks best. We agree that there are a lot of ways to confuse readers with dashes, but we don't agree what is least confusing. There were some compromise edits early on, but our progress has slowed.

  As I see it, there are three ways we can go:

  1. We can keep the old practice, which mandates spaces when one of the items being joined is spaced. Many articles (especially, but not always, FAs) already do this.
  2. We can reject the old practice and mandate no spaces in prose. This is what all print style guides require.
  3. We can space some things and not others, depending on what we think is the most clear and beautiful. This is what the MoS says presently.

  I have come to prefer unspaced en dashes in prose, but I would accept a certain amount of spacing. Others prefer spaced en dashes, but would accept a certain amount of unspacing. The discussion has gotten just a tiny bit quieter in the past few days, so I figured it was time to try editing the MoS again to see what people would think. Ozob (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  • To try to answer SandyGeorgia's question more briefly: changes are needed because MOS:ENDASH currently requires spaces around endashes in phrases where high-quality print sources invariably omit the spaces, e.g., "the Chicago–New York route", "Seifert–van Kampen theorem", "von Hippel–Lindau disease". Eubulides (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Part of this has been addressed. "...where high-quality print sources..."—we do not make changes to WP MOS pages simply because of what happens off-WP. We can take other points-of-view into account in our debate, but our consensus-driven process will (as always) decide the guidelines before changes are applied.  HWV258.  06:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

←There is clearly no consensus to change the status quo. Thank you, Eubulides, for reverting that change. Meanwhile, User:Noetica – who has been too busy to edit for months – emailed me to say he's been watching this thread with concern. He writes [edited by me for wikiformatting]:

These sources may be of some value:

A) Butcher's Copy-editing (4th edition 2006). This classic work is one of the most respected British guides. See the relevant page online (pp. 151–53). My commentary follows, drawing on salient points:

1. Spaced en dashes (as opposed to spaced or unspaced em dashes) are now "most often used" for so-called parenthetical dashes.
2. En dashes are also quite properly used to mean "and" or "to", in which case they are normally unspaced.
3. On p. 152: "However, spaced en rules [en dashes] may be used between groups of numbers and words to avoid implying a closer relationship between the words or numbers next to the en rule than between each of these and the rest of its group." Three quite decisive examples follow, along with a caution that in no way detracts from the basic principle. A search for "en rule" in this work at Googlebooks confirms its robustness. See for example p. 131 and p. 246, where both the principle and the obvious caution are reiterated.

B) The Cambridge guide to English usage (Pam Peters, 2004). On p. 140: "A spaced en dash/rule is used when the words or numbers to be separated have internal spaces.

1 July 1991 – 2 June 1992"

This is essentially the same provisions as in source A (along with additional ones of interest), but more prescriptive. And there is NO restriction to dates; and there is NO provision for any alternative practice.

C) Texas State University's editorial style guide link. This is one of several academic sources online that prefer the general style given in sources above, though perhaps implicitly: "The event runs October 10–15. 6 a.m. – 9 a.m. (include a space before and after the hyphen or en dash in ranges of times)." This is one of several American sources in accord with the other sources cited.

D) The Cambridge guide to Australian English usage (Pam Peters, 2nd edition 2007). See pp. 155–56: Same wording as in source B.

E) Style manual: for authors, editors and printers (Wiley, 6th edition 2006). Probably the major Australian style guide; widely followed, especially by government publications: essentially the same ruling as above. For its prominence in Australia see Style_manual#Australia.

F) The Australian editing handbook (Elizabeth Flann and Beryl Hill, 2004). Same ruling as in source E and others.

There are others that I can't chase right now!

Finally, a nice example of practice from "established publishers". Spot the four ways of doing date ranges, in one table.

Tony (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tony1. In the light of this, I would like to ask Ozob where the justification for summary point 2 above ("We can reject the old practice and mandate no spaces in prose. This is what all print style guides require") originated? (underlining is my addition.)  HWV258.  06:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Prior to this, nobody had found a style guide recommending a spaced en dash. Seemed just to me. Ozob (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for those examples Tony. Obviously we have dueling style guides, since Hart's uses unspaced en dashes exclusively. Butcher's explicitly represents the compromise embodied in my draft (in the #A broader perspective subsection) and in Ozob's (earlier in this subsection). The other cited sources (most of which seem to be clones of Pam Peters) are also consistent with the compromise, in that they require spaces around endashes in ranges whose items contain spacies, and are silent about endashes in other uses (the examples given are all ranges, and it's not at all clear that Peters's rule was intended to apply to examples like "the Chicago–New York route"); the draft compromise allows this style. In practice, as we've seen, high-quality academic sources such as the OUP, Elsevier, and Springer seem to follow Hart's, which the draft compromise also allows. Eubulides (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting. "Groups of numbers and words". Now that I think about that, a somewhat significant difference between "Born–von Karman boundary condition boundary conditions" and "19 June – 24 September" is that in one the elements separated by the dash are all-alphabetical, and in the other they are alphanumerical. I hadn't noticed that before. ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 12:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• And I don't understand what the "nice example" is supposed to show: they are all the same format, modulo typos. ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 14:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

←I've received another email from User:Noetica, who is happy to provide information but feels that if he posts here directly he'll become too involved in the whole MoS thing again; he says he'll be in a better position to contribute directly towards the end of 2010, and for the moment it looks as though he's going to channel through me. BTW, I've heard a rumour that Noetica has just won a prestigious prize for his translations from mediaeval French and Latin; I'm trying to google the details.

In response to Eubulides's comment above – "Obviously we have dueling style guides, since Hart's uses unspaced en dashes exclusively.", Noetica says the following (which I quote, again with minor tweaks for wiki-formatting): They do not "duel". In fact they have great respect for each other. See the many references to New Hart's in Butcher's, for example this. Quite simply, New Hart's does not address certain subtleties that Butcher's addresses. Butcher's also pays respect to Peters' Cambridge Guide. And Peters, in turn, covers further issues with the en dash on which other sources (including Butcher's, New Hart's, and the Wikipedia MOS itself) are silent. MOS editors might give consideration to such complementarity: silence may mean nothing more than neglect, or perhaps a need for clarity and brevity; editors everywhere have to fill the inevitable gaps intelligently and flexibly. Edits to the MOS must adapt to the utterly unique Wikipedia environment, which is certainly distinct from the world of Elsevier and Springer.

Eubulides stated that "Butcher's explicitly represents the compromise embodied in my draft ...". Noetica: That is doubtful. Butcher's suggests solutions that "may be better" in certain cases, but those cases do not track yours closely. The general notice at the head of MOS already calls for common sense in applying it, and allows that there will be occasional exceptions. (Same for any style guide, of course!) Note the modifier "occasional".

"The other cited sources (most of which seem to be clones of Pam Peters) are also consistent with the compromise, in that they require spaces around endashes in ranges whose items contain spaces, and are silent about endashes in other uses (the examples given are all ranges, and it's not at all clear that Peters's rule was intended to apply to examples like 'the Chicago–New York route'); the draft compromise allows this style." Noetica: I do not believe this is correct. Peters herself says this: "A spaced en dash/rule is used when the words or numbers to be separated have internal spaces." That is unequivocal. It is irrelevant that her example happens to be a range.

"In practice, as we've seen, high-quality academic sources such as the OUP, Elsevier, and Springer seem to follow Hart's, which the draft compromise also allows." Noetica: I think we have seen no such thing: you have declared it, that's all. In fact those houses are not consistent, and do not always circumscribe their authors' choices. Would you, Eubulides, like to furnish us with Elsevier's definitive ruling on en dashes? I couldn't find it. Tony has edited for OUP; Springer's guidelines, with which I [Noetica] have worked, include nothing on these issues. Springer's published guide for authors itself uses dashes anomalously in citing a piece from this Springer book. The guide uses a spaced em dash (sic) between the title and subtitle: "Software engineering — from auxiliaries to key technologies". Those publishers are no paragons!

(Incidentally, for our sceptics on another issue: Springer uses spaced en dashes at the sentence level, not em dashes. In this they join Penguin, Routledge, Cambridge UP, and several other major houses.)

per Tony (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel like we have made great progress now: Prior to this, all the style guides referenced on this page specified unspaced en dashes exclusively. Now we have contrary examples! We agree that we need to choose a dashing style that is consistent, beautiful, and clear. But as we can see now, there are several incompatible styles currently in use:

1. No spaces: ACS, APA, CMOS, Hart–Oxford, MHRA
2. Some spaces: Butcher, Flann and Hill, Peters, Style manual
3. Unknown: AP Stylebook, MLA, ISO 690, Bringhurst

Opinion among those present is divided. I would prefer to sway the editors here my way or to be swayed the other way myself, but that seems unlikely at present. It may be that Noetica's correspondence and SandyGeorgia's presence moves some of us, but if not, I think we should go to the Village Pump and ask for other views.

I am in full agreement that we should continue to allow parenthetical spaced en dashes. And congratulations to Noetica! Ozob (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Butcher's advice

Butcher's advice sounds like the most reasonable one to me. ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 19:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Butcher's advice is the closest approximation to what we do at Wikipedia. Following up on Noetica's remarks about style guides:

• "They do not 'duel'." In that case, since Hart's explicitly gives "New York–New Jersey–Connecticut area" as a good example, and Peters explicitly says "A spaced en dash/rule is used when the words or numbers to be separated have internal spaces", we can therefore conclude that Peters is not talking about the same thing that Hart's is talking about, right?

[I really don't want to be here, but I also don't want to burden Tony with the task of channeling me. Later this week I'll have time to make a systematic submission about these dashes; but for now, just some quick responses on these particular points. On the road in the meantime: so I will not be able to make any rejoinders for a couple of days, alas.–Noetica] On Eubulides' point immediately above: Right? No, wrong. This could be read as a captious attempt to trade on accidental features of the expression in Hart's and Peters' guidelines. Hart's, yes: it wants no spaces. But you cannot presume from this anything about Peters' ruling. If she had expressed things meticulously so that the minutest detail was spelt out, her book would be unsellable. Her readership is ordinary authors and editors, not career quibble-mongers like us. Yes, I quibble with her myself, since elsewhere she commits glaring and substantial errors of fact. I have to email her about a couple of these. But her judgement is entirely rational here; and the general intent is quite plain. –_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

So you contend that Hart's and Peters' disagree on this point? That is what I meant by saying that we have "dueling style guides". Eubulides (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Butcher's suggests solutions that "may be better" in certain cases, but those cases do not track yours closely." I don't see why not. All of the examples where Butcher says it's OK to use spaces (p. 151) are ranges: "6.6 – 7.8", "18 September – 19 January", "c. 1215 – c. 1260"; this closely mimics the examples in the proposed wording, all of which are ranges: "100 kW – 40 MW", "16 December 2009 – 15 January 2010". And Butcher's suggestion to use these optional spaces "cautiously" closely matches the proposed text advice to use spaced rules only "if needed". I'd be perfectly happy to replace the proposed "if needed" with "cautiously" if the discrepancy between those two phrases is what's needed.

Good. Everyone acknowledges the need for caution; we can agree that this is a better way to put it. "When needed" suggests that editors can generally determine when a need arises. But not all can! All can be cautious, though; and all can consult colleagues, or re-fashion a sentence. Caution and flexibility are always required, not just here. Once more, that's covered in the header at the top of MOS. Meanwhile, we need simple, durable, and readable guidelines. –_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the proposed wording is considerably shorter and simpler than what's in there now, it's a considerable improvement on the "simple" and "readable" front. I agree that style guides should not be changed on a whim, but this isn't a whim we're talking about here. Eubulides (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• "The general notice at the head of MOS already calls for common sense in applying it, and allows that there will be occasional exceptions." True, but the problem is that the current style guide says that endashes between proper names are "occasional exceptions". But this is incorrect. It's not an exception: it's common practice. High-quality publishers routinely omit spaces in such cases, and none of the style guides mentioned say anything about this particular point, except for Hart's which uses an example with unspaced en dashes.

The general and unequivocal nature of Peters' rule (see next point) shows that you miss the mark, in your last sentence here. The rest I don't quite follow. –_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll follow up on the next point below. Let me try to rephrase the other: if the style guide says you must do X, and actual articles and high-quality publishers and style guides often do the opposite of X, then we can't rely on the "occasional exception" provision: the MoS needs to change. Eubulides (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• 'Peters herself says this: "A spaced en dash/rule is used when the words or numbers to be separated have internal spaces." That is unequivocal. It is irrelevant that her example happens to be a range.' No, it is quite relevant that her example is a range: it suggests that the rule is intended to apply to ranges, and is not intended to apply in other circumstances. The example in Hart's, which does not involve a range, is unspaced. The only way I see to resolve this without saying that there is a "duel" between Peters and Hart, is to say that Peters is talking about ranges and Hart is talking about other disjuncts.

Mere unsupported assertion. Peters is quite explicit in her rule, and her choice of example does not remove its generality. "It suggests" X only to those with a predisposition in favour of X; others are satisfied with the plain ruling as it stands: "A spaced en dash/rule is used when the words or numbers to be separated have internal spaces." –_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

We also need to see in what context she gives that rule, which most of us can't (the book is not on Google preview). For example, if it were in a subsection titled "Ranges", ... ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 12:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The context of her rule is not clear. It's not in a "Ranges" subsection. At any rate, "her choice of example does not remove its generality" is merely a repated argument for a broad interpretation of her rule, an interpretation that is undercut by her choice of a range for its example. Eubulides (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• '"In practice, as we've seen, high-quality academic sources such as the OUP, Elsevier, and Springer seem to follow Hart's, which the draft compromise also allows." Noetica: I think we have seen no such thing: you have declared it, that's all.'" No, I've cited several examples. I have systematically searched Google Scholar for these examples, and have found no counterexamples for the phrases I cited. I do not have access to Elsevier's style guide, and don't need it: all I need to do is to see what Elsevier journals publish. Similarly for OUP, Springer, and the rest. Even if there is nothing formal in their style guides, we can look at and rely upon what they actually do.

If you were right, we might accept also Springer's and Elsevier's inconsistencies as par for the course and nothing to worry about, right? We agree: these are not exemplars without blemish; and we should also doubt that they give the present question as fastidious attention as we do, here at MOS. But the situation is worse than you think. Follow Springer, you say? How about this, from a Springer publication:

... the London – New York route was especially critical ...

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot read that example; Google Books previews are unreliable and it doesn't display for me. From its title page, that source is a conference proceedings; these are typically edited to a lower standard than scholarly journals are, often simply by taking authors' manuscripts verbatim, and so the source is not the best example of high-quality scholarly publishing. I agree that a large publishing house such as Springer is not uniform, and I expect that one can find counterexamples to the general rule. But the general trend in academic publshing is quite clear. I just now searched for "London New York route", "London New York flight", "New York London route", and "New York London flight" in Google Scholar (with quotes), to find all examples publshed in scholarly journals that used endashes. Here is a list of everything I found:

Unspaced endash

• doi:10.1016/S0969-6997(01)00048-5 (Elsevier)
• doi:10.1177/1094670507299379 (Sage)
• doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2009.04.004 (Elsevier)
• doi:10.1093/rpd/nci302 (Oxford)

Spaced endash

None.

You're free to repeat the queries. Eubulides (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Those publishers are no paragons!" You're quite correct. But they are high-quality academic publishers, among the best in the business. I see no reason to prohibit the style they use.

But which of the styles they use? In answering your last point I have demonstrated that Springer sometimes uses the style established at our MOS, not the one you assert they use. But even if Springer, OUP, and Elsevier were consistent with their style choices in the vexed matter of ranges and "disjunctive" dashes, it is by no means clear that we ought to follow them. Once more (since I have had to make the point far too often in these discussions), the crux is this: Wikipedia is unique. It confronts weighty problems of pan-anglophone, collaborative, dynamic online publishing that never intrude on the serene world of academic journals. The web is not paper, and very few Wikipedia contributors are professional editors; very many are not even experienced writers. No appeal to New Hart's, Chicago, Butcher's, or Elsevier practice is final. We have to fashion guidelines ourselves, for an entirely new situation. We must respect precedents, yes; but many precedents are vague, rashly conceived, or scarcely applicable in new contexts. We at MOS must above all respect the special needs of Wikipedia editors, if we are ultimately to serve the readership. That means no hasty or half-considered changes, which yield nothing but chaos and dismay.

Of course we can improve things; but take it slowly! Even Chicago makes changes to its guidelines – over years, not weeks or months. Think very carefully before assuming that the latest contrivance is necessarily the best. Stability is vital, if MOS to serve the community as it ought to. The present guidelines for en dashes have served well, and they have now been adjusted in one small detail: a change that everyone accepts. I urge that we keep things as they are, for now. I'll have more to say in a couple of days on some overarching issues for MOS and its associated pages. Until these issues are addressed, most of this fiddling is a sheer waste of time.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• "I have demonstrated that Springer sometimes uses the style" Only in a conference proceedings. You haven't demonstrated they use the style in their higher-quality publications. On the contrary, for that particular example scholarly journals seem to agree on unspaced endash, as I show above.
• "Wikipedia is unique". That is not an argument for requiring a style that is used (as far as we can see) only by lower-quality sources.
• "Think very carefully before assuming that the latest contrivance is necessarily the best." I don't see how this point bears on the discussion. For all we know, it's spaced endashes that are "the latest contrivance".

Eubulides (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Butcher's remark on parenthetical dashes: The use of spaced en dashes as an alternative to em dashes requires more effort to read than using actual em dashes for em dashes. I'd expect that to be true even in localities where spaced en dashes are "now most often used" for parenthetical dashes: em dashes are instantly recognizable, exactly because they aren't as overloaded as en dashes. Effective communication should trump "now more often used" for our purposes here, even if one were to accept the "now more often used" claim — although, incidentally, I have doubts about the geographical (not to mention internet) distribution of that claim; it sounds like it may be anglocentric.

Spaced em dashes are, as I remarked earlier, even easier on the eye than unspaced, but even unspaced em dashes are a vast improvement over em-dash-wannabe spaced en dashes. --Pi zero (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to really, really strenuously [imagine sweat and grunting] disagree with the notion that "foo—bar" is somehow easier to read/parse than "foo – bar". It requires pretty good vision (a concern many of you 20-year-olds don't think about) to tell the difference between "foo—bar" and "foo-bar" if you're a fast reader (and essentially impossible in some fonts). Un-spaced en-dashes are even worse, of course: "foo–bar" vs. "foo-bar". However, Pi zero, I have to say that "foo — bar" is overkill. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't run in the hall with those assumptions, you might do yourself an injury :-). 20 years ago I might have had less preference for spaced over unspaced, since my eyesight was better then.

So your personal preference is against spaced em dashes. But do you really feel that they damage the project, so as to justify the MOS proscribing them? 'Cause I think proscribing them damages the project. At the time that that proscription was put into the MOS, it was remarked that spaced em dashes were about twice as common on WP as unspaced em dashes, which suggests to me that more editors thought the spaced variety looked better. --Pi zero (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A practice I've read about and seen somewhere is half-spaced em dashes—like this. ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 11:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but your actual code is coming out on my display looking like full spaces.

foo—bar   ({{gaps|foo|—|bar}})

foo — bar   (foo — bar)

--Pi zero (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

On my display, they are narrower, but by just one pixel each. I guess they could be made even narrower—like this—or maybe even like this. ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 16:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Instruction creep alert! Remember most editors don't know when or how to enter a dash, never mind a half space. Art LaPella (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing would forbid creating a template expanding to <span style="margin:0.15em">—</span> and suggesting it in the MOS, in the unlikely event that consensus emerged that half-spaced em dashes are acceptable. ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 21:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Something we can agree on?

So, we don't agree on spacing. That's fine; we'll work it out eventually. But I want to ask if we agree that the other text under point one is too long. Right now it's four bullet points, but I think we can get away with half that. A. di M., Eubulides, and myself have all made attempts at epitomizing it. If one of these is acceptable, then I'd like to go ahead and replace it (without changing the part about spacing). My first proposal is that we use what I proposed above. This, together with the spacing rule currently on the page, would give us:

1. To indicate disjunction. There are two main uses:
   • To stand for to or through in ranges (1895–1910, 17–22 December). Prepositions such as from and through are then omitted, for example, He served 1939–1941, not He served from 1939–1941. In prose sentences, complicated ranges are often better spelled out, as in The data were gathered from 16 December 2009 to 15 January 2010. Ranges should be spelled out when needed to avoid confusion, for example if negative numbers or other dashes are involved (−10 to 10).
   • To stand for and, to, or versus between independent elements, as in Canada–New York border, a 3–1 score, blood–brain barrier, Michelson–Morley experiment (named after Albert Michelson and Edward Morley); contrast to the hyphenated forms Lennard-Jones potential (named after one individual, John Lennard-Jones) and Sino-Japanese trade (where the prefix Sino- lacks lexical independence).
     • Spacing: Disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight; the New Zealand – South Africa grand final; June 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but June–August 1940). Exceptions are occasionally made where the item involves a spaced surname (Seifert–van Kampen theorem).

Would anyone object to this? I think the conciseness is a great improvement. Ozob (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep with what you proposed earlier. Nobody has specifically objected to it. Eubulides (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You simply do not have consensus to change the current text. That is plain. Tony (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly not universal agreement on any version of the text. However, it is clear that the version currently installed is controversial and cannot be said to have consensus in any reasonable way. We should fix it in a way that has better consensus, and Ozob's proposal in #Too hasty is the best we have so far. Specific suggestions for improving it, to better reflect a broad consensus, are welcome. (If I had my druthers I'd change it to omit all unspaced endashes, but obviously that would lessen consensus so I'm not about to propose that.) Eubulides (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The status quo gained consensus originally, which was some time ago. You need to establish consensus to change it. You have not done so: many editors have said they do not like the idea of allowing squashed en dashes willy-nilly. Tony (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is an inaccurate characterization of Ozob's compromise proposal in #Too hasty, and of other editors' comments. The compromise proposal does not allow squashed endashes "willy nilly", and other editors have not taken the extreme position that no change can be made to the existing text, or that the compromise is unacceptable. The consensus has clearly changed. Again, specific suggestions for improving the proposed wording to reflect consensus are welcome. Eubulides (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, the change I'm suggesting right now has nothing to do with spacing. It has to do with tightening up the other text. I would normally not hesitate about making a change like this, but I posted here because the en dash section has become very sensitive. I'm glad I did, too.

Now, back to the text above: Do we have consensus to revise the four bullets under point one so that the entire point reads as above? Let me reiterate that this would not change the instructions on spacing. That is a separate issue. Ozob (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the two issues are so easily disentangled, but I suppose we could give it a try. In looking over the proposal again, I see that it adds the following sentence, which was not in my earlier proposal (in #A broader perspective) and is not in the MoS now: "Prepositions such as from and through are then omitted, for example, He served 1939–1941, not He served from 1939–1941." I suggest removing this sentence, as "He served 1939–1941" looks a bit off and would be better written as "He served from 1939 to 1941." Eubulides (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That sentence corresponds to the present instruction, "This is also the case when the nearby wording demands it, for example, he served from 1939 to 1941 and not he served from 1939–1941, in which from and to are complementary and should both be spelled out; similarly, between 1939 and 1941, not between 1939–1941." If you can think of a better example to put there we could substitute it. Ozob (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose: To stand for to or through in ranges, especially in tables, parentheses, and the like (1895–1910, 17–22 December). (In prose sentences, ranges are often better spelled out with prepositions, e.g. from 1895 to 1910.) Do not mix prepositions and dashes (do not use from 1895–1910). Avoid using dashes for ranges when they could cause confusion, for example if negative numbers or other dashes are involved (use −10 to 10, not −10–10). ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 09:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be pretty OK (like the one similar to this). Although the "He served 1939–1941" example needs to be thrown out and something saner picked instead. It seems essentially to be status quo + allowing for "Seifert–von Kampen". Which is much better than the status quo. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What about It was estimated that 600,000–800,000 people attended the festival, or something like that? ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 17:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe the winter of 2009–2010? Ozob (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The above rewordings are OK, but they still make the text too long. There should be no need for parenthesized sentences here. I suggest the following rewrite of the first bullet instead:

• To stand for to or through in ranges (1895–1910, 17–22 December, the 2009–2010 season). In prose sentences, ranges should not be mixed with prepositions (from 1895–1910) and are often better spelled out (from 1895 to 1910). Ranges should also be spelled out as needed to avoid confusion, for example when negative numbers or other dashes are involved (−10 to 10).

Eubulides (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Usually, periods of less than 12 months spanning two different calendar years, such as financial years and the like, use a slash (2009/10); I'd do the same with "winter". BTW, Eubulides' version sounds fine to me (except that I'd explicitly add "avoid" before the red example, for greater clarity for colour-blind readers). ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 21:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about this for the bullets:

• To stand for to or through in ranges (1895–1910, 17–22 December). Ranges should not occur with prepositions (There were 3,000–3,500 casualties, not There were from 3,000–3,500 casualties), and in sentences they are often better spelled out (There were between 3,000 and 3,500 casualties). Ranges should be spelled out if needed to avoid confusion, for example when negative numbers or other dashes are involved (−10 to 10).
• To stand for and, to, or versus between independent elements, as in Canada–New York border, a 3–1 score, blood–brain barrier, Michelson–Morley experiment (named after Albert Michelson and Edward Morley). An en dash is not used for a hyphenated name such as Lennard-Jones potential, named after one individual, John Lennard-Jones, or an element that lacks lexical independence, such as the prefix Sino- in Sino-Japanese trade.

Ozob (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Phrases like "There were 3,000–3,500 casualties" are acceptable but not the best, the style guide shouldn't be recommending them as good examples. Nor should the style guide recommend "There were between 3,000 and 3,500 casualties"; that's too wordy, and it should be "There were 3,000 to 3,500 casualties". And how did we get on the depressing (and lengthy) subject of casualties? Why not just stick with the shorter version? I don't see how the extra words have helped make things any clearer. Eubulides (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose it's not the best example. The depressing subject of casualties came up because I was looking for a range that might appear naturally somewhere. As far as the comparison with your version, I was a little hesitant about the phrase "prose sentences" (after all, we don't usually write our articles in blank verse, but I suppose it's possible), I thought "mixed" was a little more vague than "with", and I thought "if needed" was a little more prescriptive (in a good way) than "as needed". What about:

• To stand for to or through in ranges (1895–1910, 17–22 December). Ranges should not occur with prepositions (3,000–3,500 people, not from 3,000–3,500 people), and in sentences they are often better spelled out (3,000 to 3,500 people). Ranges should be spelled out if needed to avoid confusion, for example when negative numbers or other dashes are involved (−10 to 10).
• To stand for and, to, or versus between independent elements, as in Canada–New York border, a 3–1 score, blood–brain barrier, Michelson–Morley experiment (named after Albert Michelson and Edward Morley). An en dash is not used for a hyphenated name such as Lennard-Jones potential, named after one individual, John Lennard-Jones, or an element that lacks lexical independence, such as the prefix Sino- in Sino-Japanese trade.

Also, note that the second point is not the same as my original proposal (I removed most of the parentheses). I don't know if you had an opinion on it or not.

Finally, I'm really hoping to get consensus on this, so I'd like to know: Tony and Noetica, what would you think of these changes? Ozob (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC) UPDATE: Change "between 3,000 and 3,500 people" to "3,000 to 3,500 people" as per Eubulides's suggestion below. Ozob (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2nd point is OK; I have no preference between the older and newer versions. There's one example in the 1st point that still needs improvement, though: "between 3,000 and 3,500 people", though acceptable, is often suboptimal style, and "3,000 to 3,500 people" is typically better (it's certainly shorter). Eubulides (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I made that change above. Ozob (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't write blank verse, but we do write tables, infoboxes, and other such kinds of non-prose text. ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 12:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

←Comments:

• "To stand for ..." is better than the slightly different wording in the first three bullets.
• Why omit "May–November"? It serves to illustrate that it's not only numerical items that require an en dash when ranged. Since the four examples at the top are all commonly misused, I suggest retaining them.
• "He served 1939–1941" is strictly North American. In other varieties, the "from", and thus the spelled-out "to" are necessary. It would be better not to use this example. Therefore, the "In prose sentences, complicated ranges are often better spelled out, as in The data were gathered from 16 December 2009 to 15 January 2010" is probably unnecessary, especially as "often" is unclear. I'd say "often" it's less cluttered using an en dash when the items are long.
• Why not retain this: "when a number range involves a negative value or might be misconstrued as a subtraction (−3 to 1, not −3–1)." It's so clear.
• "Canada–New York border"—no, the en dash is spaced, as required by the "Spacing" section. In any case, can and, to or versus go there comfortably? I see it's in the existing text, too, but I'm unsure it works; same for "blood and brain barrier.
• Do we have to link to those articles? Who would divert to consult them right here? The blue link colour fuzzes up the use of green and red. We could link to other items that are green if we're to take it to the extreme.
• The existing second bullet is clearer explicitly mentioning "hyphen"; actually, it's better all round, except for your suggested opening.

BTW, I have to go change the succinct version of the MoS if anything changes here. In fact, when I produced that page, I found little I could save from the en dash text, even though overall the word count is about 40% of this bloated Manual. Tony (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope that when we're done with this, the long version and the short version will be the same:

• To stand for to or through in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war, 17 May – 22 November). Ranges should not occur with prepositions (3,000–3,500 people or 3,000 to 3,500 people, not from 3,000–3,500 people). Number ranges must be spelled out if they involve a negative value or might be misconstrued as a subtraction (−10 to 10, not −10–10)).
• To stand for to or versus (male–female ratio, 4–3 win, Lincoln–Douglas debate, France–Germany border).
• To stand for and between independent elements (diode–transistor logic, Antiqua–Fraktur dispute, Michelson–Morley experiment). An en dash is not used for a hyphenated name (such as John Lennard-Jones: Lennard-Jones potential, not Lennard–Jones potential) or an element that lacks lexical independence (such as the prefix Sino-: Sino-Japanese trade, not Sino–Japanese trade).

I noticed that the article blood-brain barrier has en dashes only in the page ranges in its citations; not once is "blood-brain barrier" en dashed. I'm not sure what's going on there, because "blood-brain" doesn't look like a compound adjective to me. Instead of leaving in something doubtful I substituted "Antiqua–Fraktur dispute".

Regarding borders, compare the following similar examples:

French-German border

France–Germany border

I'd interpret the first as a compound adjective, and therefore I'd hyphenate it. The second isn't, or at least I don't think it is, because neither "France" nor "Germany" is an adjective. The only way I can think to read it is "France to Germany border", in which case it ought to be where I put it under the second bullet point. Similarly, I think in "Canada – New York border" the dash stands for "to"; the corresponding compound adjective would be "Canadian-New York border", which is confusing because "New York" still looks like a noun. Ozob (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why an en-dash joined item can't be a double adjective. It doesn't matter whether it's a noun or an adjective, does it? On "French–German border", I'm so used to "Franco-" that it jars a little, although it's not incorrect. Wouldn't "German–Polish" border be better, since neither particle has a common short form? Tony (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Blood-brain barrier" is a special case, as common medical practice is to use "blood" as an adjectival combiner ("blood-retinal barrier" is considerably more popular than "blood-retina barrier"), and so it's not clear whether a hyphen or an endash is more appropriate here. Some high-quality sources (e.g., doi:10.1038/nrd2368, Nature) use an endash, some (e.g., doi:10.1002/jps.21580, Wiley) use a hyphen; I don't see any overall preference among high-quality sources, and the MoS shouldn't express a preference either.
• A typo: "))" should be ")".
• Please remove "Antiqua–Fraktur dispute". It's in the wrong section (it's a versus, not an and) and we have plenty of examples already.
• Please remove "17 May – 22 November" for the same reason you removed "Canada–New York border". The issue of spaced endashes should be discussed in the spacing paragraph, not here.
• The last sentence is unnecessarily long. There's no need to give versions with both hyphens and endashes for the same thing. I suggest replacing:

  (such as John Lennard-Jones: Lennard-Jones potential, not Lennard–Jones potential)

  with:

  (Lennard-Jones potential, named after John Lennard-Jones)

  and replacing:

  (such as the prefix Sino-: Sino-Japanese trade, not Sino–Japanese trade)

  with

  (the prefix Sino- in Sino-Japanese trade)

Eubulides (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Re. compound adjectives, I thought that was one of the main usages of hyphens, isn't it? ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 16:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that the full date should be removed from the bullet. Let's remove all examples from the bullets, then, since the "Spacing" para provides the basis for the spacing of all examples, spaced or unspaced. In fact, the full date is very useful as a prominent example, because such constructions are almost ubiquitous on WP. The "Canadian–New York" example is a problem because it conflicts with the spacing rules.

Frankly, I see no reason to expend all of this time and energy in completely revamping the en dash bullets. Although I generally think the MoS provides too many examples to make its points, here, the examples seem to be a good idea, since editors need particular guidance WRT this usage. I do agree that the openings should be the same, as Ozob renders them. Tony (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, it sounds like "blood-brain barrier" is inappropriate. I generally prefer to put in more examples rather than less, but I erred on Antiqua–Fraktur dispute, and I've removed it entirely.

I agree with Tony that we should have at least one example of a date that involves months or days, not just years. I realize that this intersects with our unfinished spacing discussion, but there's no reason why we can't change the spacing later. So I'd like to leave 17 May – 22 November. Now we have:

• To stand for to or through in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war, 17 May – 22 November). Ranges should not occur with prepositions (3,000–3,500 people or 3,000 to 3,500 people, not from 3,000–3,500 people). Number ranges must be spelled out if they involve a negative value or might be misconstrued as a subtraction (−10 to 10, not −10–10).
• To stand for to or versus (male–female ratio, 4–3 win, Lincoln–Douglas debate, France–Germany border).
• To stand for and between independent elements (diode–transistor logic, Michelson–Morley experiment). An en dash is not used for a hyphenated name (Lennard-Jones potential, named after John Lennard-Jones) or an element that lacks lexical independence (the prefix Sino- in Sino-Japanese trade).

This is a lot of work for a few bullets, isn't it? But I think what we've got now is really good. If nobody raises any objections in the next few days, then I'll change the page. Ozob (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, revamping them might not be 100% necessary, but it's not useless either. Right now, the first sub-point (starting "To convey the sense") isn't exactly an easy-to-read paragraph. ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 16:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ozob, you write: "If nobody raises any objections in the next few days, then I'll change the page." Well, I object. For at least four reasons:

1. The detail is faulty. For example, you equivocate on the word range:

To stand for to or through in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war, 17 May – 22 November). Ranges should not occur with prepositions (3,000–3,500 people or 3,000 to 3,500 people, not from 3,000–3,500 people).

At first range denotes something that could be expressed either with a dash or with one or two propositions; but in your continuation it denotes something expressed with a dash. This is what you mean, I think:

To stand for to or through in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war, 17 May – 22 November). Range indications should not mix prepositions and dashes (3,000–3,500 people or 3,000 to 3,500 people, but not from 3,000–3,500 people).

(In fact, that through is almost exclusively US English, and should not be encouraged. Many others find it distracting and irritating. But that's a separate issue.)

2. I do not accept that these points should be discussed with consideration of spacing deferred. MOS needs coherent guidelines that work well together; so all the issues with en dashes ought to be thrashed out together, till there is consensus on their use broadly. I include the issues that have been raised with HTML entities versus Unicode. These are not "completely separate", since presenting editors with a comprehensive, workable practice is paramount. Tony has raised the matter of hard spaces preceding en dashes, and the absurdly long string that would be needed if the space and the dash were both coded in HTML. Such a thought is also highly relevant, in designing a usable guideline. But I have given up trying to persuade people of the need for a proper way to code hard spaces. Few here seem to appreciate that need. And while I'm at it: please set aside any suggestion to use templates for spaced en dashes (heaven help us all). Editors need to type intuitively: with few keystrokes, on real keyboards. They will quite rightly refuse tech-heavy "solutions" for basic punctuation.

3. The thread above is fragmented and convoluted. It is quite a task to keep up with what is proposed and why. I'm sure some interested editors have by now given up trying. Amid such chaos, there is no prospect of genuine, wide, durable consensus for change.

4. A general and very urgent problem: there is no means established here to record a consensus when it is achieved. The present guidelines for hyphens and dashes were ironed out in 2007, through much systematic discussion. Subject to minor alterations, they have stood (and served well) since then. But no one can easily find this out, and I see no reference to all that hard work in the present round of discussion. This is wasteful and inept. We desperately need better methods. I have raised this again and again, but I cannot recall anyone else registering the slightest interest. Ignoring history, we repeat it. Meanwhile, many of the editors whose needs we pretend to serve abandon MOS as useless. We come across as a bunch of jejune amateurs. (Well, some of us are!) Take a look at our Archive 108, where a number of perennial favourites are churned through for the zillionth fruitless time. Yes, you'll find en dashes there; but especially take a look through the great debate concerning possessives, culminating in the current travesty of a guideline. (That kindergarten-level exercise prompted my disappearance from MOS, soon to be resumed. Some of us have better uses for our time.) Read also of my attempt to establish a means to record the latest relevant discussion of any given guideline, so it could immediately be found by anyone interested. The response? Dull, uncomprehending, and carping.

In short, I do not agree to any further changes to the en dash guidelines. They are half-baked suggestions, no matter what the undisputed particular competences of the proponents.

I urge editors to focus intently on bigger matters first. When enough of you are ready to get serious, let me know! Till then, I'm busy elsewhere. (O, and Wavelength: DO consider emailing me, OK?)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

What's needed is a FAQ, available at the top of this and every other MOS talk page, that lists every such "perennial favorite", and a solid consensus here that any re-raising of an issue on that FAQ will be immediately tagged {{Resolved|Duplicate of MOS FAQ, item 123.}} and speedily archived on the spot. It should require a Village Pump resolution or RFC to change anything serious in MOS, or it will never stablize. Another, grander idea is to do like WP:WSS, which began as (and is still called, but really is not) a WikiProject: formalize and processify. Create Wikipedia:Manual of style/Proposals and revert any MOS change that does not go through the proposal process (successfully). An intermediate idea would be to make every thread here that proposes a change an actual proposal, like an XfD and close each one after X amount of time, with "closed as accepted", "closed as rejected", or "closed as no consensus" (closer should be an admin, and pages should be protected). Other ideas might come to mind, or some combination of these, but in 2010 I'd like us to look at seriously attempting to stablize MOS and keep it from being something every pundit and yahoo can change on a whim, and something everyone fights about a lot less. Few if any fights erupt over what does and does not constitute valid deletion criteria at WP:CFD, or various other detailed, nitpicky WP process things, yet MOS is nothing but constant fights and editwarring. – SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about such a FAQ, SMC. That would be tantamount to telling new people that they don't count and could potentially give us more ownership over the MoS than we're supposed to have. The whole idea of Wikipedia consensus is that it can change over time. However, the idea that all significant changes to the MoS (other than say, wording) should go through discussion first is a good and reasonable one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

{{ndash}} turns out to be fewer keystrokes than  – , though. (In an ideal world you'd use something like _-- which is even fewer keystrokes, but ...) ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 13:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• "The thread above is fragmented and convoluted. It is quite a task to keep up with what is proposed and why." I agree that it would be helpful to have a single draft rewrite of the whole en dash section rather than these dribs and drabs.
• "I do not agree to any further changes to the en dash guidelines" As things stand, there is no consensus for the current guidelines, and the guidelines are tagged. In effect this means that there are no en dash guidelines. This is not an accurate representation of the consensus here. The guidelines need to be modified to accurately record the consensus that we do have, which is what Ozob's draft and my draft (I don't care which) have tried to do. Constructive suggestions for improving these drafts would be welcome. It's clearly untenable to insist on no further changes.
• "It should require a Village Pump resolution or RFC to change anything serious in MOS, or it will never stablize." First, spaces around endashes are not such a big deal. Second, the MoS should not be carved in stone, and there should not be a gigantic bureaucratic overhead to make minor changes like this; especially, as in the case here, where the change would be a simplification that reflects common practice better.

Eubulides (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• "The present guidelines for hyphens and dashes were ironed out in 2007, through much systematic discussion." I went back and read all the 2007 discussion on this talk page re the subject of dashes. (The biggest thread is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 82 #Hyphens and dashes in the MoS; there are several other threads.) I couldn't find any comments about whether spaces should surround disjunctive en dashes. It appears that the 2007 discussion here provides no evidence for the claim that there was an earlier consensus on this issue. Eubulides (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not saying there shouldn't be discussion about change, but please understand that there is no justification for the comments I've seen floating around such as "there is no consensus for the current wording". No matter how you want to slice it, I'm afraid that if it is on the page for any length of time, then it is policy, and we don't look backwards. It is not correct to say that there is no consensus for the current wording. It is correct to say that there is now debate about the current wording.  HWV258.  07:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• There may have been consensus for the MoS wording at some point, but clearly there is not consensus now. So far we've seen no basis for the suggestion that spaced disjunctive endashes were discussed earlier and that an earlier consensus was established based on that discussion. If such a discussion existed, it would have been helpful for us to see it, to avoid repetition here. Eubulides (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Your response edit comment included "Consensus can change". Since that misses the point I raised, I have to ask: why do you feel you always have to respond? It's okay to read something and think (to yourself): "fair point". You'll move ahead leaps and bounds on WP if you get out of the mindset of always having to respond. Cheers.  HWV258.  08:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• "That misses the point I raised" Actually, my previous bullet directly addressed your point "It is not correct to say that there is no consensus for the current wording". Stable material did establish a consensus, but this old consensus is no longer present. It would be helpful to move forward, by rewording the MoS to express the current consensus as best we can. "Why do you feel you always have to respond?" is a question I'd rather not respond to. Eubulides (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 82

[Outdent] Eubulides, you refer us to Archive 82, and you say this about your reading of it: "I couldn't find any comments about whether spaces should surround disjunctive en dashes. It appears that the 2007 discussion here provides no evidence for the claim that there was an earlier consensus on this issue."

You must have noticed, however, that the discussion was unusually orderly and thorough, and drew on material that Tony set up in userspace. A draft was prepared there, and many editors worked on it collegially (even more thoroughly). This "subcommittee" procedure kept WT:MOS free from its accustomed sprawl and clutter, but no one was left out of the loop in any way. The whole episode was a model of consensus-making, and we could all learn a lot from revisiting it.

The "subcommittee" discussion, along with the draft at its location linked at Archive 82, is apparently not preserved. But that draft was clearly discussed openly on this page, as the archive shows. After weeks of careful consultative development, the draft was duly incorporated in WP:MOS on 14 June 2007, with this edit. The draft text included the following provision, which attracted no dissent whatsoever:

All disjunctive en dashes (1. above) are unspaced, except when there is a space within either or both of the items (“the New York – Sydney flight”, “the New Zealand – South Africa grand final”, “3 July, 1888 – 18 August, 1940”).

The substance of this provision, having been scrutinised over the preceding weeks, has stood as a guideline for the community for almost a year two years and a half since it was incorporated in the Manual of Style.

The provision has enjoyed well-founded consensus since its inception. Now, some editors are challenging the provision. But that challenge does not by itself dispel consensus. The last time the matter was thoroughly tested, along with all matters concerning dashes, hyphens, and associated spacing, there was consensus. Nothing has yet happened to overturn that result.

In fact, we have not properly defined consensus for style matters here at WT:MOS, any more than we have thought to make provision for recording it. But by any standard, this must count as one of the classic examples of consensus.

Eubulides, you write above: "First, spaces around endashes are not such a big deal. Second, the MoS should not be carved in stone, and there should not be a gigantic bureaucratic overhead to make minor changes like this; especially, as in the case here, where the change would be a simplification that reflects common practice better." I respond to these two points:

1. Deals are big or small depending on the place and the context. Here, spacing around punctuation is indeed a big deal. We would be remiss if it were not. Printed style guides touch on the matter hardly at all; but we have to. Again and again we need reminding: this is all new. We are ahead of all current printed guides, because we are wrestling with a new medium, with new ways of writing, editing, and presenting text. (How do I know? I collect such guides, in four languages; I research them; I have taught concerning their provisions at tertiary level; I study and use and compare them almost every day.)

2. Of course MOS should not be carved in stone! No one says it should be. But neither should it be "writ on wind and water", subject to every passing fad or the latest indignant dissatisfaction. Especially with punctuation, where the available resources fall far short of the functions that punctuation must serve, no solution can ever be perfect. It is easy to find fault even with provisions that have stood for years. I do it myself with Chicago and New Hart's, all the time.

For these reasons, I maintain my opposition to any change concerning en dashes at this stage. I certainly will not shift from this stance while the discussion is conducted opportunistically and without all related matters being considered together. It would be easy for me to refute certain debating points made above in this thread. But that would be a waste of time, since the goal-posts are continually moved. What matters is this: there is obviously no consensus for further amendment. If anyone will now mistake a waning in the discussion here as a licence to amend these provisions in MOS, I and others will have a responsibility to revert them. We have spoken clearly and reasonably to support the present reasonable and clear consensus. Let people try again another time if they like, after they have thought and read more on these surprisingly subtle issues.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The last proposal by Ozob, below, is definitely not a big deal, as it doesn't change the instruction at all; it just makes its wording more concise and clearer. (Or is there any situation where Ozob's proposal and the current wording in MoS give different advice, which I am missing?) ― A. di M.^{2nd Dramaout} 12:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a big deal in this way at least: it treats only a part of the material concerning en dashes, but the matter needs to be thought through as a whole, as it was in the reforms of 2007. For one thing, a fragmented approach risks alienating the editors who consult MOS. They don't want to have to track partial changes every couple of days. For another thing, I and others are not inclined to give such a fragment our full attention. I would still change some wording in the present proposal, in fact. But I don't care to discuss that now, for reasons amply laid out above. There are deals that are even bigger than this. They have priority.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 13:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Noetica. At the moment there is no consensus for change.  HWV258.  19:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

While I'm sympathetic to Noetica's desire to get all the endash stuff done at once, and agree that it's more of a pain to do it step by step, Noetica has made no substantial objection to Ozob's latest proposal. Following up on some other comments by Noetica:

• "that draft was clearly discussed openly on this page" Sure, but that's what I said: there was quite a bit of discussion here back in 2007, but the topic of spaced disjunctive endashes was not discussed here. The first serious discussion of the topic on Wikipedia appears to be this very thread, a thread that has demonstrated that there is no consensus to prohibit usage like "Chicago–New York flight".
• "challenge does not by itself dispel consensus" This is not just some random driveby complaint. This is a series of postings by many editors objecting to the requirement, along with substantial evidence that the MoS requirement prohibits near-universal practice among high-quality scholarly publishers and widespread (though not universal) recommendation of style guides.
• "spacing around punctuation is indeed a big deal ... this is all new. We are ahead of all current printed guides" Doesn't this contradict your earlier comment "Think very carefully before assuming that the latest contrivance is necessarily the best."? But at any rate, it's irrelevant whether one subscribes to the claim that the MoS is "ahead of all current printed guides". What matters is whether the MoS's relatively-minor spaced-endash provision reflects consensus. Clearly it does not.

Unfortunately Noetica's comments contained no constructive suggestions for improving the current MoS, in particular, for improving Ozob's draft improved text. I again urge constructive and collaborative engagement with the draft to help it reflect consensus better than the MoS does now. This is far more likely to improve the encyclopedia than threats to revert. Eubulides (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I take strong exception to Noetica's claim that "The substance of this provision, having been scrutinised over the preceding weeks, has stood as a guideline for the community for almost a year two years and a half since it was incorporated in the Manual of Style" and "has enjoyed well-founded consensus since its inception". My take on the matter is: this provision has existed in the MoS for that long, but for most of that time it remained untested, in part because in past times most Wikipedia editors favored hyphens in place of en-dashes. As soon as it was actually tested on non-range disjunctions (by the recent moves and unmoves of several mathematics articles including Seifert–van Kampen theorem) the test brought to light strong objections that showed that it was not the consensus after all, and moreover that it was in complete conflict with standard usage (in mathematics and elsewhere) and with many published style guides. We can argue whether there was a consensus at one time for this provision, or whether it passed into the MoS without consensus because the editors at that time weren't paying attention to how broadly they worded those clauses, but I think that argument is moot: the point is that we have no consensus now for these clauses, and the claims of Tony et al that "no consensus to change = consensus to keep as is" have no foundation in logic. So, we need to build a new consensus, because the alternative is not the status quo but rather having no reliable guidance in the MoS regarding this issue at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Responding point-by-point

← Responding point-by-point to Noetica:

1. This is a good point. I prefer "Ranges should not mix prepositions and dashes" but if there is a good reason to prefer "range indications" then I'd be happy with that, too.
2. I disagree. The specifics of spacing and entity references can be resolved separately from the present copyedit of the instructions on when to use en dashes.
3. Yes.
4. This is a good idea.

As the text stands now, it's:

To indicate disjunction. There are three uses.

• To stand for to or through in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war, 17 May – 22 November). Ranges should not mix prepositions and dashes (3,000–3,500 people or 3,000 to 3,500 people, not from 3,000–3,500 people). Number ranges must be spelled out if they involve a negative value or might be misconstrued as a subtraction (−10 to 10, not −10–10).
• To stand for to or versus (male–female ratio, 4–3 win, Lincoln–Douglas debate, France–Germany border).
• To stand for and between independent elements (diode–transistor logic, Michelson–Morley experiment). An en dash is not used for a hyphenated name (Lennard-Jones potential, named after John Lennard-Jones) or an element that lacks lexical independence (the prefix Sino- in Sino-Japanese trade).

Again, if nobody raises any objections to this text in the next few days, then I'll change the MoS. Ozob (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If you do that, Ozob, people will feel obliged to revert your edit. See my last extended contribution in the preceding subthread.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand your position, so I have asked for mediation. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-24/Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Ozob (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I fully support what Noetica has said. BTW, there's an unsolicited comment on my talk page about this thread. Tony (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, Noetica, HWV, and all those currently opposed to the text in the blue box above: What changes would it need to gain your support? Ozob (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have already indicated, I will not countenance further changes to the MOS guidelines for en dashes until all the issues are put on the table here (along with any connected issues with hard spaces, hyphens, or em dashes), and we are all committed to finding a robust consensus, and an adequate means of recording this consensus. Why should I or anyone else want to waste still more time on small evanescent fluctuations in our guidelines? The current tag warning that these will occur is a disgrace, and ought to be removed. "The present language is likely to fluctuate"? Why? Fluctuate here on the talkpage, not in a text presented for the guidance of millions of editors. Less alarming tags are available, to alert editors that there is a discussion going on.

I take this stand not to be obstructionist, but to be serious and to respect the Project – by respecting the needs of our editors and the needs of the huge readership that we all serve.

Propose a draft that shows a unified and harmonious guideline, taking all factors into account, and we can get serious. Anything short of that is a disruption. (More from me later, on points made in other subthreads above.)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Have to concur on the need to remove the warning. It presupposes a consensus that the wording there will change, yet I see no such consensus on that matter, only a very protracted debate on proposed changes. As for the latest proposed wording, I'm going to continue being pretty neutral on it. I think it has improved, but I honestly have not pored over every rationale pro and con for every part of it. – SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The warning needs to stay because there is clearly not a consensus for the current wording. Unfortunately, despite repeated requests, those in favor of prohibiting "the Chicago–New York route" still has not proposed any specific wording that would capture the current consensus better: instead, all we have seen are comments that continue to insist on no changes whatsoever until all issues are resolved. That is a recipe for inaction. We need a better recipe. A specific proposal is on the table: please propose specific wording changes to it. Eubulides (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Eubulides here. The discussion makes it obvious that we currently have no consensus. That includes no consensus for keeping the old wording. We can work towards coming up with a new consensus, or we can dig in our heels, but the latter course of action will not result in the old consensus prevailing: it will cause us to continue to have no consensus, and therefore no guidance from the MoS on this issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Original wording is kept by default in guidelines and policies, since it takes consensus to change them. I agree that it's better to come to a clear consensus to either change the wording or keep it as is and not mess with it, but there isn't actually any "no guidance" doomsday scenario. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the tag with one informing editors that the section is under discussion and inviting them to join in, rather than warning them of "fluctuations". See my reasons above, and endorsement from SMcCandlish. I propose that we leave this tag in place till the matter is settled; and once more I suggest that we engage in broad good-faith dialogue, rather than dismissing clear evidence and copious argument with objections that counsels of caution are a "recipe for inaction". They are nothing of the sort. If you have not paused to define consensus, nor to provide for recording it, nor to consider how one part of a guideline might affect another, nor to survey the relevant archives with an open mind before forming your judgement, nor to listen dispassionately to those who (unlike you) are versed in the printed style guides, your precipitate action will lead to instability. But Wikipedia needs stability in its Manual of Style. I grow tired of repeating these plain truths, and of being misquoted or misread, and of obdurate refusal to look at the larger issues. Good editors leave MOS discussions because of such shortsightedness. More later perhaps, if I can find time to address further moves in this vexatious debate. However well-intentioned those moves might be, they are distinguished more by rhetorical surface than by substantive depth of argument.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides has now substituted yet another tag. That's fine. Let's leave it there! –_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. I'm actually a big fan of tagging guideline wording as disputed when there's a dispute about it, since it helps draw attention to the discussion and get it resolved faster. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Re: Eubulides's "A specific proposal is on the table: please propose specific wording changes to it." This has become so long-winded, heated, logically contorted and nitpicky on all sides that I for one would like to see a summary of what the alleged issues are – without any invective – with the extant wording, and a summary of what problems are seen with the proposed new wording. If we can do that without bashing each other, I suspect that compromise wording will be easy to arrive at, that resolves whatever faults the original wording had and doesn't introduce new problems. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not see the discussion here before changing the tag back to Noetica's simple, unobtrusive informational (rather than emotive) tag. If editors who consult MOSDASH see the information tag, they will soon acquaint themselves with the debate here, and may even join it. Having a fierce red icon makes us look likely warmongers, and is more likely to turn off editors who may contribute to this discussion. Tony (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A "summary of what the alleged issues are – without any invective – with the extant wording": okay. As for the first point, there's not wrong with what it says, but it is unnecessarily wordy; it could be trimmed by about 50% without making it any less clear, and even making it clearer and easier to read. The three following points' content is right, too, but they are so similar in scope they could be merged into one with about half the words. The only problem I have with the content is the "spacing" point: we have seen that the practice of spacing all dashes when the operands themselves contain spaces is not universal, and while sometimes it is clearer, sometimes it is less clear (namely, when it could be confused with an interruptive dash). Among the style guides which have been cited in these threads, I think Butcher's advice is the most reasonable one. But if everyone else disagrees, I have no strong problem with keeping the current advice (provided the exception for surnames is kept). ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 13:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'd like to hear the other half before getting into details, but my initial reaction is that this would probably go smoother if we have a proposal for changed wording that changes nothing about what is actually advised, just trims the verbal bloat. Reach consensus on that and install it (or reach consensus that it isn't too wordy after all), then completely separately raise the issue of what to do or not do about the spacing question. They're really completely separate issues, and cleanup of bad prose shouldn't be held hostage by concerns about substantive changes to the advice, a weightier and more ponderous matter. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 14:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That proposal already exists: it's outlined in color at the start of this subsection. Let's stick with the tag that Noetica, SMcCandlish, and I agreed on: it's more accurate to say that this thread is a dispute rather than merely a discussion. I don't see why there should be an exception just for surnames; high-quality scholarly sources prefer unspaced endashes even for non-surnames. In practice, among these high-quality sources, spaced endashes are the exceptional case, not the other way around. Eubulides (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's return to the actual content discussion. Those of you who are opposed to the boxed text above (including but of course not limited to Noetica, Tony, and HWV), what would it take for you to support it? If you don't think you will ever support it, why? So far I have not seen any objections to the content, only to the process. Ozob (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Relationship to endash–emdash disagreement

Isn't this disagreement over spaced vs. unspaced disjunctive endashes similar to the disagreement over spaced parenthetical endashes vs. emdashes? Some style guides recommend spaced endashes for parenthetical remarks and others recommend emdashes, with no general consensus, and with both styles allowed in Wikipedia articles. MOS:EMDASH says this:

'Spaced en dashes – such as here – can be used instead of unspaced em dashes in all of the ways discussed above. Spaced en dashes are used by several major publishers, to the complete exclusion of em dashes.'

For consistency shouldn't the MoS also say the following?

'Spaced en dashes can be used instead of unspaced en dashes for disjunctions, such as "10 January – 12 February", in which one or both items contain spaces. In this case spaced en dashes are used by several major style guides, to the complete exclusion of unspaced en dashes.'

After all, the situation is similar: we have dueling style guides in both cases, so in both cases the MoS should allow either style. What—if anything—is wrong with a consistent treatment of these two issues? Eubulides (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No. It's completely different. Tony (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony — I don't know whether this is your intent, but you are coming across as intransigent and uncommunicative, insisting on sticking to an old consensus that obviously doesn't exist. This sort of curt response to yet another attempt to make progress on this issue doesn't help. Could you please describe a process that you think can lead to a new consensus, since the old one doesn't exist and you keep shooting down all attempts to make progress on this issue? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

David Eppstein: intransigence breeds intransigence. This time, Tony has responded with a curtness that will get us nowhere – to a stonewalling refusal to accept the results of extraordinary collegial consultations that he initiated way back in mid-2007. That refusal itself will get us nowhere! Myself, rather than taking on your eminently defeasible assault on my articulated calls for caution and orderly procedure, I now have a more radical proposal to make. See the subsection I am initiating below this one.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of intransigence. I have already engaged in a significant compromise to the guideline on spacing. I'm not going to stand by idly while people wreck the formatting of date ranges and the rest. Tony (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to defer discussion of dashes

It must be admitted, I think, that deliberations in this thread have stalled. SMcCandlish has intervened, attempting to break the impasse; but that appears unlikely to succeed. I propose that we move on, deferring any further review of the MOS guidelines for en dashes (and associated issues) till we have thoroughly dealt with some overarching issues:

1. How are we to define consensus, for the crucial work that MOS performs within the Project?
2. How is a MOS consensus to be achieved?
3. How is a MOS consensus to be recorded, for all editors to see?
4. When and how does a MOS consensus ever lapse?

Wavelength has opened that discussion, in a section below. I strongly recommend that we all give that discussion our sustained attention. It will take a lot of hard work to get things right: but what issue is more urgent? This present thread shows what happens when we ignore the larger questions. I say that Tony did groundbreaking work on consensus-building, for the whole matter of hyphens and dashes of all kinds, in mid-2007. I was there, so I know what an effort was made. If it is uncertain that there at least was a consensus in this case, it must surely be unclear in all other cases too.

We can return to dashes, spaces, and all of that later. Then we can work with the necessary procedures in place – procedures unique to MOS, perhaps. Nothing is lost by such a patient deferral. Later, we can establish a consensus that all editors will accept as one, even if some disagree with the details of the guideline. That disagreement is inevitable; but balanced, rational, and stable compromises are surely something we can achieve, and ought to work towards.

I now call on your support for this proposal, and I look forward to us all moving on: to work together in the consensus section.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There already is WP:Consensus which is policy... ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 22:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of the proposal to move on: support and dissent

Certainly it will help to better document consensus, and we can keep the en dash section tagged while we temporarily turn our attention to the consensus-recording issue. Eubulides (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's not diminish those weighty matters as calling for a short diversion of attention, while the en dash section remains flagged continuously as under discussion. Your cause, and everyone else's, would be better served by acknowledging the procedural failures of the current thread, then abandoning this thread, and starting anew with a clean slate when the time is right. Nothing is lost by doing that, and everyone gains. Please remove the tag, for now.

[I have reworked this as a new subordinate subsection, because the call I have made for collaboration on larger issues needs to remain clearly visible. It's in everyone's interest to work together on that.]

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in no hurry as long as we seem to be making progress to a consensus rather than permanently deadlocked and as long as the old language in the MOS isn't used (again) to move the mathematics articles I care about to names nobody outside Wikipedia uses. Which is to say, I think your call for us to take a step back and look at how we establish and record our consensus here is a good thing. Let's keep in mind WP:CREEP as we do so, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is lost by leaving the article in its current state, including the tag, while we discuss the procedural issue. Keeping the tag addresses concerns about mistaken use of the MoS to require a style where there is no consensus for the requirement. It shouldn't take that long to decide on procedural matters such as whether the talk page should have an FAQ. Eubulides (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What is lost is that every visitor thinks the MoS is inherently unstable. I strongly object to the medium-term presence of this "dispute" tag; it should be reverted to the "information" tag. I will do so within 12 hours. Tony (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I must comment on all of those points, Eubulides.

I have suggested a clean break, so that later we can have a new and better discussion of en dashes (or any other issues at the same level of specificity), when all procedural matters are sorted out. That means relinquishing the present discussion, responding in good faith to the good faith of those who seem to disagree with you. You persist in claiming that MOS is somehow in error as things stand, and that there is no consensus on the matters you and others have raised. But these are the very claims that motivate our proposed discussion of procedure. Let's not persist with such claims here and now: nor with any counter-claims. Let's start a fresh discussion later, on a firmer footing, to address your legitimate concerns.

If we all applied tags to sections of MOS that we consider faulty or still under review, or non-consensual, hardly any section would be free of them. I would certainly have the Possessives section tagged, and two more. Other editors would have theirs too, and the result would be chaotic and unseemly.

Finally, excuse me for mentioning it, but this may be relevant: I have had somewhat more experience of this MOS work than you have (see statistics for MOS and statistics for this talkpage). I can assure you that the issue of consensus, and associated procedural matters, will not be dealt with quickly or easily. That discussion has not even begun to consider the other pages of the Manual of Style (WP:MOSNUM and all the rest); yet how these all work together procedurally must be addressed, in full consultation with regular contributors to those pages who are rarely seen here at WT:MOS. There will also need to be wide community consultation, including perhaps an RFC. Please take seriously the much broader issues that have been very usefully raised in the narrower discussion of en dashes.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• "What is lost is that every visitor thinks the MoS is inherently unstable." No, the tag doesn't say that. All it says is that there's a dispute over the en dash section, which there is. Changing the tag to say that there's merely a discussion would make the tag less accurate. Please don't make the tag less accurate.
• "I will do so within 12 hours." Setting a 12-hour deadline on New Year's Day is not really in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia:There is no deadline. There really is no rush here, and there's certainly no need to set arbitrary deadlines.
• "Let's not persist with such claims here and now: nor with any counter-claims" It's fine for us to temporarily focus on improving the dispute-resolution process: but that doesn't mean that we should in the meantime pretend that there is no disagreement.
• "If we all applied tags to sections of MOS that we consider faulty" I am not in the habit of applying tags to the MoS, and it was not my idea to apply a tag in the first place. However, it cannot be denied that there is a serious and continuing disagreement over that section; also, there is a serious and reasonable concern that without the tag the MoS will be mistakenly interpreted to require a style for which there is no consensus. In cases such as these a tag is called for, and it's inappropriate to remove the tag.
• "That discussion has not even begun to consider the other pages of the Manual of Style (WP:MOSNUM and all the rest)" The proposal was not to defer the matter for a massive project that would rationalize the entire MoS. Such a project would take months at the very least, and more likely would continue indefinitely. If that is in fact what is contemplated, then that's obviously too much delay, and we should instead apply standard conflict-resolution procedures to this dispute. Ozob has already suggested mediation as one step, and that would be fine with me as well.

Eubulides (talk) 08:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Eubulides, point by point:

• Remove the tag. If you take what I propose at all seriously, you will understand there will soon be no active process of dispute concerning en dashes. There will a fresh one, later.
• Tony's declaration that he will do something within 12 hours if your side does not act in the meantime has nothing to do with Wikipedia's conventions regarding deadlines. And why do you say there is no rush to remove the tag, but act as if there were a rush to change the provisions for en dashes? (Rhetorical question only!) I was going to comment earlier, by the way, that Ozob's suggestion to act quickly is particularly unfortunate at this time of year, when regular editors may not be able to pay attention to MOS. Let's have patience all around.
• No one is pretending there is no disagreement. You have been offered a way to make your case on firmer ground, and press what I have called your legitimate concerns, with the assistance of all hands. Others will make their case also, when it is not futile to attempt such a thing.
• Nor am I in that habit, nor is Tony. Tags are to be used with caution, when editors need to be alerted to present moves. But here the suggestion is that we all leave this dispute behind, so that we can focus on ground rules. You want to mark what you take to be a lack of a consensus: but even what constitutes a MOS consensus is an issue that we are adjourning to consider! That has never been thought through, but this dash affair now highlights its urgency. Please understand: a clean break, a new beginning later.
• How much later? It could well take a long time, yes. But it will be much quicker if we set smaller issues aside in the meantime, and work together. As for Ozob's suggested mediation, it is ridiculous. The terms of it are slanted, and Ozob misrepresents me from the outset. For example, I did not "threaten" to revert anything! Check above: I said that we would feel a responsibility to revert, and that we would feel obliged to revert, if there were further changes without consensus. I now suggest to Ozob that the mediation request be withdrawn.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"And why do you say there is no rush to remove the tag, but act as if there were a rush to change the provisions for en dashes?" There must be a misunderstanding here, as I have consistently argued that there is no rush to change the provisions: for example, I reverted Ozob when he installed such a change (a change that I agreed with), purely because I thought the proposed change needed more than a day or two of discussion. Similarly, there is no rush to remove the tag, given that the dispute (obviously) is still present. A "clean break" in no way implies that the tag should be removed: whether we use a new way to resolve the dispute is independent of whether the dispute exists. Even though there's no rush, the process of course needs to take its course in a reasonable amount of time. If it takes months or years to establish a new way to record consensus, then there's something wrong with the process, and we should consider alternative means of dispute resolution. For starters, it would be a shame for mediation to be rejected out of hand. Eubulides (talk) 09:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well. The mess of discussion weighing on us from above is so tangled that I can't easily immediately tease out all of the moves, and who made them. I wouldn't reject mediation out of hand if it were at all a reasonable proposition. This time, it patently was not. Look, I don't want to waste any more time on this. Do you? ... I thought not. Let's close the thread, and get on with something more important. (Sheesh, I said at the start that I really don't want to be here.)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to leave, then. I requested mediation in good faith and stated the situation as impartially as I could. I am extremely offended at your insinuation that I requested mediation only to further my own position. Ozob (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You may have suggested mediation in good faith, Ozob. Read what you will into my words; but I do not say, nor do I insinuate, nor do I believe, that you made the suggestion only to further your own position. I do say that mediation was a ridiculous idea. I have articulated my position at length; if you miss something in it, you have only to ask for clarification, not act as if I had refused to clarify. As for my leaving, don't tempt me. I came here, most reluctantly, because no one was able to survey the printed style guides adequately. I am able to, so I cited some. Since then, it becomes apparent that no evidence concerning those guides will count in any case. Then my points about consensus were for long met with Jesuitical casuistry or with silence; but do you imagine that I am naive in such matters, or seek merely to prevaricate? Still no one takes notice when I argue that the printed guides and the learned journals in mathematics are not final arbiters of good practice for Wikipedia, since we are on uncharted seas. We must be the mapmakers, even though Wikipedia policy can be opportunistically cited against our making such necessary progress. I understand your frustration; please understand mine. We are both well motivated.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 20:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is further discussion of en dashes or em dashes, please notify me on my talk page. Is there a way to automate this request? Anomalocaris (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a way to automate requests like that. Anyway, as noted above, this en dash thread was suspended while we discussed possible ways to improve the consensus processes here, in #Defining consensus, #Achieving consensus, #Recording consensus, #Lapses in consensus, #Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Manual of Style, #Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and #Examples of consensus. An FAQ has resulted, visible at the top of the talk page, but otherwise the discussions have not resulted in any specific proposal for improving the consensus process, and seem unlikely to do so; so it may be time to resume the en dash discussion. If so, though, we should start a new thread rather than continue this one, as this thread is already about 240,000 bytes and its bulk makes it unnecessarily hard to edit the talk page. Eubulides (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Eubulides: Good to see Anomalocaris showing interest in the issue, so let's advise him or her when a new section on en dashes is started.

It is wrong to say that, apart from the FAQ initiative, discussions "have not resulted in any specific proposal for improving the consensus process". See this from me, at #Achieving consensus, below:

We can also get more creative. Why not a dedicated supplementary page for MOS, replicating the structure of WP:MOS itself but with each section's content replaced by synoptic explanations of the relevant MOS content, and links to archived consensual discussions? Every section of WP:MOS, and some subsections, could have a discreet unobtrusive link to that supplementary page, for the use of MOS editors and other enquirers. Why not? This would provide means of stabilising MOS, identifying topics that need further treatment, and informing all future discussion on this talkpage. The same could be done for all associated pages forming part of the Manual of Style. (And indeed, the relations between all these pages still needs more examination and reform.)

Typically for this talkpage, no one appears to have read with care. Rather it has been misread as something more run-of-the-mill, something that we already have partially in place. I'll add to the section in a moment, to correct that. (We see what we are primed to attend to.)

Meanwhile, since development of a better understanding of consensus at MOS is not much progressed, any new discussion of en dashes will still be difficult. The same problems with consensus must arise again, though at least we all understand each other's positions better now, and we have a more complete set of rulings from printed guides on record. Another broad issue that is unresolved: the status of formal printed academic journals as potential models for practice on Wikipedia. I would argue that they are not the best models at all (even if they did show consistency). Our context differs from theirs in these ways at least:

1. Academic journal content is academic and learned; ours is much less formal in much of its coverage (sports, film, popular music, cooking, and so on).
2. Academic journal style is more permanent, adapted for a kind of rigour that suits use over subsequent decades; ours can be amended as the language changes.
3. Academic journals are produced by highly trained academic writers, subject also to codified editing by professionals; Wikipedia writing and editing is a collaborative and amateur effort par excellence, unique and without precedent.
4. Academic journal text exists on paper, in a form that will not be altered, so how it will appear is predictable; our text exists first on the web, in a form that must change its appearance, from user to user and even from viewing to viewing (because user settings and browser settings are not fixed). Sometimes our text also turns up quoted on the web, and also quoted in print: a further consideration for us at MOS.
5. The formal editing standards and codes for academic journals are set out (in traditional printed guides) for such stable text on paper. The inchoate standards and codes for Wikipedia must respond not only to the amateur production methods and different contexts of viewing (mentioned above): they must also respond to the quite different behaviour of strings of characters in HTML, variously interpreted by different browsers (even beyond settings). We who work on WP:MOS – and other parts of Wikipedia's extended Manual of Style – we are at the forefront of developing such standards, and such a code. Denying this, we default to a benighted, pusillanimous, and merely reactionary understanding of our role in Wikipedia.

Most of what I say above applies to formal, mostly printed, works in general; and while we must respect precedents from them as codified in style guides, we must not do so unthinkingly and without adaptations.

I say all this now because soon I'll be saying nothing at all. WT:MOS will attract all sorts of editors, displaying a colourful succession of factional agendas, and superannuated notions of editing from days when Fowler first snared pedants with birdlime (see Papageno the Very Serious Fowler), as his successors still do. But MOS will retain the editors it deserves. Good luck!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 07:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected: you did specifically propose subpages for recording consensus. As for academic journals, I respectfully disagree with much of your comment. In particularly the claim "Academic journal text exists on paper" may have been largely true twenty or even ten years ago, but it's not true now: almost all journals of any note are online now, and most reading is done online. Much of this online stuff is HTML, and academic journals that use HTML (which, these days, means most of them) face pretty much the same problems that we do with browser incompatibilities. Eubulides (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Noetica's post above, except for one point: "Academic journals are produced by highly trained academic writers". Naaah. The standards of English in academic journals have plummeted over the past 15 years, due to two things: (1) the influx of a huge number of (otherwise good) manuscripts authored by non-native scientists and scholars who find they have to write in English to be heard; and (2) the erosion of discretionary time in academia, related to the extreme pressure placed on the profession to teach more, churn out more research, sit on more committees, which has lessened enthusiasm in the profession for pro bono journal editing and management (they receive little professional acknowledgement for this work—in particular, only a tiny advantage when competing for funding). Wikipedia has to do better than what we now find in most "academic" journals if it is to be respected on the Internet. Tony (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Eubulides, see my more developed proposal now, below.

While it is true that many journals are accessible online, many of their offerings are in PDF format, not HTML. And even when they do use HTML, bringing their text into comparability with Wikipedia text, they seem reluctant to publish guidelines to match the new medium. Generally, they could learn a lot from our Wikipedia MOS! They probably will, if they have not already begun to do so. (A related point: I think I have spotted a correction that Britannica online has made to an article, since it was criticised at one of our articles. I prefer not to say which one. There must be lots of this going on.) In any case, have you earlier referred us to examples of HTML publishing by journals? I thought your points (and examples?) in the long discussion above concerned academic practice for the traditional medium of print, echoed perhaps in PDF.

Tony, you and I have close firsthand knowledge of slipping editorial standards in academic journals. We could exchange stories and have a good laugh. To make a point, I spoke above of an ideal, in which they do still work at getting things right. But my case is in fact stronger if they don't do that.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Noetica has a point. Rather than say that no specific proposal has resulted, let's say that no specific proposal has resulted yet. However, I agree with Eubulides that the hiatus should end. While we may get some results from out attempts to define MoS consensus and streamline the process of achieving it, the basic business of the page should not wait for it.

Having worked closely with scientists—and edited their English—I have to concur with Tony. Many of the best minds in chemistry and physics and pharmacology did not grow up speaking English and it shows (though why the journals can't employ better copy editors is beyond me). Wikipedia should not set its standards of English presentation so low. However, this may not be true of academic journals outside the hard sciences. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Gender-neutrality & pronouns

Instead of haggling over what it says here, substantively, I think it would be far better to have the consensus discussion on that be at the main page about it, and we should only summarize it here. There's a danger, otherwise, that what we'd end up agreeing on here will diverge from the main guideline on the topic. (I'm pretty sure there's consensus there, BTW, to not use singular "they" in articles, unless that's changed recently.) – SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 06:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Convenience link to the page SMcCandlish is talking about: Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 11:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked it over and it actually doesn't tell users not to use the singular they. It tells them that "you" and "one" can be undesirable but lists "they" up top with pluralizing. It is only the MoS itself that tells Wikipedia editors not to use the singular they.

However, is this a problem? The essay is written descriptively rather than prescriptively and it's explicitly marked as not part of the MoS. Perhaps the only thing that should be changed is the way the MoS links to it (and this does probably mean that the MoS should explicitly state Wikipedia's rules about gender-neutral language rather than relying on the essay to do it). Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Hmm. Well, I think it is is important that we retain a MOS "no" on singular they. Unlike Spivak pronouns which are rarely inserted by editors, singular they is actually quite rampant. I fix cases of it all the time. So even if we ditch most of that wording and just link to the gender neutrality page (which should be updated to discuss singular they), that one bit at least should remain part of MOS itself. – SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 22:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't like using "they" for "he or she" myself (although there are no graceful alternatives), but the usage goes back centuries; it's definitely a matter of personal style and should not be a matter for Manual of Style rules, nor for random edits by those who aren't otherwise involved in an article. Wikipedia is not a tablet upon which one may institute personal stylistic preferences, even if they're ones I happen to share. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know — singular they just looks really really bad. Is this a legacy of 19th-century prescriptive grammarians just making things up? Sure, fine. Today it looks bad. I'm worried about Wikipedia's rep if we let those stand. --Trovatore (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rep is at far greater risk from other things. I don't mind anyone doing what I'd probably do myself, and changing those singular "they's" to something else [although it's far from the greatest illiteracy you'll find in Wikipedia], but the Manual of Style is already far too long for any average editor to learn or master, and this kind of point probably doesn't belong. This is a perfect example of the kind of thing that I think should go into a non-prescriptive guide to usage, rather than the Manual of Style which no matter what anyone says or wishes is used much more as a Body of Law, enforced by 'bots and Featured item criteria. There is a need for a much smaller and more directive set of (flexible) rules, which can be easily read and assimilated, for important, non-cosmetic, non-aesthetic problems of clarity, ambiguity, accessibility, gratuitous insult, libel and actual harm. This (ugly or not) isn't one of them. More below. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent] This talkpage is the proper location for deciding the question, since the relevant guideline is located in MOS. I have reverted the prohibition of singular they, and advise others to do the same until there is adequate discussion and a well-founded consensus. In its current edition Chicago reversed its decision explicitly to permit such a they; but it does not now prohibit it, only advising that the text be re-worded, which "takes thought and some hard work" (Chicago, 5.204). That approach is increasingly thought to be old-fashioned; more guides now bow to common practice (or "rampant" practice, if that is your take on it!), and accept singular they in edited text. New Hart's (p. 27) rules that this matter is beyond its scope, but notes that singular they is becoming generally accepted in speech and writing. Please discuss before changing; and since the matter is important and controversial, a consensus needs to be ironed out with diligence and wide consultation.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[See also my comment above.] Here is what H.W. Fowler himself said about the problem in 1926 in section 11 of the entry for "Number" in A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (original punctuation preserved insofar as possible):

“ ...Each & the rest are all singular: that is undisputed; in a perfect language there would exist pronouns & possessives that were of as doubtful gender as they & yet were, like they, singular; i.e. it would have words meaning him-or-her, himself-or-herself, his-or-her. But, just as French lacks our power of distinguishing (without additional words) between his, her & its, so we lack the French power of saying in one word his-or-her. There are three makeshifts :— A, as anybody can see for himself or herself ; B, as anybody can see for themselves ; & C, as anybody can see for himself. No-one who can help it chooses A ; it is correct, & sometimes necessary, but it is so clumsy as to be ridiculous except where explicitness is urgent, and usually sounds like a piece of pedantic humour. B is the popular solution ; it sets the literary man's teeth on edge & he exerts himself to give the same meaning in some entirely different way if he is not prepared, as he usually is, to risk C ; but it should be recorded that the OED, which quotes examples under every, they, and themselves, refrains from any condemnation. C is here recommended. It involves the convention that where the matter of sex is not conspicuous or important he and his shall be allowed to represent a person instead of a man, or say a man (homo) instead of a man (vir). ... ”

But Fowler's solution won't work if you don't consider he, his and him to be gender-neutral pronouns. By the way, Fowler's parallel article on "they" (1) says

“ ...at any rate the OED quotes examples from Fielding (Everyone in the house were in their beds), Goldsmith, Sydney Smith, Thackeray (A person can't help their birth), Bagehot (Nobody in their senses), & Bernard Shaw. It also says nothing more severe of the use than it is ‘Not favoured by grammarians’ ; that the grammarians are likely, nevertheless, to have their way on this point is suggested by the old-fashioned sound of the Fielding & Thackeray sentences quoted ; few good modern writers would flout the grammarians so conpicuously. ”

—— Shakescene (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hideous constructions like "it is correct, & sometimes necessary" is a good reason not to cite Fowler. He wrote three or (depending how you reckon) four generations ago, and the language has changed considerably since his time. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 20:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What's hideous about "it is correct, and sometimes necessary, ..."? The ampersands are to save space in the book (usually not a problem in Wikipedia). I don't appeal to Fowler as any kind of absolute authority (I still haven't figured out his precise objection to "due to"), but for informational purposes as the most conservative of currently-consulted undogmatic authorities (as opposed to, say, Samuel Johnson). It's his analysis that's interesting, not his preferred solution, which won't work well 80 years on. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the examples cited here sound either very stuffy or very odd to my ears. I use the singular they myself when I'm speaking out loud, but it's not suitable for formal writing. We should keep the current wording advising against it to maintain Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone. The question, then, is this: Does the advice "Use an encyclopedic tone" convey the idea that the singular they is to be avoided without any further instruction?

I am in agreement with Shakescene that if the length of the MoS is to be reduced, it should be by reducing the number of rules as opposed to some other means. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly favor gender-neutral language. However, incorrect grammar—a third person plural pronoun for a third person singular antecedent—is not necessary to achieve it. Since this particular blunder is creeping into the English language, and into Wikipedia, the MOS should prohibit it with unmistakable clarity. Simple rewriting usually eliminates the problem, and the occasional he or she (and the like) is tolerable; A firefighter must be brave, but they should not be ... isn't. Since many students use Wikipedia, Wikipedia should exemplify good English grammar and usage.—Finell 02:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to use singular they myself in informal writing (e.g. on Wikipedia talk pages) and I don't think it's accurate to call it a blunder in that context. And if it's creeping into the language, it's been doing so for hundreds of years; as our articule singular they makes clear, it's very far from being a new usage. But I agree that it should not be used in our articles and that the MoS should explicitly say so. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Good enough for Shakespeare and Jane Austen. I use it in WP articles (unless there's a very easy way out). It's far better than rampant sexism or clutter, usually the only alternatives. Read or listen to Prof. Geoffrey Pullum on ABC Radio National. Tony (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That might have been a good argument to make in the 19th century, when the grammarians who inform our current ear were making their pronouncements. For that matter, you can make it now, when you're creating primary and secondary sources.

But this is an encyclopedia, and it is not within our remit to reform what counts as high-register English. Which singular they simply does not. The long-term trend does seem to be that it eventually may, but I don't think we want to be ahead of that curve. As matters stand it makes us just look sloppy. --Trovatore (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Finell: Clarify something for us. What is this "incorrect grammar" of which you speak? As discussed by top academic linguists here, you in place of the standard singular thou was once unknown in English. You was originally only plural. (Compare the vicissitudes of Italian Lei, French vous, and so on and on.) Those linguists do not speak of "incorrect grammar". Why should we? It is not engraved on the firmament that they must remain a plural pronoun, any more than you must. And the fact is, they is changing ineluctably before our eyes. It is bound to stay on course for acceptance. If the change were unconscious, quirky, or without sound motivation, we should resist it. But it is conscious, mainstream, and well motivated as answering an urgent need. It is not, therefore, simply a "blunder" and is not "creeping" silently as a cancer in the tissues of our tongue. I'm all for a healthy conservatism: but some slow steady changes are as worthwhile as they are inevitable. They earn our respect and our assent.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(Belatedly interjected, but not to be ignored) I was referring specifically to 3rd person singular and plural: he/she/it vs they; him/her/it vs them; and their possessive forms. Further, I was referring to a specific antecedent noun (the doctor, author, or a person's name). Is it really correct grammar to say, Jim is smart, but they are not athletic? How about: Is Pat male or female? Are they married? I am not talking about indefinite nouns like anyone versus everyone, which are essentially synonymous (although they are deliberately inflected to be singular versus plural). The Brits may be more comfortable with using they for both because they already treat collective singular nouns like Parliament as plural. I am willing to reconsider this when he and she become as archaic as thou.—Finell 22:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What's my punishment if I ignore it? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I roughly agree with Geoff Pullum (see Tony's link): it is completely acceptable when the antecedent refers to several people at once (e.g., "everybody"), acceptable but informal when it refers to an unspecified person, and incorrect when it refers to one specific individual. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 12:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Noetica is correct that the singular they has been around for a long time. It has still not caught on in formal circles. We must write this MoS to the language that we have, not the language that we used to have or that wish we had or that we think we might have one day.

While one can, as Finell does, point out the ways in which the singular they crosses the lines of what's correct, that's not the only reason to advise against its use on Wikipedia. It's not that it's incorrect. It's that it's informal. "Hey, dude!" isn't incorrect, but it's too informal for an encyclopedia. The same goes for "ain't" when it means "am not": not incorrect, but not ideal either. Similarly, the singular they should be reserved for other contexts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What would be the best way to go about this? We certainly don't want to penalize people who write original content using the singular they or—take a look at the "due to->because of" conversation—create rule-lawyering pitfalls in either direction. Should we say something like, "Wikipedia's preferred methods of avoiding gender-neutral language are pluralizing [example], rewording [example], and using 'he or she' (example)"? A gentle touch might be best. Perhaps words like "avoid" or "is not preferred" should apply. Does anyone know of any similar cases? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Trovatore, so Jane Austen was "sloppy", was she? If fusty old Fowler 80 years ago was accepting singular they as an option for writers, who are we to start imposing judgement in the 21st century on what is correct or incorrect? Singular they is an old solution to the fact that the language in all registers was not engineered to cope smoothly with the large-scale power shift from males to females over the past few centuries. Darkfrog, have you read the ABC transcription I linked to above? Austen, Thakeray, Wilde, Wharton, Auden ... the list goes on. "No one should have to climb all those stairs at that age, should he or she?"

Next, we'll be told not to write "It is me"—in some people's grammar, "me" is ungrammatical, but that is just too easy to assert (try "It am I" if we're going to argue about nominative and accusative). Try "The artists who(m) Stalin punished formed an underground opposition". Who or whom? We are guilty of ungrammaticality when being grammatical, it seems. Every day. Tony (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually fusty old Fowler had a few things going for him. For one, he often managed to be witty when uttering his pronouncements. For another, he had no time for such pomposities as "albeit" (a word much loved by en:WP editors). And, as we see, he wasn't as daft as most other grammarians of his day when it came to singular "they". ¶ Trovatore above: I don't know — singular they just looks really really bad. Is this a legacy of 19th-century prescriptive grammarians just making things up? Sure, fine. Today it looks bad. It looks bad to you. It doesn't look bad to me at all. ¶ Darkfrog24 above: [singular they is] not suitable for formal writing. We should keep the current wording advising against it to maintain Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone. Let's do some thirty-second, no-budget corpus linguistics, shall we? I tried googlescholaring for "each participant chose their". There's a pile of hits, including:

• "Each participant chose their own tasks" (Brain Injury, 2005)
• "each participant chose their own pseudonym" (International Journal of Early Childhood, 2007)
• "each participant chose their top three actions" (CLIMAS, the Univ of Arizona)

Or must en:Wikipedia, the world's best-loved source of information on Ashlee Simpson songs and Pokémon, assert the validity of some grammatical rule that concerns neither L1 speakers of English nor the editors of peer-reviewed academic journals? -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, the Jane Austen example is of a character speaking out loud in an informal context. As a novelist, of course Jane Austen would write the words that her characters would actually speak. Most good novelists do. When uneducated characters in Austen speak, they speak in their own accents and with their own word choice. Yes, this fellow provides other examples, but they don't address the issue of whether or not "they" is sufficiently formal right now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Who's "this fellow"? If he's Pullum, he's merely the coauthor of what is the most comprehensive and intelligent reference grammar of English, by a wide margin. Singular "they" appears to be fine for scientific journals. What do you want, the word of some "language pundit" that the journals may publish what they anyway publish? Or would you just like more examples? If the latter, here are hits at Google scholar for "subject selected their". -- Hoary (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with "they" when the antecedent is singular exclusively due tobecause of a quirk of English grammar (e.g. "Everybody loves their county"), but when it's also logically singular ("A friend of mine told me that they ...") it sounds too informal-ish to me. YMMV. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 20:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Wikipedia is not a journal or novel. Journals do silly things all the time. The American Archaeological Association citation style calls for not italicizing book or journal titles, for example, and of course American archaeologists thereby don't italicize them, but this is not a reason to stop doing it here, including in archaeology articles about sites and figures in the US. We are not bound by that or any other style guide, including Pullum's published one and Austen's inferred one, especially where they don't agree with others. Re: a comment above: No one said anything about "penalizing" anyone. No is chased off Wikipedia for any MOS transgression, so let's not make the issue emotional for no reason. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 20:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: It is of no particular significance, nor surprising, that some scholars use constructions like "each participant chose their" in journals (i.e., pretty darned formal) writing). Being scholars does not make them [plural they!] scholars of English writing, and even journal editors may be far more concerned with the views being expounded and the rigor of the science behind them than in the quality of the writing. The point's really moot, because there is no rational reason for the construction not to be corrected to "all participants chose their", "each participant chose [a, some, no, whatever]" or some other construction entirely, e.g. "[something here]" was chosen by each particpant" and so on. There is no case of "singular they" that cannot be rewritten, and virtually all cases can be rewritten multiple ways, some natural, other awkward. Singular they is an informal shorthand. It's one I'm a huge fan of, just not in formal writing. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 20:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually do think that consulting style guides is a good idea, so long as we understand that they may differ and may reflect the specific agendas of the organizations that write them. Novels, however, are not usually a good choice.

Perhaps we could say something like, "Wikipedia's preferred means of avoiding gender bias are pluralizing [example], rewording [example] or using 'he or she' [example]. Because the singular they [example] can come off as informal in some contexts, please use it only when the aforementioned three techniques would be unwieldy or awkward." That oughtta' prevent any witch hunts! Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple and just say, "Don't" (it might be phrased, Avoid the temptation to ...). What you are calling "Wikipedia's preferred means" includes (include?) every possibility except singular they. Indeed, "rewording" by itself covers all the possibilities. Further, I reject the idea that all other solutions are ever so unwieldy or awkward as to justify singular they. When I copy edit away every singular they that I encounter when I am "on duty", I usually rewrite a sentence or paragraph in such a way that the question of whether to use they doesn't arise—that is, no one reading the rewritten text will think that it was written that way to avoid they. Pluralization is not usually my first choice, although it is usually the easiest way out.—Finell 06:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure; I consult (and, here, cite) style guides all the time. They can be informative, just not hand-tying. Something like that would work for me, but I believve "means" is singular here ("a means to an end"), and "come off" is too informal. :-) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 20:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This is another one of those decisions that we're going to need to record somewhere. Otherwise some petty grammarian will come along and change it on the grounds of singular they being "wrong". Myself, I don't like the sound of the singular they very much, and I think it's usually out of place in an encyclopedia—but we need to record somewhere our consensus that it's not "wrong" (and also the consensus that it's not out of place on Wikipedia; a consensus which I quibble with but bow to). Ozob (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a consensus that it's not wrong. It's not wrong in ordinary discourse, no; we can probably get a consensus on that. In my opinion, when trying to write in an encyclopedic register, it is indeed an error. Errors of register are still errors. --Trovatore (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course one could always innovate a small orthographic reform: spell the singular thay, thaem, thair, and leave the plural they, them, their for plural usage. (It solves the problem of ambiguity, at least.) -- Evertype·✆ 10:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

if orthographic innovations are wanted, xe and s/he already exist. meanwhile, like Trovatore, i don't see any consensus in this discussion; and i think this is one of those questions that needs wider discussion. for the record, i wouldn't support "banning" the singular they (particularly since it occurs frequently in direct quotes), but i personally usually manage to rephrase things (outside of quotes, of course!) to avoid it. Sssoul (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Use made-up words and made-up spellings? Absolutely not. The singular they might be too informal, but "thay" and "xe" aren't proper words at all. Wikipedia is not the place to invent new words. If someone else does (and people have) and then they catch on (but they haven't) then Wikipedia should be changed to reflect current, correct English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

SMcCandlish: Journals do silly things all the time. The American Archaeological Association citation style calls for not italicizing book or journal titles, for example, and of course American archaeologists thereby don't italicize them, but this is not a reason to stop doing it here, including in archaeology articles about sites and figures in the US. We are not bound by that or any other style guide, including Pullum's published one [...] ¶ Nothing silly about the American Archaeological Association's citation style. It's just ... their citation style (and incidentally the Guardian agrees with it). It doesn't attempt to pontificate about morphosyntax, merely about orthography, typography and so forth. I'm not aware of any guide to "style" (in the Chicago sense) that adds pontifications about grammar -- other than the latest version of Chicago itself, in an ill-informed section that's extraneous to the meat of the book. ¶ And Pullum, whatever else he has done, has not written or published any manual of style. ¶ Evertype: i think this is one of those questions that needs wider discussion. We have a dead horse here. Bring in more floggers! -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, it's a nice little piece by Pullum at your "ill-informed" link. However, I have to point out a folly: "When the University of Chicago Press started on the revisions that led to CMS 15, they could have lifted the phone and made an on-campus call to the late, great James McCawley,...". Talking to the dead? There are better ways to note an intervening death.

And: "[he agrees, like every other grammarian, that the misnamed "split infinitive" is grammatical, but] thinks that the adverb is "splitting the verb" in this construction (it isn't; it's between two separate words)". Um ... to have is one item—a verb—even though it comprises two words. (PS I'd be a goose to object to splitting it, and I don't unless it's clumsy.) Tony (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In my view to have is not any more of "one item" than the man is. It is more an issue of what one means by "verb", but calling "to do" rather than just "do" the verb makes it slightly more complicated to explain why there's no to before love in "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb", and no to before die in "a reason to live or die". ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 20:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That's ellipsis at play, of the word "to": "to live and [to] die". "The man" is very much one item: a nominal group. See Halliday. Tony (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is in that sense (I reckon that what Halliday calls a nominal group is the same thing as what the CGEL calls a noun phrase, isn't it?), but would you consider the bad in the bad man to "split a noun"? BTW, in the CGEL's (and hence, Pullum's) analysis, "imperative, subjunctive, and infinitival are clause constructions, not inflectional forms of the verb. To in [iiia] is a VP subordinator, not part of the verb." (Example [iiia] is I advise you [to take great care].) Of course, in such an analysis it makes very little sense to claim that adverbs "split verbs". (And you can analyse "to stop worrying and love the bomb" as an infinitival clause composed by the subordinator to and the verb phrase stop worrying and love the bomb, without recurring to ellipsis.) ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 22:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm, just to respond to Sssoul and Darkfrog above: "xe" and "s/he" may exist. I have not seen the former, and do not know how I am to pronounce either: is the former [xiː], the latter [ʃɪˈhiː]? The suggested "they, thaem, thair" of course already exist in the spoken language; it would be a mere orthographic distinction to indicate the singular—so it'd be wrong to say that they were "made-up words". There are even attested spellings: c1375 Cursor M. 2243 (Fairf.) "Quen thay..had fest þe gronde, þe werke thai raised." a1584 MONTGOMERIE Cherrie & Slae 541 "Thay get na credit quhair we come." 1563 WINET Four Scoir Thre Quest. liv, "A man or woman being lang absent fra thair party." Alas, "thaem" is not in fact attested, though theim and thaim and thayme are. -- Evertype·✆ 10:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would "words that haven't caught on in standard English" suit you better? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose.

Hoary, in the absence of a spelling reform which could ensure that a singular reference was intended (not unusual; compare German which capitalizes Sie 'they' when it means 'you') I think the solution for the MoS is obvious: Since the use of the singular "they" in encyclopaedic text is disputed, the recommendation should be to avoid its use by re-casting sentences which make use of it. -- Evertype·✆ 10:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

To take us back 50 years, yes. Tony (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What axe are you grinding here? No manual of style recommends "the singular they" in formal English, and I've seen no compelling argument that such a form should be introduced as normative in the WIkipedia. What you mean by "taking us back 50 years" is quite unclear to me. I was born less than 50 years ago and while I may use the singular they in speech (doubtless I have though my speech is fairly conservative and educated) I would not use it in encycolopaedic writing. If 1960 is too archaic for you... what is an appropriate date? 1970? 1980? 1990? -- Evertype·✆ 22:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Evertype: "No manual of style recommends 'the singular they' in formal English." A strong, and perhaps overstated, claim. I can readily find you several printed sources that accept singular they, in writing generally. What counts as a "manual of style", here? Do guides to usage count, and guides to writing? Many of these are at least sympathetic to judicious use of singular they. Just one example:

Despite continuing complaints from purists, most grammarians now accept the compromise as the only practical way out of the problem. (Collins Good Writing Guide, Graham King, 2003, p. 60)

This assertion is amply borne out in discussions at the acclaimed academic linguistics blog Language Log:

The argument was settled long ago: singular they has routinely been used throughout the history of English, by all the best writers, until certain subcases were artificially turned into "errors" by self-appointed experts. Successively less discriminating pseudo-authorities then generalized the proscription in successively sillier ways, although they have largely been ignored by the users of the language. (" 'Singular they' mailbag", Mark Liberman, 2006; several other threads from that site are relevant)

You write, Evertype: "I've seen no compelling argument that such a form should be introduced as normative in the Wikipedia." I wonder what you mean by "compelling argument". Do you mean no argument that would convince you, or no argument that would compel rational assent generally? The sources I cite above (and there are more) would readily furnish the material for an argument of this latter kind.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Evertype, The EU Style Guide says, "It is also acceptable to use forms such as everyone has their own views on this (see usage note for they in the Concise Oxford Dictionary)." ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 20:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I (continue to) concur with what appears to be the majority opinion here which gives acceptance, however regretfully, to permitting the use of singular ‘they’. It seems to me that if we are to go with the use preferred by formal style guides of the past century and rule out its usage, then we’re likewise obligated to fall back on the employment of generic masculine pronouns – which obviates accommodation of any sort of gender-neutral approach. This is the same horns-of-a-dilemma situation we faced back in 2007 when the issue was first seriously addressed, given that artificial constructs were generally abhorred. The lack of a formal, commonly accepted gender-neutral singular possessive pronoun is an unfortunate aspect of English, but one we have to live with. As has been pointed out by several editors above, it has been an enduring problem that has enduringly been somewhat satisfied with singular ‘they’ and I do not see sufficient consensus for its firm exclusion among style guides or commenting editors. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The "unmarked" masculine pronouns, used generically, are of course not literally gender-neutral, because "gender" is a grammatical term. But they can be used in a sex-neutral manner. I don't see anything inherently wrong with doing that; I do not buy the claim that it is automatically sexist, something that Tony does not seem to think he has to prove.

It may be the case, unfortunately, that the sex-neutral masculine pronouns cannot be employed today without pushing too many people's buttons. But singular "they" is going to push a lot of buttons as well. I think we're probably stuck with the awkward workarounds that don't involve singular "they"; the latter just still just sounds awful in formal prose. --Trovatore (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the distinction between "can't be used without pushing people's buttons" and "automatically sexist" that you are trying to make. If one knows that non-gender-neutral wording will push people's buttons, and one uses it anyway, one is being sexist. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not true. Others' reaction to my choice of language is their responsibility, not mine. --Trovatore (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not the only meaning of gender, and it has not been for much longer than Wikipedia has existed. Have you never filled in a form in which you're asked for your gender? ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 01:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't like that usage but I recognize its existence. That wasn't really my point. My point is that I can't really claim the unmarked masculine pronouns are gender-neutral, because in grammar (which is more or less what we're talking about, after all), the word gender retains its older sense and is recognized that way. But to the extent that you use the word to mean "sex", then yes, such pronouns can be used in a "gender"-neutral way. --Trovatore (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's actually true. One can have the intent of using them in a gender-neutral way, but it is impossible to control the intents of one's readers, many of whom will likely have their impressions of the subject colored by the pronoun one chooses to use. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Vide supra. --Trovatore (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Pullum, "If it were really true that 'he' could be neutral with regard to the sex of the person referred to, you should be able to say, 'Was it your father or your mother who hurt himself?'" ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 01:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not all conventions work the same way in all possible constructions. --Trovatore (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Trovatore, I appreciate the fine irony that the technical term encompasses a grammatically incorrect formulation, but that’s the English language, n’est-ce pas? Having some degree of familiarity with several languages, I wish it still retained some of the useful features of its antecedents (like distinctive singular and plural forms of ‘you’), but we have what we have ... until it changes. Like you, I personally have no problems with sex-neutral masculine pronouns, but the whole issue was originally raised (in 2007) amidst the question of to what degree and how we accommodate “gender-neutral” formulations – which to date lack any generally accepted approach. The choices fall to a continued imposition of sex-neutral masculine pronouns (the very point of objection by those who find it a priori sexist), innovate with some artificial constructions (which have been overwhelmingly deplored), or else a combination of careful avoidance of sex-neutral masculine pronouns with the substitution of colloquially accepted (or at least tolerated) informal adaptations. There is no choice that will please all, so we are faced with choices that offend, respectively, those who consider the traditional formal usage “sexist”, artificialities objectionable (and sometimes unpronounceable) to most of even the small number of people who have even encountered them, or grammarians. Doing the least damage would seem to call for weighing which offendable group is smaller, gender-issue sensitives or grammarians. With respect to singular ‘they’, I suspect that it is acceptable (or tolerable) to a far number of literate readers and writers than there are strict grammarians who object ... and English is a living language, after all. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually agreed, as you may have noticed, that it is probably impossible to use sex-neutral masculine pronouns here without undesirable consequences. I think that's a bit unfortunate but I accept the fact.

But I don't buy the claim that this makes singular "they" acceptable. Singular "they" is acceptable in a lot of contexts. But not for encyclopedic writing. It may be someday; it isn't now. Just sounds bad. Whether the reasons for it to sound bad are good ones or not — that doesn't really matter for the purposes of the current discussion, just as it doesn't really matter for those purposes whether the non-sex-referring masculine pronouns are really sexist. --Trovatore (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In this, at least, we are in complete agreement. Singular they comes off as too informal (to my ear, at least) to be encyclopedic, and the perception that the third-person masculine singular pronoun is sexist is enough to make it problematic as well regardless of whether it is intended that way. Both usages should be eschewed. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with David Eppstein and Trovatore, on both points. Some editors will always wig out about something like this, but the answer is always the same: Rewrite to avoid the awkward construction. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The English language has no such thing as a grammatical gender, so there's no ambiguity in using "gender" to mean "social role normally connected with sex" in discussions about the English grammar. The only difference between "he" and "she" is their meaning; grammatically, they work the same and you can't make a grammatical sentence ungrammatical by exchanging them (but you can make it false if the antecedent is the wrong gender). Also note that grammatical gender needn't have anything to do with sex: in Italian guardia is feminine and soprano is masculine, in German Mädchen is feminine, and there have languages with a "animated" and an "inanimate" gender but no "masculine" or "feminine" ones, or even more complicated systems than that. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 21:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The unmarked masculine pronouns do not refer to sex, and need not refer to social roles either, but are still grammatically masculine. There are other examples in English of gendered pronouns that have no direct relation to sex (ships and countries as she, "the enemy" as he — say, is that last one an example of anti-male bias :-) ? ) Whether this constitutes "grammatical gender" is a matter of interpretation, I suppose. Either way it sounds odd to say that grammatically masculine pronouns are gender-neutral, but they can nevertheless be sex-neutral. --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I do not think the MoS should be proscribing the singular they. Tony (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Proscribing? I'm not a big fan of the MOS proscribing anything. Let me put my view this way: The singular they is not appropriate in encyclopedic writing, wherein it constitutes an error of register if not strictly of syntax. The MOS should say so. --Trovatore (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my brashness, but "wherein" is probably considered inappropriate in WP's register. (Are you a Hallidayan? Where did you pick up the term "register"? It's part of SFL, isn't it?) Concerning singular they—like many grammatical constructions it should be used judiciously; in this case, used only where different wording is clunky or finally recognised as obscenely sexist (the generic male, for example). Tony (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my answering the learned editor on another editor's behalf. Halliday himself acknowledges that the term is not originally Hallidayan, though it certainly figures prominently in his work:

The term "register" was first used in this sense [...] by Reid (1956); the concept was taken up and used by John Ure (Ure and Ellis 1972), and interpreted within Hill's (1958) "institutional linguistic" framework by Halliday et al. (1964 [=The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching]). (Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic, 1978, p. 110)

Reid's priority is duly recorded in OED, at "register, n.¹":

[8]d. Linguistics. A variety of a language or a level of usage, spec. one regarded in terms of degree of formality and choice of vocabulary, pronunciation, and (when written) punctuation, and related to or determined by the social role of the user and appropriate to a particular need or context.

1956 T. B. W. Reid in Archivum Linguisticum VIII. 32 He will on different occasions speak (or write) differently according to what may roughly be described as different social situations: he will use a number of distinct 'registers'.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 05:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "finally recognized" assumes facts not in evidence. I deny that the construction is inherently sexist, at all, much less "obscenely" so. Just the same I recognize that it's probably better to avoid it here, though I lament that necessity a bit.

(added later) by the way, I think you should have said generic masculine, not generic male. That's the point — the masculine pronouns are masculine in the sense of grammatical gender, not in the sense of referring to male sex.

I don't know where I picked up the word "register" but it works for me. I think wherein might be OK for WP if a situation should arise where it would flow naturally, though I don't know what that situation would be. But I don't write here the way I'd write for articles; I feel free to use a much broader range of expression.

Back to the point, I repeat my assertion that the MOS should say that singular they is not appropriate. --Trovatore (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If we say the singular they is not appropriate in Wikipedia, isn't that the same as "proscribing" in Wikipedia, and exactly what is the alternative? It was pointed out that every alternative would offend someone. But if the only stated alternative is "rewrite", that can be interpreted as the impossible "keep rewriting it until everybody likes it". Impossible demands, such as the contradiction here and WP:HYPHEN's "Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here ..." (as if editors will stop writing articles until they find all of those subtleties), make editors less willing to understand and comply with the rest of the manual. Art LaPella (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not the same as "proscribing" because the MoS doesn't have the authority to proscribe. There are always options other than singular "they" or non-sex-referring masculine. They're not always extremely desirable, I grant. But they're better than singular "they". --Trovatore (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, yes it does. We just had a whole conversation about people who didn't want Wavelength to replace "due to" with "because of," and that was one of the polite ones. Yes, if we say "don't do X" on the MoS, it will be treated like a hard-and-fast rule. However if we say something like "only use the singular they when the above three alternatives would make the article too cumbersome," then we've left an exhaust valve, establishing that there are to be no witch hunts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I can't get you to name those options, let me guess: "he or she", repeat the complete noun (perhaps 30 times) instead of a pronoun, or meditate until we think of something everyone will like? Art LaPella (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

One way out is to use the plural. --Trovatore (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Another solution I've seen in academic journals is to mix in non-sex-referring feminine pronouns, along with non-sex-referring masculine ones. Not necessarily recommending that for WP, because it's just a little too "invented" — not as bad as the eir nonsense to be sure, but English has no tradition of non-sex-referring feminine pronouns. Just the same, this would be better than singular "they". --Trovatore (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, I think we have a measure of Noetica's scholastic expertise above. Thank you! Tony (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that switching from "he" to "she" and back is good writing. It makes it sound like the sentence is referring to different things. The three good alternatives mentioned in the article on gender-neutral language are 1. pluralizing 2. using "he or she" and 3. rewording "each pilot must keep the plane level," vs "the pilot must keep/her his plane level." Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean in a single sentence! I meant more that some articles would use he and some would use she. --Trovatore (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't find that to be so great either. If it's sexist to use "he" as if it meant "everyone," then it must be equally sexist to use "she" that way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Though the boundaries are fluid, I think it might help to make more of a distinction between conventions, register, and style. In spite of the name, most manuals of style are about conventions, some of them arbitrary; the main point is that things (such as spelling and punctuation) are done in a reasonably uniform way. Register normally has a social element (in the wider sense). The use of they is in some contexts (such as its use for a specific person of indeterminate sex or for people in authority in general) a matter of register. In other contexts (such as its use for pairwise assignment) it is a matter of style rather than register. In matters of style it is often a matter of balancing conflicting objectives rather than questions of proscription. In legal, mathematical, and encyclopedic style, precision,conciseness, and readability are important but the different objectives have different weightings. Also, in legal and mathematical style there may be a convention that words can be redefined by the writer; this does not normally apply to encyclopedia articles, where the meaning of a word is defined by the language community. There may be contexts where use of "singular they" for pairwise assignment is more concise and should therefore not be proscribed.--Boson (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please say exactly what you mean by pairwise assignment. --Trovatore (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to a situation where exactly one entity from one set is assigned to exactly one entity from another set.

An example might be "Each of the twins was asked if they had attempted to contact the parent from whom they had been separated, if they remembered the separation from that parent, and if they knew about their sibling." --Boson (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a pretty specialized situation. I have to admit that particular sentence doesn't sound as bad as most of them. I'm not quite sure why. --Trovatore (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, the word each is incorrectly understood as plural, whereas it is grammatically singular. (Subject-Verb Agreement, part 2) -- Wavelength (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hint: the antecedent, although grammatically singular, doesn't refer to one specific individual. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 21:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not it. A sentence like each student retrieved their coat still sounds very very bad, and that each is not a specific individual either. There's something about the "twins" case that's different; I can't put my finger on it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How would it sound to you if it started "each of the students"? Maybe you're taking the inner noun phrase ("the twins") rather than the outer one ("each of the twins") to be the antecedent of "they", possibly subconsciously. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 21:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe. I'm not sure offhand. --Trovatore (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm repeating something others had mentioned, but I remember an example from a book by Stephen Pinker in which the "incorrect" singular "they" is preferrable in terms of clarity. It went something like this:

"When the King and Queen enter the room, everyone should take his or her seat." You could invent more of these, but the rule seems to be that the singular "they" is better when you've just mentioned one man and one woman. Chrisrus (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Singular they" may have certain advantages in other situations where the supposed antecedent is used in a general sense; it can be used as a "bounded variable pronoun", where "he or she" may be unacceptable or inappropriate. This includes not only constructions with "any" or "every" but also other cases where a noun phrase apparently referring to a member of a class is used to represent the whole class or an arbitrary member of the class. I am thinking of sentences like

• "Everyone was required to return to their place of birth."
• "The subject must be notified of their right to independent advice and their right to withdraw from the trial at any time."
• "If the patient has not been informed of their financial responsibilities, they may incur unanticipated liabilities."
• "It is not permissible to charge a member for a service if the member was not notified of their financial obligation prior to receipt of the service."

Differentiation between "normal" anaphoric use of a pronoun (to refer to a specific antecedent) and its use as a bounded variable pronoun (or the like) may also be relevant to Pinker's example. --Boson (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am against using singular they in all four of those example sentences. --Trovatore (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but an individual editor preferring a different way of expressing the content for stylistic reasons (and justifying improvements if challenged) is different from a Wikipedia guideline stating, for instance, that "singular they" is to be avoided and "he or she" should be preferred. I would probably have more sympathy for the view that "he or she" is ungrammatical when used as a bound variable pronoun (though that is probably not something that could be sensibly expressed in a guideline addressed to non-linguists). I don't think "proscription" of "singular they" and similar rules regarding stylistic choices belong in the Manual of Style. Each case should be judged on its merits. In my opinion, this is not a matter of informal register or ungrammaticality, and it should not be proscribed by an arbitrary convention. --Boson (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is a matter of register, and the MOS should say that that choice is not appropriate. As I said, I wouldn't use the word proscribe, but only because I think that exaggerates the MOS's authority. --Trovatore (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be entirely happy if any editor were to use [singular] they in any or all of those four example sentences. Those concerned by stylistic inadequacy may wish to attend to peacockery and flab. (A randomly chosen quote from a randomly chosen FA: At the outset, there was disagreement about the group's purpose. Some desired to organize a social and literary club where all persons could participate. Others in the group supported a traditional fraternal organization. The overwhelming sentiment was dissatisfaction with lack of access to a literary society and members proposed to enlarge the functions of the group. The fraternal supporters were in the minority and the society thereafter organized with the intention of providing a literary, study, social, and support group for all minority students who encountered social and academic racial prejudice. Zzz.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style FAQ

Dear colleagues

I think the idea of an FAQ is sound. I do believe it should be very succinct, friendly in tone, and should deal with the issues that come up most frequently, here and in articles. Links to discussions/consensus and MoS sections could be provided within or after each "answer".

The secret to a successful FAQ is to ration both the number of issues treated and the "responses"; otherwise it would be like reading the MoS all over again. This will be frustrating, since almost all aspects of the MoS are transgressed; I think the aim should be to cover the most common/vexing issues.

I'd like to start the ball rolling by asking you to list the specific points of the MoS that editors raise most often, and the things editors most often get wrong in articles. For this, we need to draw on our combined memory of article-writing in the project, as well as possibly looking through the archives of this page.

Your thoughts?

To start, I've listed these ones (in no particular order, and all subject to removal). Please add to this list judiciously. Tony (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Internal/external punctuation (quotations)
• Title vs sentence case in article and section titles
• Non-breaking spaces
• Single vs double quotation marks
• Straight vs curly glyphs
• En dashes vs hyphens
• En dashes vs em dashes (interrupters)
• Ellipsis points: to space or not to space
• Engvar: what to do if someone changes the variety in an existing article
• Numbers as figures or words
• Collective plurals
• Singular they
• "Note that ..."

The only issues that have come up more than once in the past few months are the American vs. British/datasafe punctuation with quotation marks, single vs. double quotation marks and the en dash issues. The only one of those that had a solid technical reason was single vs. double quotation marks: "Because single quotes interfere with search features on many current browsers." It's the only clearly FAQable issue that I can see on this list. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe there are technical reasons for everything that is in the MoS, whether an individual contributor agrees with them or not. Nevertheless, the purpose of an FAQ is to increase the accessibility of the MoS for editors out there we serve, and in doing so to save them and us the trouble of asking and responding to queries here and at other styleguides, such as WP:LINK and WP:MOSNUM. Tony (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

By technical, I here meant having to do with the technology, separate from opinion or interpretation. The purpose of the MoS is to provide users with Wikipedia's style rules in a clear an accessible way, but the purpose of this discussion page is to provide a place where those style rules can be discussed, questioned, improved and clarified. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made a bare-bones FAQ and put it at the top of this page. Everyone is welcome to edit and expand it. You are even welcome to throw out my entire text for trivial reasons. At the moment there are no citations to past discussions, just drafts of statements of what I think consensus roughly is on a very small number of topics. Please edit away! Ozob (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Top of what page? Darkfrog, you're still trumpeting nationalistic views on punctuation, I see. Why does my daily newspaper use internal punctuation, then? Tony (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about a top of a page? And I'm not "trumpeting" anything! Never having seen your local newspaper, Tony, I wouldn't know a thing about it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Now, now. At the risk of offending everyone by stating the obvious, the three preceding posts are:

• "I have made a bare-bones FAQ and put it at the top of this page ...", referring to the beige rectangle at the top of this Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style page; look for the blue question mark.
• "Top of what page? ..."
• "Who said anything about a top of a page? ..." Either I or everyone else are missing something awfully basic. Art LaPella (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Top of this discussion page, between the two archive search boxes. Which, I must ask, do we really need two of them so close to each other? maybe we should integrate the {{round and round}} box with the archives list. Any way, I also made a slight change to Ozob's nascent FAQ, describing what an interruptive emdash actual is, as the sort of editor that is likely to need the FAQ on dashes is also likely the sort of editor less versed with the terminology. oknazevad (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the extra search bar and relocated {{Round in circles}} so that it's near where the archive search bar used to be. The embryonic FAQ is right below the Round in circles template. Ozob (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me.oknazevad (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I like that the FAQ is very concise so far, and I hope that it stays that way. However, it was way, way too kiss-a[r]s[s|e]. The urge to preemptively appease "some editors" was so weasel-wordy that it actually introduced factual errors. For example, the fact that logical quotation preserves the quoted material more precisely and the fact that using different dashes is a readability improvement are in fact facts – if I may use "fact" as many times as possible in one sentence – and are not matters of opinion that "many editors" can feel one way about and "other editors" can have a different take on. Whether these facts are important or whatever can certainly be a matter of opinion, but the two facts themselves have never been in dispute. Next, whoever added the bit about logical quotation not being "standard" US or UK style needs to knock it off. There's no "standard" style in either country, as has been established here more than once, with citation of US and UK publications using both styles. Logical quotation is extremely common in the UK, so the suggestion that it's weird to the British is off-kilter. Finally, I'm not sure that the "taught in schools" bit makes much sense, since we cannot prove that no schools teach any of these things. I'm sure a great number of non-US schools do in fact teach logical quotation, since 90%+ of the publications in those countries use it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 10:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That many Wikipedians believe that datasafe quotes/"logical" quotation is a better system is 100% true. However, it is absolutely a matter of opinion. By saying that many Wikipedians believe that LQ does a better job, the answer makes clear that it is a matter of consensus rather than a matter of facts. And no, logical quotation does not happen to be standard in either U.S. or U.K. English. However, Tony had already removed the references to U.S. and U.K. English and I find that the answer works well enough without them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That it is true that many Wikipedians believe X is irrelevant. The text did not say LQ "does a better job", is very specifically stated what LQ is, for an undeniable fact, better at. To date there appears to be nothing at all that typsetters' quotation is better at other than muddling what the quoted party did or did not actually say/write. In my opinion, LQ is therefore clearly "better", but I did not push any such wording. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's relevant because that's the answer to the question being posed. The question in the FAQ isn't "How is LQ different from American and British standard punctuation styles?" it's "Why does the MoS mandate logical quotation?" The answer to that question is because more Wikipedians like it than like other styles. The most complimentary and unbiased way to phrase that without entering into falsehood is, "Many Wikipedians believe that it does a better job of preserving quoted text." However, LQ is not actually more precise in practice than either American or British punctuation. Neither American nor British styles actually fail where LQ succeeds, and the FAQ must not claim otherwise.

I'd settle for something to the effect of "Wikipedia's consensus is that logical quotation does a better job of preserving quoted text" if "Many Wikipedians believe" isn't working for you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote "taught in schools" because one argument that unfortunately seems to recur here is, "My high-school English teacher said it, and therefore it's true." (Just search for "teacher" in the archives and you'll find it over and over.) My hope was to meet that argument head-on, and I couldn't think of how else to do it. Ozob (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but it seems to me that it should be its own point, not embedded in one particular grammatical point, since it's not relevant to that particular point but is a meta issue, no? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the references and Wikilinks to WP:Consensus should remain. Not only do they help us sidestep the issue of whether or not this consensus is factually correct but it will also direct new users to the page on consensus, making it clear that the matters were settled (or "settled," see conversations about consensus below) on Wikipedia's terms and that "consensus" here has a specific meaning. This makes it doubly informative rather than singly deceptive. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony and I disagree with you. I believe that it is objective truth that logical quotation preserves the speaker's words better than the traditional American system. I also believe that it is objective truth that using different glyphs for different dashes improves readability. To say that these opinions are merely consensus is an error; the FAQ should not err. I have put a link to WP:Consensus at the top of the FAQ, which I believe addresses your concern better than separate links to consensus in each answer. Ozob (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If it were the objective truth, then it would be possible for one of you to demonstrate it. Unfortunately, 150 years of practice show that the American system preserves text just fine. Secondly, it is completely untrue that referring to this as a Wikipedia consensus causes harm. It is a Wikipedia consensus, therefore it is neither false nor an error to say so. That being said, I don't object to the link being elsewhere in the FAQ so long as the word remains. It think it would be better to put the link right where the readers will see it, but as it is, it will do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a demonstration.

1. By definition, the characters between the quotation marks are the same as the characters appearing in the source if and only if the quotation is logically quoted.
2. One of the implications in the above tautology is that if the characters between the quotation marks are the same as the characters appearing in the source, then the quotation is logically quoted.
3. Therefore by contrapositive, if the quotation is not logically quoted, then the characters between the quotation marks are not the same as the characters in the source. Q.E.D.

I agree that it is also a Wikipedia consensus that logical quotation most accurately preserves the speaker's words; all that means is that Wikipedia consensus is for the truth. Ozob (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That isn't a demonstration of LQ. It's a series of logical proofs that make it look as though LQ ought to work in a certain way, but it doesn't show that it actually does or more relevantly, that it actually does better than American or British standards in encyclopedia-style writing. It also doesn't address the use of words-as-words, song titles, short story titles and all the other uses of quotation marks that have nothing to do with quoting sources.

On a more academic level, I totally disagree that a Wikipedia consensus determines the truth. There is one objective reality for all beings, regardless of what those beings believe. Otherwise, the Sun would have traveled around the Earth and Galileo would have been unable to observe otherwise.

As to whether the preponderance of Wikipedians are correct in their belief that LQ is better, we can certainly argue about it—and we probably will the next time someone brings it up. However, if the question is whether there is currently a Wikipedia consensus to use LQ, then yes, we are in agreement that there is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is a correct logical proof, then I don't see how you can reject it. Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see where you pointed out a flaw in my argument.

I did not claim that a Wikipedia consensus determines the truth. I claimed that as regards logical quotation, Wikipedia consensus accords with the truth. Ozob (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What your proofs actually do is define LQ, not demonstrate its effectiveness in practice. It doesn't take mistakes into account. Your proofs indicate not that Wikipedia editors are less likely to make errors if they use LQ but rather that if an error is made, the quotation no longer counts as LQ. It may be true that when LQ is used perfectly, the text will be preserved perfectly, but that is equally true of both American and British punctuation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not equally true of other styles of punctuation. That is what I proved above: All other styles of punctuation insert characters into or delete characters from the original text. Perhaps I need a fourth point: The characters between the quotation marks are not the same as the characters in the source if and only if the original text has not been accurately preserved. Traditional American punctuation therefore does not preserve the original text.

I have never claimed that editors are less likely to make mistakes when using LQ or that LQ is easier to use in practice. We have not defined "effectiveness", so I certainly haven't demonstrated its effectiveness. All I have shown you is that LQ is more accurate: It preserves the original text perfectly by definition, and other systems do not by definition. Therefore it is an objective truth that LQ preserves the original text better than other systems. It is not merely consensus. Ozob (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ozob, all three forms of punctuation do that. They all take some characters from the source and leave others behind. In American punctuation, the closing period or comma, if any, is understood to be part of the quotation process, like the quotation marks themselves, and the "original text" is what's inside. In this respect, LQ has provides no advantage over other forms. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Consider the following passages; to control for things like mistakes and misunderstandings, assume that both writer and reader are aware of what style is being used.

• "It was the strangest experience of my life," he later wrote.
• He later wrote, "It was the strangest experience of my life."

Under LQ, the reader knows that the punctuation was in the original, while under TQ, the reader has absolutely no idea whether the punctuation was in the original.

• "It was the strangest experience of my life", he later wrote.
• He later wrote, "It was the strangest experience of my life".

Under LQ, the reader knows that the punctuation probably wasn't in the original — not certain knowledge, but not zero knowledge either.

From these, it would appear that LQ always provides more information than TQ. --Pi zero (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In all those cases, the line could have been either "It was the strangest experience of my life [period]" or "It was the strangest experience of my life [comma] [subsequent independent clause]." Neither LQ nor British or American standards (which would both put the punctuation inside on a dialogue quote like this one) show where the sentence truly stops in the original. In either case, the reader must view the original to be sure or—more likely because this is the goal of encyclopedic writing—trust that the writer who quoted the material has included the information that is relevant to the article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In each of the first two sentences under LQ, it is not possible that the particular original passage being quoted did not contain the punctuation — unless the quoting editor made a mistake, which I had intended to explicitly control against (though I see my words fell short of saying that) since I was trying to address the correct use of these styles. I did actually intend each of the four sentences to be considered separately; if my lazily grouping them in pairs caused confusion, I apologize. If those first two sentences both occur in an article, and are both correct, then they must be quoting two different instances, in one of which the quoted words were followed by a comma, and in the other of which they were followed by a period. --Pi zero (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize; these things are going to look ambiguous no matter which way they're portrayed. What happened is that it did not look as though you were using LQ during the first two lines because they are identical to British and American usage. Taking what you were actually doing into account, the precision that you describe can't be determined because it is not clear that LQ is in use. That's a problem that would go away if, after a generation or two, LQ became standard, but it isn't the case now. That being said, in those first two examples, all three styles work equally well because they have the exact same effect on the text. So what these examples really show is that LQ only does anything useful when it does the exact same thing as BQ and AQ, so there's really no reason to prefer it over BQ and AQ. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The way to sort out the issues involved in this is to divide and conquer, carefully isolating each specific objective point and getting it straight before moving on to the next. That's why I temporarily limited my attention to a very specific situation, in which the style is known to both editor and reader and is being used correctly by the editor. You've just violated those assumptions, introducing other factors that there's no chance of getting straight if one doesn't understand the simpler case I've outlined. I'd be happy to address your assessment of the more complicated case if I had any confidence that you understand the simpler case; but, on the contrary, I've gradually come to suspect that you don't understand the basic case. It seems that when confronted with the basic case you change the assumptions, in a way that suggests you aren't being evasive but that in fact your eyes just sort of slide off it (like an SEP field) — this is central to my further suspicion that what we've got here, though it surely does involve some authentic disagreement, also involves a significant failure to communicate. --Pi zero (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In other words, I looked at it the way it would actually be viewed by a reader of this encyclopedia. Are there situations in which LQ is preferable? Perhaps it would be in programming publications in which there are so many raw data strings that it just makes more sense to use a system designed for data strings than one that makes exceptions for data strings. This is not a programming publication. More specifically, I assumed not that the editor was making a mistake but rather that the reader could see what the editor had put on the page but not what the editor was thinking or the rationale that that editor used to make the decision. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

When there is a failure to communicate, go to the foundation. Please define "basic case" as you are using the term—if you believe that would be an appropriate use of your time, that is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Striving for mutual understanding is a worthy use of time, I think. (Granted, I have to timeshare WP with the rest of my life, but that's why my next comment sometimes takes a day or several to materialize.)

The simplified case I'm addressing is that the editor who writes the sentence (a.k.a. the "quoter", the person who is doing the quoting) is correctly applying the style (LQ or TQ), and the reader observing the sentence knows what style the editor is applying. Complications temporarily excluded due to these simplifications include (I hesitate to claim these are exhaustive) that the editor might not be correctly applying the style, and that the reader might not know the style or might be mistaken about the style. And yes, I do heartily agree that these simplifying assumptions are not the most common situation with Wikipedia articles (although the simplified case must surely happen sometimes). --Pi zero (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that your assumption of the reader knowing what style has been used effectively never occurs on Wikipedia. It's similar to a broken clock: it's right twice a day, but it doesn't ever give useful information (unless of course we have another working clock on hand). You don't know whether an article uses LQ unless you have the source open next to it and are comparing quote for quote. We should be clear in this discussion that providing for the use of LQ in the MOS does not increase the information content of Wikipedia articles. (Which isn't to say it's not the best system, if we find ourselves wanting to mandate a particular style.) Christopher Parham (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the strength of the qualifier "effectively". It isn't necessary to my point that it ever happen, as this is a gedankenexperiment, meant to provide insight into the dynamics of the phenomena under scrutiny by asking what would happen under hypothetical circumstances. That said, here's a situation in which it is tolerably likely that it might happen: a group of Wikipedians collaborate to upgrade an article, and they use the talk page of the article to mutually agree on various conventions that they're all going to follow — one of these collaborators is the quoter who writes the sentence, and another of the collaborators is the reader who observes the sentence.

There's also some difficulty with what you mean by "know": in sufficiently strict use of that word, reading a Wikipedia article cannot ever induce any kind of knowledge whatsoever, since Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source. That sense of the word "know" is useful for some purposes (notably, choosing sources for a WP article), but for this particular discussion it seems a bit too strict to be useful.

It's a truism that MOS can't "mandate" anything, of course, but, allowing a certain rhetorical license in the use of the word so that it becomes meaningful to talk about MOS mandating something, the MOS already does mandate LQ, and has for many years. --Pi zero (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it never happens, Christopher. I certainly hope that there are at least some Wikipedia editors who care enough about proper punctuation to bother to read that part of the MoS! I would say that, given the inconsistency on Wikipedia and the acknowledgment that not all articles are written in compliance with the rule, the case would still be pretty rare.

Pi Zero, I concede that when the conditions you have described are met, LQ conveys the information in question. However, because this does not happen outside of what I'll call "laboratory conditions," it would not be true or accurate to put "LQ preserves text better" in the FAQ. In this case, I'd take "effectively" to refer to something that has an effect, which LQ does not seem to with regard to preserving the text of Wikipedia's articles and sources.

As for the MoS's role, I didn't object when Pi Zero changed "mandate" to "call for" because it is absolutely true that the MoS does call for LQ, but it does also mandate it. The MoS creates the rules for Wikipedia and there are consequences for breaking those rules. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but, in practice, it is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm no fan of the current wording of the FAQ answer, without or without the word "consensus". I remarked somewhat on the wording further down in this section. "Better" meaning "in a more desirable manner", "more successfully", or "more accurately"? I'm not convinced that the wording is informative in a way that will help much in forestalling protracted misunderstandings. I freely admit that so far I don't know how to word it better.

Re the behavior of quotation styles under laboratory conditions (a nice turn of phrase), to be clear, what I'm saying is that LQ under laboratory conditions conveys more information about the source than any other style does under laboratory conditions. That could be taken as the "better=more accurately" sense of the answer. The next question is the nature of the relationship between that phenomenon under controlled conditions, and phenomena under field conditions (the "better=more successfully" sense). --Pi zero (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A minuscule amount, but yes. However, what the reader is most likely to assume is "under Wikipedia conditions," under which LQ provides no concrete advantage. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

← Richard Feynman once wrote:

In order to save ourselves from inventing new words such as “wavicles,” we have chosen to call these objects “particles,” but we all know that they obey these rules for drawing and combining arrows that I have been explaining.

If we quote this sentence swapping the commas with the closing quotation marks on the ground that the name by which we call those objects doesn't include a comma (following the combination of LQ and the spirit of the "Allowable typographical changes" list), then the sequence of characters we quote does not equal the sequence of characters Feynman chose. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 13:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, A d M. Frankly, I think that whenever Wikipedia quotes a source, as you have done, internal styles of punctuation should be preserved. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It is allowed make trivial typographical changes by any Manual of Style that I know. For instance if I quote "the electron-positron pair was very happy today", it is perfectly reasonable and allowable to quote it as "the electron–positron pair was very happy today". Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's that I don't consider this to be trivial. I'd put this kind of comma placement on par with spelling "color vs. colour" because it shows something about the author's tastes and origin. I don't get that from hyphens vs. en dashes. Now whether Wikipedia's MoS should reflect these conclusions of mine is another question. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

A d M's comment has been kicking around in my head for a few days. If the terminal comma or period is so trivial that the MoS would permit moving it even in a direct quote, then why is it so important that we must deny ourselves the professionalism and legitimacy of correct American and British punctuation? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Darkfrog, again, would it be possible for you to move on from this flag-waving nationalism? I have already pointed out that my daily newspaper in Sydney does not properly comply with what you would refer to as non-US external punctuation (and it uses dates like this: October 31, 2003). Why are you obsessed with the notion of etching sharp lines between the post-colonial varieties? Tony (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I am not waving the American flag or the British flag or the Australian but the correctness and professionalism flag, and have been since day one. LQ cannot provide that for Wikipedia and British and American standards can. No, I don't intend to stop. Even if my above comment—or anything else—were to convince the rest of Wikipedia to prefer standard punctuation to LQ, I would still be saying that the author's original punctuation style should not be considered trivial.

In case you doubt me, please click [here] and note item #1. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And I actually wouldn't refer to anything as "non-U.S. external punctuation." I call British "British" and American "American." I would hope that an Austrialian newspaper would use correct Australian punctuation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I can't convince you, but one person is not consensus. Tony agreed with me before when he reverted your change, so there are at least two people here who believe that the FAQ answer should say "This system ..." rather than "Consensus is that this system ..." How does everyone else feel? Ozob (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Keeping the word "consensus" in the text is the most direct answer to the question and directs newcomers to the concept of Wikipedia consensus. Otherwise, people educated in the American system will just think "Well, that's wrong" and keep going. This, at least, will get them to ask "What is a Wikipedia consensus?" or "What do you mean by 'consensus that it preserves text better'?" before going ahead and "correcting" the MoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The objective truth here might or might not be what is being expressed by the current wording of the LQ answer, due to ambiguous possible readings of the word better. The alternative, subjective reading of the answer might induce an allergic reaction in readers. A stopgap measure is to explicitly label the answer as "consensus", but that will not actually enhance understanding of the answer, it will only encapsulate misunderstanding of the answer within a protective shell of awareness-that-others-think-the-statement-is-true (i.e., the reader who misunderstands the answer is also mistaken about what it is that others think is true). I fear that the current LQ answer will not save argument about LQ here, but only further entrench misunderstandings that exacerbate that argument. To accomplish the goal of the FAQ, a different LQ answer is needed; I've had no joy trying to draft one myself, not for want of trying, though I am coming to believe that an effective LQ answer might not even have to try to express the objective truth that the current answer isn't unambiguously expressing. --Pi zero (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering the dissatisfaction with the FAQ answer in its current state, how do you guys feel about something similar to what we have in the register? It would be longer, but perhaps that would help. "While this is a point of frequent and heated contention on the MoS, there is a current and long-standing consensus for what is called 'logical quotation' or 'datasafe quotes' over both standard American and British English punctuation. While this system more closely resembles British forms than American ones, it does have supporters in the U.S." Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ is there to provide guidance about topics that have reached consensus. It is not necessary to state "Consensus is that...", as that is assumed. "...and directs newcomers to the concept of Wikipedia consensus"—it is not the duty of the MOS to educate editors as to WP concepts such as consensus.  HWV258.  05:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that its purpose is to show editors which styles Wikipedia wants them to use. However, the type of editor who might need to look at the FAQ would probably also be the sort who could benefit from a closer look at the Wikipedia concept of consensus.

In this case, we have an added problem. The statement "Consensus is that this system preserves text better is true" but the statement "this system preserves text better" is false. LQ does not actually offer a material advantage over AQ or BQ under ordinary Wikipedia conditions. It's just more popular among Wikipedians than other systems are. We should find a way to explain why LQ is preferred without making any misleading statements. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Impending announcement: silliest wikilink of the month awards

Users are advised that His Grace the Duke of Waltham has agreed to be the inaugural judge of the Silliest wikilink of the month awards. There will be five monthly winners (August–December 2009) and an overall winner for 2009.

His Grace will make the announcement at WT:LINK when He is ready. The Duke's private secretary, Harold Cartwright, has emphasised that no correspondence will be entered into regarding the awards: His Grace's decision will be final. Tony (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The announcement has been made here. Tony (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

FAQ answer to why the MoS permits the singular they

[Moved from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/FAQ Ozob (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)]

I don't feel that this one needs to be here because this issue has only come up once in the past several months—it is not literally a frequently asked question. However, if it is going to be here, I feel that we should change the explanation. Ozob's change description reads that the MoS does permit the singular they and this is true, however "because many writers throughout history have used it" isn't why the MoS permits/shouldn't permit it or anything. We should answer the question being asked. Yes, many writers have used the singular they, but it's about whether or not they were correct to use it. Many of the contributors to the singular they discussion on the MoS have pointed out grammatical rules that make the singular they acceptable in certain cases. We should either summarize these reasons here or Wikilink to an article covering those reasons. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

By "here" I am referring to the MoS FAQ. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty much indifferent as to the reason given as long as it accurately reflects consensus. When I wrote that sentence it seemed to be an imperfect summary of opinion here, and like everything I put into the FAQ I expected it to need a lot of work before it became tolerable. I don't think it would be a good idea to remove the question entirely, but I'll go along with what others here think. Ozob (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See, to me that seems to be the point of creating the FAQ: to provide the answers. We should either give the answer to "why," rephrase the question or remove the question. How do you feel about the place-holder text, "The singular they is grammatically correct when used to apply to words that do not have specific objects. (Examples: 'everyone' and 'someone') "? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's grammatically correct myself, although I just caught myself using it on a talk page, but that's different from whether it's permissible to use it colloquially or as (in many cases) the best of alternatives or on Wikipedia. The usage may be perfectly acceptable, however, just as "It's me" is almost universal in non-pedantic English without being strictly grammatical. This is different from the "none is/none are" question, where (as a lazy non-expert) I've been persuaded that "none" is distinct from "no one" and may guiltlessly take a plural. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, in modern English the "subjective", or "nominative", form of the personal pronoun is used when it is the subject of an explicit verb. For one reason or another, the issue has become muddied in the case of the first person singular, but would anyone, in answer to the question "Who is that at the door" reply "It's we." or "John called earlier. It must be he again."? Looking at a picture, would anyone say "That's I as a baby."? If nearly everybody's utterances do not agree with a purported rule of grammar, it is probably the rule that is wrong. --Boson (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Boson, that sounds like it would be a great contribution to the discussion about the singular they that's going on under "gender-neutral language." However, I feel that we should keep this section dedicated to what the FAQ should say about why the singular they is permitted on Wikipedia. How about "The singular they is common in ordinary speech and has a long history. Many Wikipedians believe that it is not too informal for an encyclopedia"? That's the biggest real reason, anyway. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And should that discussion result in a consensus that the singular they is too informal for Wikipedia, the answer would of course be changed or removed. I don't want anything going on down here to imply that what's happening up there isn't the real determinant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There is very clearly no consensus that singular they is not too informal for Wikipedia, and the FAQ should not say there is such a consensus. --Trovatore (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I hadn't noticed that this section was for the FAQ. I see that the section title has now been changed appropriately. The general point raised by Shakescene and taken up by me, namely the issue of strict grammaticality, should perhaps be discussed in relation to the FAQ (though, perhaps, not here). In other words, it might be appropriate to mention the basis of recommendations related to grammar rather than convention. That would also apply to "singular they". --Boson (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Above: The usage may be perfectly acceptable, however, just as "It's me" is almost universal in non-pedantic English without being strictly grammatical. When I see this kind of assertion, apparently made in all seriousness, I wonder what the writer means by the word "grammatical". It hardly seems related to work of any value in grammar since Jespersen (if not earlier). May I humbly recommend acquisition of a real grammar book, and consignment to the waste bin of compendia of received ideas on "style"? -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC) ¶ I fear that I may have depended too much on Huddleston and Pullum: new and perhaps newfangled. So how about Henry Sweet? At the start of his New English Grammar (1891), Sweet observes that the rules of grammar have no value except as statements of facts: whatever is in general use in a language is for that very reason grammatically correct. -- Hoary (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't like the way this FAQ is going. It is inappropriate that it be available in its sandbox form at the top of this page. Tony (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  What would you prefer? Ozob (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

With the singular they, I would prefer that the question and answer be removed until the current discussion on that matter runs its course. We can certainly talk about what might be best to say in either eventuality in the meantime, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How many more months can this "discussion" be dragged out, do you suppose? -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You're free to leave at any time, Hoary. Otherwise you might take note of the fact that the issue is not resolved, and your protestations of disbelief at one side do not constitute an argument. We'll discuss it for as long as it takes. --Trovatore (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm awestruck by your stamina, Trovatore. -- Hoary (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

These discussions usually take days or weeks Hoary. And Trovatore has a point. If you don't feel like participating in that discussion, you certainly don't have to. I said my piece in there days ago and now I'm letting the others say theirs. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Right now, AFAICT the MOS never mentions the singular they. This is quite right as there appears to be no consensus either for or against it. (Of course, it should be removed from the FAQ, too.) Also, it is evil to encourage one-size-fits-all solutions so to avoid the need to actually read a sentence in its context and decide which way it actually sounds better and is easier to understand. BTW, the reasons given to avoid ‘, ’, “, and ” would also apply to –, —, and −. And the number of times Geoffrey K. Pullum is named in this page is now likely greater than the total number of times Richard Feynman was named on the FACs for Quark. :-) ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 02:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

...are we alright on removing the question and answer until the matter is settled? If no one responds in twenty-four hours, I'll assume so and remove it. If it stays up, though, that line about great English-language writers should be replaced with something that actually answers the question. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

please do remove it from the FAQ. and since the FAQ is still in rough-draft form i feel it's premature to "announce" it at the top of this page as if it were a polished, authoritative document. can we please move the "announcement"/link from the top of the page for now, until there's been further discussion of the wording and contents of the FAQ? thanks Sssoul (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed. We can put it back up once the matter runs its course. Any thoughts on what it should say in the meantime? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

When "the matter runs its course", I think it will be recognized that there is no consensus that singular they is appropriate to WP. There may not be a consensus that it's inappropriate either (in fact I think that's the most likely outcome, no consensus either way). So probably the best thing is just to leave it out permanently. --Trovatore (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That does seem the most likely outcome. While I don't feel that the singular they sounds formal enough for an encyclopedia, the others have made some good points. At least radio silence on the issue would prevent any witch hunts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion on the singular they seems to be over. It doesn't seem as though there is a single, clear reason that we could put in the FAQ. I suggest that we leave this issue out of the FAQ until that changes. Thoughts? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should tell people that there is a single, clear reason if that isn't the real rationale. I suggest that the FAQ include a link to the debate(s) (after that debate goes to an archive, if it hasn't already). It would also be helpful to provide a summary of the debate, if we can agree on a summary without provoking a bigger debate. Although admitting that we don't have a monolithic opinion might encourage the peasants to revolt, showing them long debates will prove that anything else they have to say is unlikely to produce any immediate results. Description, not prescription. Art LaPella (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would help. The debates are long and annoying and I don't think the newbs will bother to read them. Furthermore, we shouldn't use the FAQ to manipulate people into thinking that they're not allowed to speak their minds or voice their own opinions. The purpose of the FAQ is to inform and help people, not to get them to shut up.

Secondly, the MoS itself does not say anything one way or the other about the singular they. It's on WP:Gender-neutral language. It would be more appropriate to put any FAQ answer there. As to what that answer is, "We've had lots of talks about it and come to no true conclusion one way or the other" seems to be all that we have to say. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, then say that. "The purpose of the FAQ is to inform and help" to me is a reason to give them the link, and let them decide for themselves if the debates are too long and annoying to read. Art LaPella (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A link to WP: gender-neutral language? I have zero objection to that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object either, although I meant a link to previous discussion. In general, however much information someone might want, without making them read it all to find out what is available. Art LaPella (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Well while I don't think that would mislead anyone about the state of consensus on this issue, that discussion is basically a disorganized screed. And why this discussion rather than past ones? An endorsement of it might do more harm than good. People can always use the search feature if they want to know what discussions we've had in the past. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's disorganized, but it's the only direct record of the consensus or lack thereof. As I said, both a link AND a summary would be better, but that would be a much bigger project. I didn't mean this discussion rather than past ones; a list of links would be the natural result of my philosophy. Yes, they could use the search feature, but if they did that they wouldn't need FAQ's, and one would think an FAQ could organize the material better than a search. A search for singular "they", for instance, gives several relevant-looking hits followed by several hits that include "singular" but not "they". Art LaPella (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point. I realize we're supposed to be talking about the FAQ, but how does this sit with you? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I love it! At least until Noetica pointed out we already have Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive Directory, so I hope that previous work will either be updated or merged with the present effort. It was "sparsely linked to". That sounds easy to fix. Whenever someone re-raises a dead horse issue, someone like me should link them to the appropriate FAQ, Archive Directory or whatever is handy. Actually, while I've been here, I haven't seen any really silly-looking discussions, with the exception of one which I choose not to name, except to say that an FAQ wouldn't help. Art LaPella (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And remember to update the link to a section on this page; any link to this page will go dead when it's archived. Art LaPella (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I plan to watch for the link but thanks anyway. Fingers crossed that this thing helps, but we must remember that just because someone reads the archive or register doesn't mean that they don't still have a right to their say on this page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, but if they say the same thing that was said 20 times before, I would expect them to have some kind of response to the 20 answers. Art LaPella (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

[←]Art, it was Wavelength who referred us to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive Directory, not me. I proposed the new initiative, and Wavelength immediately took up the baton, making Wikipedia:Manual of Style Register.

Please people: join the discussion and development at this subsection, above. There is a lot of detail to settle, and many variants are possible. Development of this very worthwhile FAQ can continue also, of course. These concrete initiatives are complementary, and promise real solutions. They can eventually have a series of links between them.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues cataloged by Noetica

In the summaries of Noetica's recent series of excellent edits, he mentioned several issues:

• The verbosity of the serial commas section
• The rules for hyphens
• The rules for en dashes
• The section on possessives

Unfortunately my understanding is that all of these are dormant volcanoes. Is there any one of them which we'd like to erupt now, or should we just leave this list here to remind us to erupt them later? Ozob (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, we just did dashes, hyphens and possessives. Let's do verbosity in serial commas. That way we'll be hashing out the best way to say something rather than the actual content of the rule. I'm pretty sure most of us are cool with the idea that giving our editors their freedom with the serial comma is a good thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Upon reexamining the section in question, I like the examples and think we should keep them, but the first paragraph could stand to be smoother. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just took a crack at it! What do you think? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ozob: Thanks for taking this up, but there is little point addressing these specifics that I raise in my edit summaries until the elephant on the page is taken properly into account: how is consensus to be defined, achieved, and recorded, and how and when does it lapse? I refer editors to the sections devoted to these urgent questions, below.

Meanwhile, just for the record, here are some remarks on the issues you single out:

• The matter of serial commas is a hobby of several enthusiasts who are attracted to MOS work. But that doesn't mean the topic should be given much prominence or space in MOS. The issues are better addressed if they are summarised, with one or two salient suggestions added, and with a definite referral to Serial comma. That article is very sound and detailed; it is also the proper place for the committed hobbyists I mention. The same applies, in some degree, to other sections also.
• The guidelines for hyphens are fine; but they ought to be looked at again along with any fresh consideration of en dashes.
• En dashes will of course get more discussion – when we have proper ways of discussing sorted out, I hope. Of course guidelines can be polished or altered; but the recent discussion of en dashes shows that we are sometimes not equipped to achieve worthwhile and stable results.
• The section on possessives is a wonderful case to highlight the failure of present ways here at WT:MOS. It cannot be fixed now. Bigger issues first, then the dots.

I would add the section on ellipses, which was controversial a couple of years ago but is now stable enough. This is another perennial awkwardness in the printed guides, and it is particularly sensitive when transplanted into the uncertain soil we till at Wikipedia. I have found a neat way to fix the ellipses guidelines; but I will not put it forward unless circumstances improve.

Darkfrog: Sorry, but I find nothing deep or worthwhile in your remarks above. You say we have "done" possessives, for example. "Done", indeed. Rarely on this page has so much good effort been so waylaid by sheer ignorance, ill will, and disrespect for process. Please try to gain from the other perspectives that we have on offer.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we've "done" them in that we had a large discussion about them not long ago. That you don't see anything too deep in my comments does not surprise me because I was attempting to amuse at the time. Noetica, when you talk about how ignorant other people are and how hard you have to look for something valuable in what they're saying, I find myself distracted from what I imagine to be your larger purpose. I find it useful to have some other page upon which to do my ranting so that I can stick to business when I'm here. I hear LiveJournal's good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Video spoof

I posted it over on WT:FAQ and actually meant to post it here as well. A historian friend who knows I am a Wikipedia editor noticed this video spoof, and told me about it. It's about FAC, the MOS and other stuff. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Oh. It's hilarious! Important note: for it to make sense, you need to turn CAPTIONS on. See the bottom right of the video display.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been an outrageous off-wiki attack of the MoS and FAC processes. I think there's a nasty reference to me, as "that precious little ass-wipe", and I believe there should be an investigation by ArbCom. Does anyone have a tip as to who is responsible? Clearly, it's someone with close knowledge of the MoS, FAC, FLC and ArbCom.

Attack vid

Tony (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I am surprised at your characterization of this rare and thus valuable piece of documentary evidence as "outrageous". For me, I am happy at last to see the faces of The Cabal. And although their tastes in insignia and clothing may differ from mine, how much they resemble me! As just another precious little ass-wipe, I enjoyed watching this. And now, let me use an en dash (freshly retrieved from safe storage): – Hoary (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It was Hitler, Tony! He's trying to get people to ignore good punctuation from beyond the grave! Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh noes! Whatever shall we do? I suggest laughing, and moving on. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 15:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hoary, no! The dog's bollocks! :-) ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 21:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Godwin's law applies. Whoever made that video lost. :-) ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 21:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? Tony (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

See the second sentence of Godwin's law#Corollaries and usage. (I had added a similar sentence to the lead of that article, but it was since removed.) ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 21:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Confession here. Tony (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While I write this real policy rulers seek structure for content, content from the syntax level upward, and content from category of categories downward into some as yet undiscovered structure. This troll seems to be missing a metaphor: genetics are syntax. — CpiralCpiral 20:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

English, please. Tony (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Defining consensus

The following question is from Noetica's contribution at 09:16, 31 December 2009, under the subheading "Proposal to defer discussion of dashes".

• How are we to define consensus, for the crucial work that MOS performs within the Project?
  

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The way the policy WP:Consensus says. Maybe that's not ideal, but if so, it should be discussed there; having each sector of Wikipedia able to define its own definition of "consensus" is going to be too confusing. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 19:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the method we use to achieve consensus here should reflect general policy. Wikipedia:Consensus doesn't formally define consensus as a single short phrase, but the overall definition is pretty clear in Wikipedia:Consensus #What consensus is. Eubulides (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Wavelength, for giving these pressing questions greater prominence.

A di M and Eubulides, I will focus on your responses, not on you personally. Those pusillanimous, reflexive, and impulsive responses are exactly what we don't need. Issues are sometimes raised here that tower above the samsaric wasteland of ordinary MOS wrangles – the ceaseless churn of old and unresolved disputations. When that happens, passing the buck to some other forum cuts short moves that are valuable, bold, and reformative. Those responses of yours ignore salient facts, some of which Wavelength and I have already plainly set out for you:

• WP:Consensus does not define consensus tout court, let alone consensus for our specialised work at MOS.
• Our work is indeed unique within the Project, and its special requirements call for sustained discussion.
• The lack of a working, operational definition of consensus for these MOS pages entrains chaos, and ruinous waste of talent, time, and energy.

Now, I agree that ultimately such issues concerning MOS should be taken up elsewhere. (I have often said that, though no one listened.) But we are the ones at the core of this work, and we must develop thoughts here first. If the policy enthusiasts at WT:Consensus have lacked the vision to take this on, we must, here – at least in a preliminary and pioneering way. Who will, if not us?

Sure, dabble in dashes and apostrophes now, if you like. No matter how well you work such detail (or think you do, in a way uninformed by MOS precedent, unique WP needs, or sound surveys of printed guides), your work will be eroded by incompetence and inattention later – unless a number of us raise our heads to contemplate the big picture. And act on what we see.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember someone like me, (presumably) still trapped in Plato's Cave, thinks I'm the one acting on what I see. Art LaPella (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There are areas of Wikipedia which are even more critical than the MoS for the encyclopaedia (think about WT:OR, for example); but I still don't think that the definition of consensus should explicitly differentiate between venues. (Sure, discussions affecting 100,000 articles need more attention than ones affecting 5, but that's true regardless of where they are conducted.) ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 15:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with A di M that this page, like all others, is governed by WP:Consensus. This gives quite a bit of flexibility to establish different forms of discussion, but discussions concerning the MOS should follow the standard protocols. This is critical if MOS is to continue to invite wide discussion from all members of the community, both experienced and unexperienced in discussions on this page. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree generally with that also, CP. But where standard protocols and definitions are deficient, they need supplementing. (See how things are adapted for local needs at WP:RFA, WP:RFC, WP:FAC, for prominent examples.) I certainly would not advocate reforms that put editors off contributing to discussions here. But look at the present situation! Hardly inviting. Many good and wise editors refuse to dip a toe in WT:MOS's turbid waters at all; some that do will have a quick say, and then withdraw totally daunted.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with A d M. The WP: Consensus talk page seems to be a better place to discuss this matter than the MoS talk page. (Which certainly doesn't mean that we can't go over there and have about the same discussion ourselves.) If anything, our purview is to discuss the way in which the consensus described at WP:Consensus affects the MoS particularly. For example, the MoS is a policy and guideline page, so the higher standard would apply. However, it is correct that this page does not define consensus, and if that presents a problem for us, then we're within our rights to make that known. The WP: Consensus talk page seems to be the best place to do that.

That being said, I read—in WP:Vote, I think—that consensus is not formed by voting but rather by the preponderance of logical arguments on one side or the other. I like this idea very much, but I have noticed that it does not usually happen in practice. Namely, when one side has logic but not numbers, there's no way to enforce things. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Scratching hard for something to agree with in what you say, Darkfrog, I find this: "... consensus is not formed by voting but rather by the preponderance of logical arguments on one side or the other. I like this idea very much, but I have noticed that it does not usually happen in practice." Consider the inept non-consensual responses to all the hard argument, evidence, and shrewd compromising I brought to our discussions of possessives (see here and several other places in Archive 108). The result is a confusing kludge of a guideline for possessives, that effectively fails to guide, and reflects little of the broad sway of opinion in respected printed guides or in sound editorial practice. A blight on MOS!

Therefore, new thinking is needed. Therefore, banging the usual old gongs with the usual links enshrining the usual incomplete policies and guidelines is simply not good enough.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The MOS has a serious repetitive argument problem, and I think the FAQ will help. But I don't see how redefining a consensus will help. What did you have in mind? Experts only, as in Citizendium? I can't imagine the rest of Wikipedia agreeing to an exception for the MOS only. Another "motherhood" resolution like WP:BATTLEGROUND? Wikipedia is awash in such platitudes, and bad guys routinely argue that those who oppose their megalomania are turning Wikipedia into a battleground. More likely, such a statement would simply add to our archive. Art LaPella (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What did who have in mind, Art? I for one am not after "motherhood" statements. I wrote (in this very section): "The lack of a working, operational definition of consensus for these MOS pages entrains chaos, and ruinous waste of talent, time, and energy." By operational definition I mean something concrete, practical, and applied, not fluffy abstract sentiment. We need explicit criteria for consensus here at MOS. We all agree, don't we, that discussion here is usually not settled, usually ill-conducted, and often vituperative. Above all, it is repetitive, since we do not learn from our own history. The goal of discussion here is to achieve stable resolutions that reflect consensus, so that MOS can serve the Community more effectively. We cannot do this while what we mean by the word consensus is unclear. WP:CONSENSUS gives limited guidance. We should follow it, since it is policy. But we need to fill out details that will work for MOS: an important corner of the Project that differs from any other corner. What we have now doesn't work, so we should look at fixing it. Reflex appeals to less focused deliberations in other corners of Wikipedia are themselves platitudinous.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Now there's something we should keep in mind. You see, what we have now does work. It can be inefficient and annoying, but it has actually allowed for the creation of a pretty good and beautifully organized MoS. I see absolutely no harm in tossing some ideas around and seeing if we can come up with a better way of doing things, but we should not assume that anything we come up with will automatically be better than what we've got. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it works, while remembering that the MoS is notorious for silly-sounding arguments, as Noetica just emphasized. "What did who have in mind"? I meant Noetica, who I believe is the only one urging a redefinition of consensus as a solution; my statement was that FAQs would help, but redefining consensus in any conceivable way wouldn't help. Noetica quotes himself or herself (sie-self? they? ...) as emphasizing the need for "a working, operational definition of consensus", which I realized; but he or she didn't suggest such a definition, and I can't think of a helpful redefinition. I suggested some possibilities, and described why I think they would be unhelpful. So I can't imagine what else I could contribute to this section. Art LaPella (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Darkfrog: Of course what we have works, in a limited generically determined way. Is that a reason to settle for something short of the highest quality? No one knows MOS better than those of us who mop up messes others have left in it, gritting our teeth over the shortcomings in its contents. We have a better idea what needs fixing, and how, than any drive-by nay-sayers. Of course we can't just assume that a change in our methods will bring improvement! What such changes might be, and their competing merits, are exactly the topic here. I have made a similar point about changes of content. There, the interested parties currently assembled can't know what's better if they haven't learned the history.

Art: First, I am not asking for a redefinition, but a definition of consensus. Wikipedia doesn't have one, as we have seen – let alone one fitted with criteria and adapted for MOS development. (I shouldn't have to repeat this! Please pay attention.) Second, Wavelength also appears to be pushing to examine these issues, and others are joining in. Attempting to marginalise me as a lone voice is not productive. Even if I were that, my voice might still be judged worth listening to. No one here knows MOS, and major and minor printed guides, better than I do. (I point this out with confidence, as demonstrably true and highly relevant to the action we are engaged in right now.) Third, anything of substance that you have contributed in this section will be duly noted; if you truly feel you have nothing more to say, then say nothing rather than resort to negativity. There is enough entrenched negativity here without your adding to it.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 05:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Responding to the above probably wouldn't be helpful anyway. Art LaPella (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Can someone set out here, briefly, how the proposed consensus process would differ from consensus elsewhere on WP? Tony (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes Tony, I can explain for you.

Q: How would the proposed consensus process differ from consensus elsewhere on WP?

A: In these four ways:

1. Consensus for our MOS work would be defined.
Consensus on Wikipedia generally is not fully defined, as discussion at WP:Consensus demonstrates.

2. The criteria for consensus would be fitted to the needs of MOS.
MOS calls for greater care in its construction and maintenance than particular articles. After all, the purpose of MOS is to support three million articles on English Wikipedia – their integrity, quality, and stability.

3. Consensus for MOS work would be like consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia, but operationalised and made practical by those who do and understand that MOS work – subject to community review, as with all moves of this sort.
What incomplete guidelines we have for consensus do not consider this important role that MOS plays. Therefore we editors who serve the Project by developing and maintaining MOS are entitled to make good the deficiency. We are entitled to be bold in this initiative; that's how Wikipedia works. Other areas of Wikipedia that serve special functions have their own tailored protocols, including a local appreciation of what will count as a consensus. It's about time we achieved that, too.

4. Consensus for MOS work would have other features that are so far unknown, until we do that big-picture development work.
The task still lies ahead of us. See other other sections devoted to this work.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

3 gives me cause for concern. Minimalizing the contributions of newcomers would be counter to Wikipedia's spirit and interests. A big part in the decline in the number of Wikipedia editors is the difficulty of dealing with the bureaucracy. We should be trying to find a way that values expertise over good-natured amateurism without preventing good-natured amateurs from coming in and becoming experts. #4 I support wholeheartedly, though. It's good to know that we don't know all of what we're getting into—and that we don't need to. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"After all, the purpose of MOS is to support three million articles on English Wikipedia – their integrity, quality, and stability." But that also applies to WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, yadda yadda yadda. The reasons why the MOS should use a different standard for consensus than all other guidelines are still beyond me. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 16:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Darkfrog: [Please use the review feature before posting. I have boldly removed the "#" at the start of your post. It was parsed as the start of a numeric listing.] I don't see any reason for concern about my point 3, which is not about minimising the contributions of newcomers in any way. It is limited, remember, to finding a practical working definition to make development of MOS manageable. A clearly stated consensus about consensus must welcome newcomers, rather than repel them. How many editors take one look at this notorious talkpage as it is, with its Byzantine backlog of poorly conducted disputations, and scurry away in fright? Think about it!

A di M: You mention WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, but each of those concerns only one isolated feature of policy. You don't see a proliferation of guides to NPOV in print or on the web, do you? For good reason. The evolving body of guidelines in MOS is far more complex than any one of those policies. Its many recommendations apply to the text, markup, and styling detail of three million articles. Its hundreds of distinct provisions are under scrutiny and challenge in a way that can have consequences well beyond what is easily foreseen. The whole MOS process is more like choosing admins, or featured articles. These are weighty and complex matters: we live ever after with the admins we select, and featured articles are what we present to the world as our best work. Therefore, selection of admins and selection of featured articles involve special, customised procedures. Everyone accepts this fact; and no one is excluded by those procedures. Our work, affecting three million articles in detail, is important too. It warrants specially adapted procedures, as argued in detail in this section and others. A di M, you write: "The reasons why the MOS should use a different standard for consensus than all other guidelines are still beyond me." As Bertrand Russell replied to someone making such an objection to him, that inability isn't my responsibility! With respect: if the reasons I set out are beyond you, read again (more studiously), think again (more reflectively), and consider my detailed responses (more attentively). I look forward to us moving beyond flat incomprehension and getting down to concrete progress.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 18:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how many editors look at this talk page and run off. Frankly, I don't see how anyone would know that. This talk page doesn't look much different from other talk pages to me. And minimalizing the effects of newcomers might not be the purpose of these changes, but it does seem to be a likely side effect and we should watch out for it.

I agree that the MoS is different from WP:NOR et al and that it is acceptable that the process for improving it be different. Those policies are more "what to do" and the MoS is more "how to do it." Also WP:NOR and company are 1. much easier to understand and 2. much more essential to Wikipedia's mission. The MoS is here to facilitate and serve those other policies. With regard to defining consensus, I would absolutely not do anything that conflicts with WP:Consensus or that gives the MoS special status that does not reflect its role but that role is not the same as the role of WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Darkfrog, thank you for seeing my point about the special role of MOS, which is however not merely to serve NPOV and other policies, but to provide specific style guidance, potentially for three million articles. No one is proposing that MOS procedures should transgress policy such as WP:Consensus. WP:FAC and WP:RFC don't do that, with their local procedures and elaborations of policy. We too would simply fill in the details, suitably for our specialised work. For the tenth time, WP:Consensus does not even define consensus. But we must, if we are to rise to the challenges that face MOS. As for newcomers, you assert but do not show that they are at risk of feeling unwelcome, simply by our getting clear about what counts as a MOS consensus. A vague fear to harbour, surely! I can assure you, from the evidence in ArbCom actions, from private conversations with editors who stay away from here, and from the reputation this forum has on other WP forums, that many are appalled by its complexity, sprawl, and unending wrangling. Carefully planned remedies can hardly make that situation worse.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 20:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

And WP:NOR etc. decide what to include in articles in the first place, so they are arguably even more fundamental than WP:MOS. Compared with that, issues such as whether to space or not an en dash are utterly trivial. Surely, when whatever guideline was changed so that now we don't allow articles for most individual Pokémon species, far more readers noticed that than they would if we subtly changed the wording about some obscure point of style in a way unlikely to affect more than ten articles or so. (And responding to your Russell quote, many other people, such as Richard Feynman/Albert Einstein/Ernest Rutherford/someone else I don't remember, said that if you cannot explain something to a freshman/your grandmother/a bartender/a four-year-old child (respectively), then you haven't understood it yourself.) ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 20:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A di M: who denies that those distinct and really rather simple policies are more fundamental? I don't! But I have already explained (and you have not grasped) how MOS differs from those policies, yet has its own crucial role, and manifestly needs to come to terms with procedural matters of its own. Like defining what will count as consensus, in an arena where dozens of matters are perpetually and concurrently contested. I agree with you that, compared with the need for neutral point of view, spacing of en dashes appears trivial. But magnified by 3,000,000 it is not trivial; and when we consider all of the small details (and some large) that MOS covers, you can multiply by another couple of hundred. Even if some small component of MOS were found to be genuinely and utterly trivial, that has little bearing on the importance of MOS as a whole; see Fallacy of composition. As for your response to my point about Russell: I can easily explain to a child or a bartender why we need to define our terms, and why an obviously broken system needs to be fixed. I just can't get it through to people with complex commitments and agendas of their own. Do you truly think that I don't understand the issues on which I typically expatiate at this talkpage, with point after detailed point, and argument after articulated argument, and backup from a wealth of sources? Show me evidence that I do not understand, and I promise I will learn from it.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

But it isn't the only "arena where dozens of matters are perpetually and concurrently contested". Only two of the items at WP:PEREN have to do with the MOS or subpages thereof. Not that I think that the current content of WP:CONSENSUS is perfect and should be carved in stone, but if we want to think about having (e.g.) a more explicit definition, thinking about one which would apply everywhere on Wikipedia (but possibly acknowledging the fact that something affecting 10,000 articles needs more consideration than something affecting 10, and other such subtleties) would be more useful. But having another unique formal process to propose changes to the MoS like the one we have now for nominating admins would be contrary to the spirit of WP:NOT BURO, I think. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 22:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 said, at 19:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC): "I wouldn't know how many editors look at this talk page and run off." This page has 1152 watchers. At this moment, this page has been viewed 1503 times in January 2010. You can edit the year and month in the address bar to see the data for previous months. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Is there any way to see how many people decide not to participate? Is there a way to compare this page's "looked but didn't touch" rate to that of other pages? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This page lists "Most viewed articles in 200808" (1000 pages) with "Page views" beside each entry. Besides that, for any page of your choice, you can click on "history" and then click on "Page view statistics" to see a chart of page views for the current month. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If you click on "history" and then click on "Revision history statistics", you can see this resource, which lists 2005 editors who have ever edited this discussion page. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion page is linked to from the following external pages.

• Neil Gaiman's Journal: January 2005 (linked to from one of the first few paragraphs)
• A cure for gigazillion account syndrome - YGingras.net (linked to from "give their opinion")
• Linguistic Obsession: Possessives of words ending in 's'
• Web Design: Rules to Code By (linked to from near top of page)
• 2007-10-02 Swhack IRC Log (linked to from entry at "08:10:29")
• diy grammar and style (linked to from second last section)
• Ask A Word (linked to from near top of page)

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

See this post about the nature of this discussion page. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

NIEL GAIMAN LOOKED AT US!! Holy crud! Thanks for posting these, Wavelength. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 said, at 15:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC): "3 gives me cause for concern. Minimalizing the contributions of newcomers would be counter to Wikipedia's spirit and interests. A big part in the decline in the number of Wikipedia editors is the difficulty of dealing with the bureaucracy." Noetica's third point does not involve minimalizing the contributions of newcomers. A clear definition of consensus and a simplified process would invite newcomers. The point is about increasing stability and usability and decreasing the waste of talent, time, and energy. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Simpler? Yes, a simpler system would be better for newcomers. However, I have been figuring that any system that we come up with would necessarily be more complicated than our current method. Mucking about until everything winds down might not be the best way to do things, but it's hard to get simpler than that. I'd be delighted to hear what you have in mind. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary, muck about means "To do random unplanned work or spend time idly". You give the impression that you have never known the joy of self-discipline. To such a person, I would not want to be either an employer or a customer, which are essentially the same thing. In our situation here, we are volunteer colleagues.

I understand that public schools provide to many people their first experiences of academic study. Students are told who teaches whom and with whom, who learns from whom, what is taught and learned, when and where, how, and even why. The system has many flaws, and many students graduate from high school (or leave before high school graduation) with a sense of "Good riddance!" and a stereotypical negative view of study. The tendency is toward aliteracy and away from autodidactism. Everyone should be involved in lifelong learning.

Wikipedia is open to contributions from almost everyone, including people who are lacking in expertise. One hopes (or, at least, I hope) that non-experts would be motivated to gain expertise in one or more areas from people who have more expertise. Unfortunately, a lack of expertise is often found together with a lack of motivation to learn.

Organization does not need to be difficult, just as marching in formation does not need to be more tiring than walking. (Marching in lockstep can cause a bridge to collapse, and sometimes marchers are advised to break step when crossing bridges, but I do not know of an analog in discussions about consensus.)

You said that you would be "delighted to hear what [I] have in mind", but I am waiting with Noetica as we "continue discussion in these four sections before progressing differently." I am hoping to explain some details in a new section, but maybe Noetica is waiting for more expressions of interest (support?) before that happens, and maybe you are waiting for more details before expressing (more?) interest. There might be a dilemma of priorities here.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, Wavelength. It is because I have known more disciplined systems that I am able to tell the difference. Usually, creating such a system does involve something more complicated than random, unplanned work such as we do here—not that it is always so very much so. And let's not characterize public schools as slackhouses. I went to an excellent one.

Noetica, if you are waiting for more expressions of interest, then here you are: two people waiting to hear it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re. the people who just muck around, they appear to be the ones which do most of the actual work. See http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 13:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating. Do you know when this was written? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It is dated September 4, 2006 (immediately above the comments). Things might have somewhat changed meanwhile, but I don't think it's likely that the situation changed radically. I'll dig into Category:Wikipedia statistics when I have time to see whether there are more recent data about that. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 15:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This section is already long. Please see #Proposed consensus process. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wavelength, you know I have the greatest respect for your initiatives on this page. But I cannot think that directing attention away from this section (devoted to one of four related questions) is a sound move. The intent of the new section was unclear, and I thought it would fragment discussion, so I deleted it. You are entitled restore it, of course; but I advise against doing so at this stage. I hope we can continue discussion in these four sections for a little longer before progressing differently.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Noetica, I understand your thinking and I respect what you did, but sometimes these long discussions become complicated when I wish to post a belated comment in response to a comment farther up in the discussion, and I need to decide what is the best place in the discussion in which to add my comment. Another alternative (for either of us) would have been the adding of a subheading immediately above Tony's question. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wavelength, I propose that for now we stick with these four sections for four questions, without subsections. I understand your suggestion, but I think we should keep the structure as loose and open as it is, just for a little longer. Let's see what further generalities and inevitable doubts are voiced; then we can make a more practical push in a new thread, having harvested what substance we can from these four.

Darkfrog, you may well be waiting for something concrete to happen. I wonder, though, how open and constructive your response will be when that happens. Don't expect me or Wavelength to deliver a fully formed programme with which to continue, for others to tear away at. We have solicited urgently needed new ideas, not promised them. It is true: if there is enough interest and good will, I might come forward with proposed definitions, and sketch possible procedures for working with consensus. Better if the next moves were not mine though, don't you think? Similarly, the ever-resourceful Wavelength might prefer to see others take the initiative, too. The FAQ has been a worthwhile idea; let's hope for more like that.

Another consideration affecting my involvement: I will soon be genuinely less able to continue here at MOS, or even at Wikipedia. I have other things to attend to in life (as we are are pleased to call it), and in about a week these will take over most of my time.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Usually, not all the time, but usually, when someone raises an issue or points out a problem, it is because he or she has an idea of how it ought to be solved. Is this the case with you or do you just want to brainstorm a bit?

I can appreciate how you might not want to look like you're bossing people around by jumping in with a big ready-made plan, but as far as reactions go, I'm pretty sure that the MoS crowd has done what it's going to do with what it's been shown already.

Congratulations on what I hope is a good real life development. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Darkfrog: I have wanted brainstorming, but I also could come up with something more concrete of my own, if there where enough interest. In fact, I now think I will not do so. The FAQ discussion at least promises to be fruitful, and will engender more thoughts about a working definition, with criteria – the twig we need to graft onto the WP:Consensus rootstock. Let's not ignore WP:PG either; it too gives us bearings by which to find a particular path. And these present four inchoate discussions, of four questions that I posed earlier, might also quietly prime awareness toward future action.

Now, you say: "I'm pretty sure that the MoS crowd has done what it's going to do with what it's been shown already." Such a leaden, inertial observation is all too typical, Darkfrog. Your show of a lack of positive interest is not so much a commentary on trends on this talkpage as constitutive of them.

Finally, I reveal very little about myself beyond what is needed here at MOS, to explain absences or to back up initiatives that I take here. While your last remark is well-meant, it is awkward for me and does not touch accurately on anything real for me.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not mean to make you feel uncomfortable, Noetica. That is why I did not ask you what your RL developments were and merely expressed my hopes that things are going well for you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

After taking a break from this page I just now reread the last week's worth of comments in this thread, along with the other threads devoted to consensus-related issues. The bottom line seems to be that although there is some dissatisfaction with the lack of definition of consensus, specific changes to this situation have not been proposed and are unlikely to be proposed soon. Eubulides (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, such a crisp and well-pointed irony must not go unremarked. You take a break from this page, and then come back to observe that nothing specific has been proposed? So, um ... clearly you haven't contributed a lot of effort, have you?

Look, some of us do get down to nitty-gritty specific reforms; some never do, and some of these latter have little to say beyond "it'll never fly". Shakespeare's oversimplification may be apt in this case: thinking makes it so. Why are MOS people so pervasively reactive, and unwilling to contemplate or develop procedures for their special endeavour within the Project? An interesting socio-psychological question (to me, anyway).

Eubulides, reflect on how euboulia cannot flourish if it is strangled by the weeds of aboulia.

Meanwhile, you forget the FAQ initiative. Don't, please.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at the FAQ as something separate from the consensus thing. But no, no one has given voice to any serious specific ideas so far. The one that I mentioned is, I feel, too limited in scope for practical use at this time. And what I mean by "the crowd has done what it's going to do," Noetica, is that if you do have an idea and you're just waiting for everyone to jump and cheer and beg you to tell them what it is, please stop waiting because it's probably not going to happen. But people have shown that they're willing to hear you out and view what you say seriously. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Achieving consensus

The following question is from Noetica's contribution at 09:16, 31 December 2009, under the subheading "Proposal to defer discussion of dashes".

• How is a MOS consensus to be achieved?
  

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus #Consensus-building gives methods for achieving consensus. I don't offhand see how the MoS consensus-building procedure should differ greatly from that of other pages, some of which are far more contentious than this one. Eubulides (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite so, Eubulides: you "don't offhand see". But do you think Wavelength and I raise these questions for your dismissive "offhand" consideration? Do you think we are trivia buffs, seeking to divert a jaded MOS crowd with yet more platitudinous grist for chummy chatter? No. Wavelength is a meticulous and tireless worker for MOS, and a legend inspiring awe at the Language reference desk. Sometimes, just sometimes, we need to move beyond "offhand" treatment of issues from such knowledgeable sources. Don't squelch big initiatives on sight.

There are reasons for consensus-building at MOS to be especially problematic. Don't automatically assume you know otherwise, please. Others may have longer and deeper experience.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Eubulides meant to sound dismissive, Noetica. Rather I think it was a sideways invitation for you to explain yourself further. What do you feel that the MoS specifically needs with regard to methods of achieving consensus? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Having a method would be a good start, don't you think?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, let's not knock the random mucking about that we've been doing up until this point. It's counterintuitive, but it does manage to work well enough enough of the time. That being said, having a fair, formal and reliable method of reaching consensus (preferably one that supports the ideas with the preponderance of logic rather than the ones with the preponderance of adherents) would be great, but I have my doubts about whether or not we'll be able to make one. No reason not to try, I guess. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

... WP:Consensus seems to imply that if an idea is compellingly good, it will gain adherents; it's not that numbers of votes are what "counts", but numbers do reflect which ideas people find more compelling. what other means of determining consensus might be used? a neutral third party being called on to declare which "side" seems more reasonable, for example? i doubt that would fly. so what would?

meanwhile, i'd like to ask Noetica to stop categorizing views that differ from his/her own as "inept", "puerile" "jejune", etc. it discourages participation in the discussion, and makes it difficult to see the possible merits of what he/she is proposing. thanks Sssoul (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't find that to be the case. Large numbers of adherents mean that an idea is popular, not that it's good or right or effective.

I was turning over Noetica's comments in my mind last night and I thought "Wouldn't it be great if there were some way to separate what people are saying from who's saying it?" That way people wouldn't form factions or develop dislike for a decent idea just because the person who said it has been annoying or has disagreed with the reader in past discussions (or perhaps called people ignorant and peurile). Then I got this idea of two columns of text, one with arguments for an idea and one with arguments against an idea. Any editor could add a point, but no repeats would be allowed.

Of course, that would only work with either/or issues and there would have to be a way of measuring the quality of each logical argument so that many picayune issues didn't outweigh one or a few profound ones. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on the optimistic assumption that whatever is good will normally also be popular. All crowd-sourced initiatives depend in some way on this belief that humans are fundamentally good, that we would rather build than destroy, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

[←]Darkfrog: Thank for allowing that we have "no reason not to try", and for thinking about what I have raised and joining in the search for solutions. You write earlier: "... let's not knock the random mucking about that we've been doing up until this point. It's counterintuitive, but it does manage to work well enough enough of the time." The positive reason we have for trying is that the default "random mucking about" reaches a plateau in quality (and stability), beyond which we cannot progress. The problem is especially acute here at WT:MOS, because MOS needs to be especially enlightened, consistent, and stable to serve its very purpose. Other areas of Wikipedia have their tailored protocols for deliberating, because of their heightened importance. But MOS has so far not received this attention. Let's give it now, and wallow no longer in wasteful uncertainties.

Sssoul, you write: "meanwhile, i'd like to ask Noetica to stop categorizing views that differ from his/her own as 'inept', 'puerile', etc. it discourages participation in the discussion, and makes it difficult to see the possible merits of what he/she is proposing. thanks." let me resort in my reply to a hybrid joycean style that might make some sense to you since i have never yet succeeded in communicating content simple or complex to you by other means nor have you ever it seems found merit in anything of consequence that i have said anyway i look in vain on the present page for the word puerile indeed i seem not to have used it here since sometime in 2008 so i am not doing it here am i as for inept yes on this page i use it once here this is wasteful and inept we desperately need better methods and once yes referring to inept non consensual responses to all the hard argument evidence and shrewd compromising I brought to our discussions of possessives well that is not personal is it or if it is the evidence is there for anyone to examine to see how utterly obtuse was the response to all the analysis i presented so that you yes ruined a guideline that had excellent claim to being consensual and that corrupted guideline still mars mos utterly obtuse oops o so sorry Yes.

Whatamidoing, you write: "Wikipedia is based on the optimistic assumption that whatever is good will normally also be popular." But a naive application of that assumption is overridden for many parts of the Project. If we respect that assumption here, our application must similarly not be naive. MOS cannot rise to the excellence Wikipedia demands of it without more examined procedures in place.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

right, it was "jejune" this time, not "puerile" – i've corrected that. my request still stands: please stop the negative categorizations of views that differ from yours; and please drop the "hybrid joycean style" as well. neither is constructive.

this discussion is supposed to be about possible approaches to achieving consensus for MoS purposes. do you have some specific solutions to propose for the problem you perceive? Sssoul (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sssoul:

• Thank you for correcting puerile to jejune. Yes, this is a word I used here recently. It does not originally mean the same as puerile, though its resemblance to French jeune ("young") has lent it that secondary sense. After "undernourished", its primary meaning according to SOED is this: "Intellectually unsatisfying, lacking substance, shallow, simplistic; dull, dry, insipid, vapid." I wrote:

Meanwhile, many of the editors whose needs we pretend to serve abandon MOS as useless. We come across as a bunch of jejune amateurs. (Well, some of us are!) Take a look at our Archive 108, where a number of perennial favourites are churned through for the zillionth fruitless time.

I called it as I saw it. If this offends you, that is not my main concern. My main concern is to address deficiencies in MOS systems.

• I do not automatically characterise views that differ from mine negatively; I explain my point of view patiently and in detail, and I answer any questions. I expect the same from others. If they do not do their share, and their opinions do not withstand rational scrutiny, then I have something to say concerning them. Find evidence for this in Archive 108.
• I had a dialogical reason for using the Joycean hybrid style. Sorry if you dislike it, as intensely as others may dislike your own anomalous style. I won't if you won't. How's that for a compromise?
• Don't lecture me about being constructive. See Archive 108, once more. And where are your dozens and dozens of acknowledged improvements to MOS, fixing the carelessness of others? Where is your long patient discussion towards consensus, on anything at all; and your minute analysis of printed guides relevant to our work here?
• I hope we can move on to specifics, when the predictable backwash that greets most constructive calls for change to our work at last subsides.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Recording consensus

The following question is from Noetica's contribution at 09:16, 31 December 2009, under the subheading "Proposal to defer discussion of dashes".

• How is a MOS consensus to be recorded, for all editors to see?
  

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Great to see the work editors are doing towards an FAQ. That, at least, is something concrete and positive. It may be a partial solution of the problem – but substantial, all the same. We can also get more creative. Why not a dedicated supplementary page for MOS, replicating the structure of WP:MOS itself but with each section's content replaced by synoptic explanations of the relevant MOS content, and links to archived consensual discussions? Every section of WP:MOS, and some subsections, could have a discreet unobtrusive link to that supplementary page, for the use of MOS editors and other enquirers. Why not? This would provide means of stabilising MOS, identifying topics that need further treatment, and informing all future discussion on this talkpage. The same could be done for all associated pages forming part of the Manual of Style. (And indeed, the relations between all these pages still needs more examination and reform.)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Linking each section to a page with more explanation is indeed what we should be doing, as explained at WP:Summary style. But you already have such a structure, and you aren't using it! The MOS is full of links to sub-articles like WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement, but the sub-articles aren't much longer than what they are supposed to be explaining. Most of the details of the MOS should be eliminated, leaving a summary of the important rules, and links to the details we have now. If a sub-article isn't several times longer than what it's explaining, it isn't worth sending the reader through an extra link; we should just merge. WP:Did you know/Learning DYK and its submenus demonstrate how I think technical information should be presented, at whatever level of complexity the reader is ready to read. I also like Wikipedia:Introduction.

Yes, the FAQ in whatever form should link to previous discussions, if only to make it clear to each newcomer that he won't be greeted like Thomas Edison and his new light bulb. Here are some essays I wrote to answer repetitive questions: User:Art LaPella/Long hook and User:Art LaPella/Is this criticism constructive? Art LaPella (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, I prefer to keep the MoS in one place. If people have to click through six and seven pages to get the whole story, they will get discouraged and give up. It's much easier to have one big, well-organized MoS than a thousand little ones that take days to find. However, there is something useful in this. The MoS is prescriptive. Its job is to tell people what to do on Wikipedia and no more. Our regular articles are not; they describe what happens out in the world. In this respect, linking a rule to its related descriptive article might be helpful, so long as there is enough information on the MoS itself for beginners to understand what's expected of them. For example, I wouldn't chuck all the serial comma examples onto a descriptive article page because they show the reader how to use it, but I would reserve any discussion of the serial comma's history and prevalence for such a page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the MoS is not in one place as it is. Some of the information is at WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement and similar sub-articles. Reading all of it already requires clicking through a long list of pages, most of which duplicates (or even contradicts) what's already at the main MoS page, and even I haven't read them all. Art LaPella (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think we should make that situation any worse. But I don't think it will get worse if we're careful to keep all the "do this" and "here's how" on the MoS, keeping the "here's how it got that way" and the "more interesting stuff" in the regular articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't find any "discussion of the serial comma's history and prevalence" at WP:MOS#Serial commas. And how would that advice apply to a typical section like MOS:NUMBERSIGN for instance? It gives the rule, and it gives examples which help explain the rule, but there isn't anything about "here's how it got that way" or "more interesting stuff". So that wouldn't be a change at all. But I agree that if you find such stuff, it should indeed go into a subarticle. Art LaPella (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. The history and prevalence would be in serial comma. The important part here is that serial comma is not part of the Manual of Style. Nothing in that article is required of Wikipedia editors or a part of Wikipedia policy, even though reading it might help editors better understand the part of the MoS that deals with the serial comma. The MoS stands on its own, but the article enriches. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Art LaPella about subpages. Of course, only very specialized stuff should be found in subpages but not summarized in MOS main. Most editors won't ever need to know our house style about uncalibrated radiocarbon dates or blazon, so moving them to subpages isn't going to do any harm. As for articles in the main namespace, WP:NOR applies to them, so they definitely should not mention discussions between Wikipedians as to why a particular choice was made in WP:MOS. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 14:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think this needs to be done. (What's on the page is presumed to be the version that has consensus, right? So you implicitly record the fact of the consensus every time you record anything.) Also, "citing sources" tends to inappropriately enshrine the previous consensus, and consensus can change, even for style issues.
• If we're doing to do this, then we might consider using WP:FOOTNOTES. It's discreet, it's familiar, and it can point to archived discussions just as easily as it can point to books, webpages, and journal articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting my concrete proposal

A week ago in this section dedicated to recording consensus I made this suggestion:

We can also get more creative. Why not a dedicated supplementary page for MOS, replicating the structure of WP:MOS itself but with each section's content replaced by synoptic explanations of the relevant MOS content, and links to archived consensual discussions? Every section of WP:MOS, and some subsections, could have a discreet unobtrusive link to that supplementary page, for the use of MOS editors and other enquirers. Why not? This would provide means of stabilising MOS, identifying topics that need further treatment, and informing all future discussion on this talkpage. The same could be done for all associated pages forming part of the Manual of Style.

Well, as I say in a section above, we see what we are primed to attend to. No one since has shown evidence of reading what I plainly wrote: "a dedicated supplementary page for MOS, replicating the structure of WP:MOS itself but with each section's content replaced by synoptic explanations of the relevant MOS content, and links to archived consensual discussions. ... for the use of MOS editors and other enquirers." Let me amplify the proposal:

• We make a page (call it the MOS Register, or MOSR) that replicates the current MOS page, and strip it of content except for headings and subheadings, then format these headings to show structure at a glance. A sample, with omissions (and allowing some licence in my use of HTML):

Punctuation

 ...

    Apostrophes

    Quotation marks

      Double or single

      Inside or outside

 ...

    Brackets and parentheses

      Sentences and brackets

 ...

• We provide links from each section (or subsection) of MOS to corresponding sections of MOSR, perhaps with an R (for record, or review, or register, or rationale) somewhere near the usual [edit] link, with [R] linking via a suitable anchor in MOSR when we have posted relevant material in MOSR, for the section in question. A sample from MOS:

Quotation marks                                       [R] [edit]

  See also: Quotations

The term quotation in the material below also includes other uses of quotation marks such as those for titles of songs, chapters, episodes, unattributable aphorisms, literal strings, "scare-quoted" passages, and constructed examples.

Double or single

Quotations are enclosed within double quotes ...

• Clicking on that [R] would bring the user to the corresponding section of MOSR, which might have text like this, along with its own [R] (meaning return to MOS). There the user would see a brief explanation that supports – or indeed questions – that section of MOS:

Punctuation

    Apostrophes

    Quotation marks                                    [R]

      Inside or outside

      [Note current at 14 January 2010:]

        The question of how quotation marks fit with other punctuation is much discussed in printed and online
        style guides, and has been controversial in discussion at WT:MOS. Nevertheless there is long and stable consensus
        for its use on Wikipedia [Links to archived discussion here]. The matter is under current discussion at
        [Link to live discussion here]. MOS calls for what is commonly referred to as logical quotation, a system adapted from standard
        British practice (see especially R.L. Trask, Penguin Guide to Punctuation, 1997), but having influential advocates also in
        America (for example, the linguist Geoffrey Pullum, co-author of the exhaustive Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, 2004).

• Gradually we could build up a comprehensive digest showing the history of each guideline, the quality of its consensus, any current discussion, and main sources in the printed literature or respected online sources.
• A variation: have instead a small individual page for each section of MOS that is fitted with an [R] link, which would be focused and quick to load. There could then still be a master MOSR document, structured as I have initially outlined, but with transclusions from each of the specific small sectional documents. This would allow overall surveys of MOS for consensus, stability, relation to other sources, and so on.

Well?

[Please respond below; do not disrupt this initial post of the subsection.]

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We already do something similar to this. To take the section on LQ for an example, it includes a link to the regular Wikipedia article on this type of punctuation. That article covers the details and history of LQ, BQ and AQ in a relatively unbiased way. Separately from how it applies to our purposes, I feel that this system creates an interesting balance between the proscriptive MoS and the descriptive standard articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just started the page Wikipedia:Manual of Style Register. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is already a register at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive Directory. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wavelength:

Your attitude is so refreshing! "I have just started the page." Excellent! I have looked at the new Wikipedia:Manual of Style Register. It's great! A solid beginning. And yes, there is already a sort of register at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive Directory. I thought that was useful when it was actively pursued, but I never considered it well-founded or linked as it might be to our work here. It is sparsely linked to, with nine links, four being from userspace (including Wavelength userspace, of course). The page is no longer maintained (last edit: 6 July 2009). Still, it can be turned to good use: an invaluable mine of information for building the new Wikipedia:Manual of Style Register.

Everyone:

Let's have discussion on this! New thinking (that learns from the past), new analysis (that probes well beyond prejudices), new energy (undamped by kneejerk negativity).

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Noetica's proposal looks good indeed. Tony (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I did read this proposal when Noetica first mentioned it; I was doubtful then and I am moreso now. If the MoS were static, then the register would be excellent. It would—assuming that I understand it properly—function like endnotes in a critical edition of a historic text. But the MoS is dynamic; it changes constantly, usually in minor details but sometimes in major ways. Each such change will require a corresponding change of the register. For editors who are aware of the register, conscious of its purpose and willing to collaborate with others, the maintenance of the register would become habitual and second-nature. Regulars at the MoS would update it at the same time they updated the MoS itself, and it would greatly clarify how the MoS came to be.

The problem comes from editors who are new to this page, who are unfamiliar with the register, who are unwilling to dedicate their time to its maintenance, or who are uninterested in the long-term care of the MoS. Such editors will not update the register, and they will be offended if we tell them they must. Surely you can imagine the scene after a long-time editor, someone with a reputation and stature among us, comes here and is rebuffed because we have our own private method for recording consensus. I think we would be attacked at the Village Pump: We would be accused—wrongly so—of being elitist and exclusive, because "only MoS insiders know about the oh-so-important register, but this is supposed to be the free encyclopedia anyone can edit." Someone would propose to eliminate the register, because it's "out-of-keeping with Wikipedia's principles", and quickly it would vanish. It would vanish because of people who are ignorant, but sometimes around here, ignorance is no excuse for silence.

I prefer User:WhatamIdoing's above suggestion of putting citations into footnotes. It suffers from a similar maintenance problem, but footnotes are better understood in the project than separate pages for endnotes. Furthermore, footnotes can be placed at any point in the text using the standard {{ref}} template.

One minor difficulty with either the register or footnotes is that when a discussion reaches consensus and the MoS is changed to reflect the new agreement, then the link to the discussion will have to be updated twice: Once in the original edit, and again when the discussion is archived. It should be possible to automate this, but that will probably require a custom bot. Ozob (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the discussion, Ozob, even if your contribution is pessimistic. Some points in response:

• You write: "If the MoS were static, then the register would be excellent. [...] But the MoS is dynamic; it changes constantly, usually in minor details but sometimes in major ways. Each such change will require a corresponding change of the register." But of course! The raison d'être and essence of a register is keep up to date. We need a current synopsis of the state of play, for topics covered in MOS. The older initiative (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive Directory) was bold and useful, and it can be mined for materials to build our new page. But that older page did not serve as a register of the state of play. It was more passive, despite the solid work put into it before it fell into disuse.
• You write: "The problem comes from editors who are new to this page, who are unfamiliar with the register .... Such editors will not update the register, and they will be offended if we tell them they must." Why should they be told that they must? Others could do it instead. Why not? We have editors happy to act as monitors for all sorts of maintenance work like that. And if such monitoring work fell behind for a topic, this would be highlighted when the topic is next raised on the talkpage. The present text of MOS, the history of MOS and its talkpage, the non-updated entry in the Register: all these would provide data for bringing the Register up to take for the topic to hand.
• You say that we would be exposed to accusations that we are "elitist and exclusive". But nothing in this proposal, or the FAQ development, excludes anyone in any way. These would help newcomers, by bringing them into the picture – not waving them off in the direction of an archival Sargasso Sea. Do we think that the process at WP:FAC is "elitist and exclusive", because it has its own customised ways (and designated monitors, what's more)? Some will think so: but then, some will think anything you can name. We can't be hobbled by such fears. We need to act in the interest of MOS consensus and stability; the qualities and needs of MOS are unique in Wikipedia and on the web. Sure, call confidently for comments at the Village Pump. I think people will be relieved to see that we are finally getting our house in order.
• So-called "footnotes" (a relic from the days when the codex book still dominated and despoiled the forests of Earth) are not the solution. They would bloat MOS, and would not be conducive to extended explanation and linking of the sort that a register would. The MOS Register would be a development and monitoring tool; that role is separate from the role of MOS itself. Most editors will not be interested in such adjuncts; they will be intimidated if they see "footnotes" hooked onto the MOS topic that interests them. Myself, I would prefer to see not even the few notes that we presently have in MOS. The MOS Register would not only remove any need for these: it would give us a new way to trim MOS generally, making MOS even more friendly, direct, and concise for consultation by editors.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that you have already started and abandoned a similar project, I can safely predict that it won't be kept up to date. That doesn't mean it wouldn't work. When someone badly needs to be reminded that they are redebating something that has been discussed 20 times before (if indeed that happens – I'm starting to wonder), then that would be the time someone would be motivated to update the corresponding register section. Apparently the main problem last time was, nobody bothered to link anyone to the Archive Directory when it was needed. Art LaPella (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Art:

• Whom do you address when you say "you have already started and abandoned a similar project"? Not anyone in the present discussion, surely. On the other hand, if you mean "all you MOS editors", why not use the pronoun "we", instead? Are you with the MOS endeavour, or an outsider? I hope you are with it!
• Perhaps once more, "thinking makes it so", and negative remarks breed null results. But the MOS Register can be kept in editors' awareness as I have proposed, with the bold yet unobtrusive [R] link, and a heading at the top of WP:MOS and also of WT:MOS.
• Thank you for what is optimistic in your comments. And yes, any reform will require that people be committed to the change, and not let it lapse if it really does make the difference that MOS needs.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Whom do I address ..." You were discussing the Archive Directory as something you all remembered, so I assumed you were all there. If that was the wrong assumption, well, it's just a pronoun. I wasn't there, so "we" would be unnatural; and yes, I do feel like an outsider in many ways. For instance, I wonder if Wikipedia wouldn't be more helpful, especially to my kids, if its style resembled Marvel Comics? (Imagine the Thirty Years War illustrated with speech balloons that say "Bam!" "Pow!") I watched this page just because I wanted to see any changes that would affect my AWB settings. But sure, I want the best for Wikipedia. I don't have nearly the same expertise in style manuals as the rest of you, and thus I have yielded easily in such discussions. But outside of academia, it is commonplace to distinguish between technical knowledge and the business management savvy it takes to get things done – which is not to say I'm a paragon of the latter virtue; my business success is due to my own efforts, not leading others. Art LaPella (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

While I believe that we should try the register to see if it helps, I share some of Ozob's concerns. It will be more work and we will have to both 1. make sure that both Wikipedia newcomers and Wikipedia editors who don't frequent the MoS can find it easily and 2. that we don't use it as an excuse to tell people to shut up. We should use Ozob's comments as a reminder to watch out for the appearance of elitism and other similar issues. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

← Since it seems critical, in making this work, that it be prominent so that people know it's there, I would suggest that the link should be something slightly less unobtrusive and more self-documenting than [R]. If it's really placed on the section heading line to the left of the [edit] link, it's not going to be in the way if it's more than one character long, after all. How about [reg]?

Perhaps I haven't understood what is being proposed here; I don't see why anyone would be rebuffed over this. It's just a tool for keeping track of consensus decisions that have been made, isn't it? I'd understood that the inherently messy process of reaching consensus would still be the same sort of messy here that it is everywhere else, except that this would make it easier for us to recreate the history later. (I'm thinking of Fisher Ames: "a republic is a raft which will never sink, but then your feet are always in the water.") --Pi zero (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd support WP:MOSR or WP:MOSREG so long as I don't have to CTRL-F Wavelength's original link every time. MOSREG seems more than reasonable.

I hope so, Pi Zero. I see some potential for abuse here, and it's something we should keep an eye out for. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose that the new page be made prominent by the addition of a statement at or near the top of Wikipedia:Manual of Style and the top of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. The statement could be as follows: "A record of decisions related to this page can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style Register, and each section and subsection of this page with information there has a link to that page, R." (It might even be linked directly to the specific section or subsection.) The symbol "R" is better than "Reg" because it will still be valid if someone decides to change the word "Register" in the name of the new page to "Record" or "Review" or "Rationale", or decides to rearrange the words to "Register of the Manual of Style". The new page can have a new shortcut: "WP:MOSR" (with "WT:MOSR" for its discussion page).

-- Wavelength (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

While I have no strong feelings regarding R vs. REG, the rest seems like an excellent idea. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have recently started the page User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/List of Manual of Style talk page search boxes. Would it be beneficial for there to be a (possibly revised) copy of it in project namespace? -- Wavelength (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Impressive. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Lapses in consensus

The following question is from Noetica's contribution at 09:16, 31 December 2009, under the subheading "Proposal to defer discussion of dashes".

• When and how does a MOS consensus ever lapse?
  

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:CCC says consensus can change. Elaborating on this, Wikipedia:No consensus #Policy/Guideline says: 'In a discussion regarding a section of policy or guideline, "no consensus" means that a proposed section should not be added. If the discussion is about a section already in the policy, that section should be removed. Policy and guideline should reflect consensus. If there is no consensus as to existing policy, then it no longer reflects that and should be removed.' This elaboration is not part of the official policy, but it's reasonable advice. Eubulides (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This question of how a consensus might lapse at MOS (made egregiously prominent in recent discussion concerning en dashes) is not to be treated lightly. It is placed last in these four with good reason: we cannot answer it if we don't know what a MOS consensus is, or how it is achieved or recorded. Whatever conclusions have been reached elsewhere, they do not settle the question for MOS (will all its associated pages), where stability is paramount for the role we play in the Project as a whole.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This question appears to me based on a misleading premise: consensus does not "lapse", it is a point-in-time evaluation. There is either consensus for the page as it stands, or there is not. This is described in WP:CCC, and is a consequence of the fact that this is a wiki. Any section of this page can be challenged or revised at any time (that's what this talk page is for), with the proviso that as a major guideline significant revisions should be proposed on the talk page first. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Except, CP, that such a bland one-size-fits-all approach is neither implemented throughout WP nor truly successful here at MOS. Whatever WP:Consensus "describes", it fails to support WP's demand for a robust, stable, and enlightened Manual of Style. The miracle is that we have such an amazingly thorough MOS at all! There is nothing on the web that comes close to its treatment of several important issues: nor, as my surveys reveal, anything in print that matches our careful detail for some topics. A great deal of work goes into that; but the result is uneven, and to do better we must think big, think new, and think bold.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with CP that consensus does not lapse or expire so much as change over time (or not). A better question might be "How and at what intervals should consensus be reassessed?" Considering the time and effort that would take, perhaps it would be best to assume that previous consensuses still stand until and unless some evidence to the contrary presents itself.

With regard to the MoS's stability level, I would not mind a policy of "propose all substantive edits on the talk page first." This way, changes go through a vetting process but individual editors' contributions and opinions are not stifled. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Darkfrog. Questions could be posed variously about how a consensus disappears, or expires, or passes away, or is annulled by being called into question, and so on. I raised the question precisely as I did because of a recent example in the discussion of en dashes, where it was claimed for a clutch of reasons that there was no longer a consensus. I take the verb lapse to have more meanings than "reach a use-by date":

3 a Law. Of a right, privilege, etc.: become void, revert to someone, through non-fulfilment of conditions, absence of heirs, etc. E18.

b Comm. Of a contract, agreement, policy, etc.: become void or ineffective, usu. through the withdrawal of one party or the failure to pay a premium. M19. (SOED, "lapse v.")

We might usefully consider all aspects of putative extinctions of consensus.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 06:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Using these examples and definitions, I would say that consensus does not lapse in this sense. The community and its attitudes may change, but I don't see how Wikipedia consensuses, in general, would have use-by dates or be subject to contract-like conditions to be fulfilled. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Manual of Style

What is the relationship between Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Manual of Style? -- Wavelength (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The manual of style is a guideline for proper encyclopedic writing style. Consensus is a policy about how editorial decisions are supposed to be made. there should be consensus about the style of an article: the manual of style provides instructions that would generally be consented to, but the manual of style can be overlooked if there is consensus among editors that it needs to be. --Ludwigs2 21:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Instruction creep, instruction creep, instruction creep. Blueboar (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I interpret the question as meaning something more like "MOS has been created through a process of endless battles and re-re-re-re-explaining grammar, punctuation, and other fairly basic things to a never-ending series of people. Garden-variety implementations of consensus have required the few "experts" who are still willing to bother with this page to engage in exhausting, repetitive, and painful discussions, in the full knowledge that as soon as you explain the True™ history and correct use of the en-dash to the satisfaction of one batch of editors, another, equally ignorant group will appear and demand that Wikipedia not conform to dead-tree typographical conventions, or that they personally be authorized to misuse punctuation in ways that they sincerely, but incorrectly, remember their long-dead English lit teacher support. How can we make the pain stop, while upholding the Proper Standards for the One True™ Style?"

I don't know how to make the pain stop, but I believe that my question is much closer to the real issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: please contact me if you need to know where the Shift button is on the keyboard. Tony (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) tony - i confess that I have been ruined by microsoft word and am no longer able to type capital letters at the beginning of sentences (without great pain and effort). i've been considering suing bill gates, but in the meantime i'm afraid you will have to tolerate my unfortunate disability.

blueboar - that was meant as an explanation, not as a rule. sorry it came off the wrong way.

WhatamIdoing (capitals courtesy of cut and paste) - have you considered generous applications of alcohol to the problem?

--Ludwigs2 02:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't considered it.  ;-)

I'm practically teetotal myself, but given that the pain is someone else's -- I long ago abandoned this page to its fate, and wouldn't be here now if not for the note at WT:Consensus -- the alcohol would have to be applied to someone else, so my own lack of interest in alcohol needn't stop the experiment, if one of the MOS regulars wants to attempt it. (Shall we require bringing an article about the health effects of alcohol to FA level as our informed consent procedure?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar:

Instruction creep, instruction creep, instruction creep.

O yeah? Well: "Platitudes, platitudes, platitudes." Don't throw a wet blanket over these sparks, if you can't see that a serious new discussion is kindling here. This is not about "instruction creep"; it's about finding bearings and procedures for MOS that will enable it to serve its purpose better. With those in place, we might be able to trim away some dead wood: some old instructions that have failed us.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Noetica, I certainly agree in general terms that it would be good to clarify what consensus is. I'm not so convinced that it's a good idea for the MOS to strike out boldly on its own on that clarification. I'm worried that your subtext may be precisely to insulate the MOS against situations where it thinks it has a consensus, but then it turns out that editors in general don't like it. I don't think the MOS should have insulation of that sort. --Trovatore (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

if you would like to clarify what consensus is (something I've been banging my head on for a good couple of years now) please feel free to discuss the matter over at wp:consensus. it aint a pretty conversation, though. --Ludwigs2 02:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am certainly not volunteering to provide a stunning insight of crystal clarity that settles the matter once and for all. Well, not until someone talks money, at least. Mostly I'm expressing my skepticism at Noetica's motivational-speaker rhetoric in the effort to craft a MOS-specialized notion of consensus. A few words on how the general notion of consensus applies specifically to MOS-type issues might indeed be useful — provided it does not exaggerate the importance or independence of the MOS and its process. --Trovatore (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: I can well imagine that the conversation at WT:CONSENSUS gets ugly. Just now, I don't want to join that conversation. I really don't want to be here at WT:MOS, even; and I may not be able to stay much longer. We'll see how things go. But we don't need to know in the abstract what consensus is: we need practical criteria that we can work with. This is not a barren intellectual exercise, but a search for principles we can apply. The need for principles like that at Wikipedia is indisputable, and much effort has been put into establishing them. I simply identify a local need, for our MOS work, that is so far unmet.

Trovatore: Why do you not assume good faith? Why assume I have a "subtext"? I have given ample reasons for us to work on criteria for consensus here at MOS; why suspect that I am withholding anything? I am as ready as the next editor to reform established conventions, where reasonable analysis shows them to be flawed; but I, like the rest of the old hands here, also value stability. Again and again we hear cries of anguish from the good people at WP:FAC about capricious changes in MOS. I stand against those. Don't you?

What you call "Noetica's motivational-speaker rhetoric" I deploy when plain speaking falls on deaf ears and sullen hearts – brief plain speaking, long-winded plain speaking, strident or quiet plain-speaking. Again and again people here do not listen. Not surprising, since new messages are hard to discern, bobbing on an ocean of tired old disputations reiterated ad nauseam, for which the present action on principles and practical methods in fact promises relief.

Finally, Trovatore, there is no need to exaggerate the importance of MOS. It has powerful but unobtrusive influence throughout Wikipedia as a cynosure editors can appeal to when faced with incompetent or quirky editing, or when editors seek to resolve nagging doubts for themselves. It has made a dramatic difference to the quality of featured articles (thanks to editors like Tony). And the importance is broader still. MOS is referred to in blogs and forums across the web, as a source dealing boldly and often dazzlingly well with issues that are untouched (even unknown!) by other "authorities". Like it or not, that's how we are received by many. MOS, like Wikipedia itself, is unique on the web. Let's live up to it.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 05:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think I'm not assuming good faith. I think you're under-emphasizing a certain aspect of your argument, but not really concealing it. You probably think the MOS ought to be very important. I disagree; I don't think it should be that important. I'm especially less than enthused about someone like Tony having such influence over it, given that he clearly leans substantially to the left politically, and is not shy about taking stylistic positions based on that. I do admit that in cases where politics doesn't come into it, he does a pretty good job, though he could still do better about keeping his emotions out of the discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the MoS is sometimes taken too seriously, but I seriously fear you've opened a quite big can of worms by mentioning politics. BTW, I've just finished reading this, claiming, "The clearest fact about the spirit of the regulative rules the prescriptive ideologues advance is that they are genuinely linked to conservative ideology: the mistrust of ordinary people and the pessimism about what they would get up to if left to their own devices is palpable." That, rather than the other way round, is what would sound more plausible a priori to me, too. (Is anyone keeping a count of quotations of Pullum in this page?)

GD&R! ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 17:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't single out Tony on this one. In fact, I haven't seen anything in his remarks on the MoS that gives me any idea one way or the other about his political affiliations. And I wouldn't know about Pullum's findings, but I'm quite a believer in correct English— if 300,000 people make a mistake, it's still a mistake—but I'm about as politically liberal as they come. ...however if we take "conservative" away from its American context, which nearly equates it with "Republican," and look at it with its conservative vs. progressive meaning as in "allow change to happen" vs. "actively push change" then yes, I believe that the MoS should be conservative in that it should reflect what has already become correct as opposed to what people think might become correct in time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Don't read politics into it.

If millions of literate native speakers have regularly made a particular "mistake" for centuries, on what grounds should it be considered a "mistake" in the first place? Or, how can one define "correct [INSERT ADJECTIVES SUCH AS "FORMAL" HERE] English" other than "the language which native English speakers normally use in [INSERT ADJECTIVES SUCH AS "FORMAL" HERE] contexts except for occasional, accidental mistakes which the speakers themselves would immediately recognize as such"? ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 16:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You make three points here that were absent from my comment: "millions," "literate," and especially "centuries." The biggest factor that turns a mistake into the new standard is time. Usually, it's measured in generations rather than years. The people who uphold the previous standard retire or die. The next most important factor is who is making the mistake and how the general population perceives that mistake. If the professors and writers and publishers—the "literate" population—are the ones using the non-standard form, then the rest of the population may be willing to see them as leaders and follow suit. However, if the entire population continues to view the mistake as a mistake through the centuries and despite the number and skill level of those who use it, then it can potentially remain a mistake forever. For example, lots of Southerners use the word "ain't" in ways that standard English considers incorrect. It's been this way for about a century. However, none of those people believe that "he ain't" is correct in formal English, only that it's acceptable in ordinary Southern speech. If things continue this way, then it is likely that "he ain't" will never become standard. Returning to my comment, though, if 300,000 bloggers decide that they just don't like the English that their mean teachers taught them, then no, that doesn't cut it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Trovatore, announcing that I am left-wing is just as fanciful as branding non-sexist language as left-wing. Some things I will do when I accede to world leadership will horrify the left, I assure you. The idiot-right Bush administration (don't we love it) used non-sexist language in its press releases and other documents. Explain that, please. Tony (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The language itself is not left-wing; the sociological theories that claim that the sex-neutral masculine pronouns are sexist, are left-wing.

Don't ask me to account for anything the Bush administration did. Just so you can aim your barbs better, I might as well tell you I'm not a conservative. I'm a libertarian. --Trovatore (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, we're having a politics discussion. This thread needs to end; therefore I summon Hitler. Ozob (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. I would only add that the idea that using "he" as if it meant "everyone" implied that everyone who counted was male was radical in the 1960's. It has become standard in the fifty years since. Frankly, I have no objection to using "one" as a third-person singular. It's rare in U.S. English, but it does what we need and wouldn't look out of place in British articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

MoS breach: hooter sounding with flashing red lights. 1960s. Hitler says (thus not left-wing). Tony (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

At 03:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC), I invited Jimbo Wales to examine this discussion and the preceding four discussions, but no one replied there and that section has been archived at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 53, section 48. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Less than zero likelihood that His Majesty would stoop. Asking him to do so also reinforces that he's something special. Tony (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders/Manual of style has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders/Manual of style (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the MoS status tag pending consensus at WikiProject MOS, and replaced the tag with a copyedit notice. Tony (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You spoilsport you. -- Hoary (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's basically copied from the TV MoS but made relevant to the EastEnders WikiProject. Why would it need copyediting? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You want me to do it? No. There are, apart from the prose glitches, several MoS breaches. Tony (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some help in fixing the breaches. I wasn't aware there were any because I based it on existing MOSes, although some small parts of it were written by someone else a long time ago when the WikiProject was created, but I can't see any breaches. But you've tagged it for "grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling" but there aren't any problems with those things. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'll be along there soon. Tony (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd start with the broader TV MOS page; errors may have been inherited from there. For a "guideline" like this one, I would suggest stripping it as much as possible so that it says nothing that isn't already covered at broader guidelines. What remains should be very, very short and can be made a section of the TV guideline. If this stands as-is, it's a bad precedent for a new "manual of style" for every single TV series, movie franchise, novel trilogy, game series, etc., etc., etc. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 11:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ellipsis character rationale

The MOS currently says the precomposed ellipsis character (…) is "harder to input and edit, and too small in some fonts. Not recommended." Recently, the "not recommended" status provoked the removal of the character from the edit tools, and discussion of whether curly quotes should also be removed, since they're "not recommended" either.

I've searched the MOS discussion archives but didn't find any discussion of how the ellipsis character is "harder to input and edit" or how it is "too small in some fonts." I did find an instance where this rationale was challenged with "why do we care about bad fonts?" but there were no responses. So I am bringing it up again.

• Exactly which fonts are problematic, and are they really so widely used for viewing Wikipedia content as to be a concern?
• Exactly how is it any harder to input than any other special character in the edit tools? Why single it out?
• Exactly how is it "hard to edit" at all? What editing do you ever need to do to it besides removing it?

Please forgive me if I overlooked the relevant discussion; ellipsis is mentioned countless times in the archives and it's quite possible I missed where this was discussed before. But if these questions don't have solid answers, I don't see why the precomposed character should remain "not recommended" or why it shouldn't remain in the edit tools, at least under Symbols if not under Insert. Thanks for your time. —mjb (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Mjb, I'm glad you have raised the matter here. I have long proposed that we MOS editors and the Edittools specialists should be in closer dialogue.

I recall some discussion of the preformed ellipsis on this page, but I can't place it exactly. (See sections immediately above, for moves to make better records of decisions here; and thanks for giving an example of the need for such reforms!) Generally, the thought was that we needed:

• Just one form of the ellipsis, so that articles would have a uniform appearance, could be easily edited, and could be reliably searched (for technical editing purposes, or for retrieving text that includes ellipses for whatever purposes); therefore
• The form that is easiest to input, the most commonly used, and the one with most reliable rendering properties would be ideal; and luckily
• Three normal periods (full stops) fits all three criteria, especially being the most commonly used by non-typographer amateurs and the easiest to input. There are no technical hitches in its use (for example, the three dots do not break apart at the end of a line, so the preformed character has no advantage there).

I have read the discussion at MediaWiki_talk:Edittools#Ellipsis. Some remarks prompted by points made there:

• The mere existence of an entity such as the preformed ellipsis does not make it "proper typography" for our unique collaborative, amateur, dynamic, online system for text on Wikipedia.
• The mere existence of that character does not even make it "proper" for printed work. The legendary Bringhurst advises against automatic adoption of "off-the-shelf" characters, proposing often that custom solutions be found.
• Enough is controversial already about ellipses (spacing adjacent to them; comportment with other punctuation; use with or without square brackets); we need to keep things manageable for our users, and requiring that they peck out characters from the edittools should be a last resort. Certainly it should not be required for basic punctuation.
• In fact, though, it has been proposed at your Edittools talkpage that the ellipsis character be retained in the Symbols section (not the Insert section). I fully endorse that proposal. Why not shift all such non-MOS-approved characters into Symbols?
• Some characters, like the square root sign, are not in that deprecated category, though they may appear to be at first glance. The sign √ is needed for casual or non-technical use, and its so-called "abuse" mentioned in earlier discussion at Edittools is not really abuse at all. It is the only alternative for those who don't know LaTeX. And note: √ is quite properly used beyond mathematics as an independent sign, in our articles. It indicates a root in historical linguistics, for example.
• The Edittool listings need a general overhaul. There is every reason for the Latin section to be in alphabetical order, for example, and no reason for it to retain its present type-of-diacritic order, which is fiendishly annoying in practice. The Greek section is better, having an alphabetic polytonic range after ranges of common monotonic forms. But it could do with tweaking also.
• Dialogue with MOS editors would help in sorting out such issues, but as far as I know this has never happened systematically. I hope we can all see the need for that, and I look forward to such a collaboration.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any advantage of using … (single char) rather than ... (three chars): they look identical or almost so in practically all proportional fonts, the former looks crappy in monospaced fonts, and the latter is much easier to type. So I strongly prefer the latter. On the other hand, the former causes no more problems than most other non-ASCII characters such as dashes, so I don't even bother replacing it when I encounter it. As for the bullet about "three spaced periods", has it ever occurred to anyone to do that in a WP article before reading this guideline, or is it just another instance of WP:BEANS? Personally, I'd just trash the whole "Style" list of the "Ellipses" section: I don't think its usefulness justifies the bytes used for it. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 14:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A di M, I agree that the Ellipses section of MOS is too wordy. A few sections up from here I highlight it as needing tighter exposition. But we should list the three common styles (…, ..., . . .). Editors will consult MOS about style of ellipses: I've seen it raised at talkpages often enough.

I don't know that ". . ." is common in WP articles; but it certainly needs explicit mention and dismissal in MOS. Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) devotes about six pages to the ellipsis, and approves various competing conventions for its use: but throughout, ". . ." is the only style it countenances, apart from the confused discussion of a fourth dot. Similarly for the majority of American guides, and many British. They do not address what we confront here, the main issue being potential linebreaks between the dots of ". . .". Therefore, not WP:BEANS at all.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully endorse what Noetica has said. In particular, the single-character ellipse, as well as being less convenient to key in, renders the three dots far too widely, IMO. Tony (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal preferences about how compactly ellipses should render aside, the fact that "…" and "..." "look identical or almost so" is just as easily an argument for both being equally acceptable, rather than for one being dismissed. This equality makes it even more tempting to use the character that means ellipsis rather than a set of three characters that visually represent one. And the difference in how cumbersome each one is to enter is sufficiently small to make it a matter of personal preference. Period-period-period, Alt 0133, copy-paste, or click or click-drag in Edittools, it's all the same to me, but I'm not going to tell someone that because I find period-period-period marginally easier to type, that they should not use the slightly more difficult options if they're so inclined.

And so what if the precomposed character "looks crappy in monospaced fonts"? Why do we care about monospaced fonts? They make lots of things look awful, particularly any glyph that's normally very narrow and must be rendered dead-center and with too much space around it (a period for example, or three in a row!), or a glyph that's normally very wide, like an ellipsis or dash, which has to be squashed. But is Wikipedia content being rendered on a sufficiently large number of monospace displays that we need to be concerned about this?

To address one of Noetica's points, we need to keep things manageable for our users, and requiring that they peck out characters from the edittools should be a last resort. Certainly it should not be required for basic punctuation. — no one is suggesting that the precomposed ellipsis be required or even "recommended", only that it no longer be "not recommended". It would suffice to say that use of the precomposed character is an acceptable, optional alternative to three periods. —mjb (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit box is by default monospaced, and so it is for anyone who doesn't know how, doesn't bother, or doesn't want to change it (I guess more than 90% of editor). ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 13:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I too agree that we should require three unspaced periods, and I also agree that the present section on ellipses is too long. Here is a possible replacement:

An ellipsis (plural ellipses) is an omission of material from quoted text; or some other omission, perhaps of the end of a sentence, often used in a printed record of conversation. The ellipsis is represented by ellipsis points: a set of three dots. Wikipedia represents ellipses by three unspaced periods (...). Do not use the Unicode pre-composed ellipsis character (…) or spaced periods (. . .).

An ellipsis usually has a space on either side. However, do not put a space between an ellipsis and:

• A quotation mark following adjacent to the ellipsis,
• Any bracket enclosing the ellipsis, or
• Sentence-final punctuation, colons, semicolons, or commas directly following the ellipsis.

Include sentence-final punctuation after an ellipsis only if it is textually important. For example, exclamation marks and question marks.

When transcribing spoken material, do not use an ellipsis to represent a pause in speech.

Do not put square brackets around an ellipsis unless it is needed to indicate that the ellipsis does not occur in the source material. For example, when quoting a transcript which contains ellipses, omitted passages should be marked with [...].

There is one thing which is not included in my rewrite. I have removed the instructions on non-breaking spaces because I didn't know what to do with them. The MoS presently says:

• Use non-breaking spaces ( ) only as needed to prevent improper line breaks, for example:
  • To keep a quotation mark from being separated from the start of the quotation: "... we are still worried."
  • To keep the ellipsis from wrapping to the next line: "France, Germany, ... and Belgium but not the USSR."

I am not sure how to define an "improper line break", so rather than make a poor guess I have left it out for the moment. Ozob (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that an improper line break would be any line break that divides what's not supposed to be divided. All three dots in an ellipsis should be on the same line. All the quotation marks in "example of 'quote-within-a-quote' " should be on the same line even though there is a space between the last two.

As far as ellipses go, within correct styles, we should allow editors their freedom. If we keep the spaced ellipsis, then the MoS should include a note telling editors the code for non-breaking spaces. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Darkfrog: the three dots of our recommended ellipsis will never break apart. An "improper break" is exactly as given in the examples. We don't want this to happen:

In spite of these precautions, he concluded: "...
we are still worried."

Or this:

He enumerated several prospective markets: "France, Germany,
... and Belgium but not the USSR."

This too is universally judged improper:

Did he say "Germany and Belgium; but not the USSR, Poland,
..."?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Generalizing from your examples, it seems that non-breaking space should be inserted if:

1. The ellipsis is adjacent to a punctuation mark; in this case, the non-breaking space is on the other side of the ellipsis; or
2. The ellipsis is separated by a space from a punctuation mark; in this case, the non-breaking space is between the ellipsis and the punctuation mark.

Does this look right? Also, I have corrected an error in my proposal: There should be no space between an ellipsis and any quotation mark, not just a following quotation mark. Ozob (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

[←]Mjb, some responses to points you make above:

... the fact that "…" and "..." "look identical or almost so" is just as easily an argument for both being equally acceptable, rather than for one being dismissed.

I think not. If "…" and "..." are hard for an editor to distinguish visually, that is a serious problem because the two may look egregiously different on another user's system (perhaps an end-user's screen), yet the present editor may not detect the potential problem. This may apply even in the edit view. The situation is seen to be worse when we note other ways Wikipedia text is used: it is quoted online with all manner of fonts and formatting in place; it is printed out by end-users, and even appears in traditional print publications. Bad choices and inconsistencies that we gloss over now may re-emerge later, to no one's benefit or credit.

... but I'm not going to tell someone that because I find period-period-period marginally easier to type, that they should not use the slightly more difficult options if they're so inclined.

You might not give that advice; but MOS should recommend only period-period-period (...). Not only are there the reasons I have repeated and amplified just now, there is another quite distinct reason. The preformed ellipsis can appear in edit text in these four ways at least (and you may add some others):

… … … …

Tech-oriented editors have their own preferences among these, and will apply them if the preformed ellipsis is approved. Add to these four the two other kinds of ellipsis mentioned in MOS, and add adjacent hard spaces in various positions (also variously coded), and we can see that a laissez-faire approach leaves editors to deal with these variants, any combination of which may occur together in the edit text for an article, between text and text (where text may include other punctuation):

text …text

text …text

text …text

text ...text

text . . .text

text …text

text …text

text …text

text ...text

text . . .text

text… text

text… text

text… text

text... text

text. . . text

text …text

text …text

text …text

text ...text

text . . .text

And at least double that list, using other combinations that would be equally allowed.

Mjb, it is to avoid this sort of monstrosity that MOS keeps things simple and manageable for the average non-tech-nerd. It is fatally easy for Edittools specialists, for example, not to consider consequences like this. Finally, remember that our articles are edited iteratively and collaboratively. Even if one method for ellipses were used consistently by any one editor, a succession of editors with different ways can leave in their wake a text that is barely editable, and likely to frighten novices away altogether. Such a text might even be hard to search through for automated rectification by bots – and complexity breeds errors.

You wanted MOS input to deliberations at Edittools; will you now take it on board? You now have compelling reasons to rethink this opinion: "It would suffice to say that use of the precomposed character is an acceptable, optional alternative to three periods."

Now, Ozob:

Earlier on this page I wrote: "I have found a neat way to fix the ellipses guidelines; but I will not put it forward unless circumstances improve." I also said that the guidelines were "stable enough". But I do not think they are entirely right. They have included palpable flaws for more than two years, and your rewrite does not remove those flaws. For example, what you rethought most recently:

However, do not put a space between an ellipsis and:

• A quotation mark following adjacent to the ellipsis,
•  [...]

In fact, quite often there should be a space between an adjacent quotation mark and an ellipsis (in either order). Two points of procedure for you:

1. The present section is "advertised" to the community as concerned with the ellipsis character, not with the the deployment of ellipses. If you propose your broader changes in this section, therefore, people will not have been alerted; and whatever we mean by the word, you will not have achieved consensus.
2. You ignored my earlier request to focus on such superordinate procedural matters, when you made changes to the en dash guidelines (also without advertising them in a well-labelled section, I note). I did not then revert your edit; but I do wish you would respect these other opinions, rather than forging ahead without due notification or any semblance of durable consensus, according to any standards approved on Wikipedia.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 06:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The period in the edit text can look like ., ., or %; that alone makes for 27 ways of typing the string ... in the edit box. :-) (BTW, I support Ozob's idea of replacing the "Style" list with one short sentence. I'm not sure about the rest of the section.) ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 13:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding ellipses: I did not originally intend my rewrite to eliminate any flaws; I intended it only as liposuction. I only became interested in changing the content when I realized that I didn't understand the rules on non-breaking spaces, and, as I hope you can see from my inquisitive tone above, I am still trying to figure them out. I would like to see examples of situations where there should be a space between an ellipsis and a quotation. I am also curious to see your rewrite, though I understand why you would be reluctant given your past experience here with possessives.

Regarding en dashes: As I said in my edit summary, I believe that the present text has consensus. There is no reason for me to not implement consensus.

Regarding procedural matters: I will have nothing to contribute to that discussion until I can think of an objective standard for consensus. I have not succeeded yet, but I have been following the discussion. Furthermore, I see no reason why we should not consider other, more traditional matters here at the same time as we discuss consensus.

I suspect that you and I have somewhat different editing styles. I think you are more cautious than I am. I tend to jump in and start working; I am not afraid to change the MoS, even though it affects millions of articles. You did that with your excellent stream of corrections and improvements a few days ago, but I think you prefer to be more cautious than me with larger edits. Am I right, or am I misunderstanding you? I would like to work with you despite our differing attitudes. Ozob (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ozob, sorry for the delay in getting back to this. Points to answer your points:

• I understand how and why your focus shifted, but the fact remains: we have to signal proposed changes before making them. Editors interested in the wording of the ellipses section, or the detailed guidelines for use, might pass over a section headed "Ellipsis character rationale", after a cursory scan of the first few lines. And they might continue to ignore all occurrences in their watchlists under such a heading. Whatever consensus is, it will surely require well-marked discussion.
• You are curious about my questioning this: "Do not put a space between an ellipsis and: / A quotation mark adjacent to the ellipsis." Here is an example where, following general principles (including our own), there ought to be such spaces, for the two marks in either order. A quote, abridged using ellipses, from a long-winded prosecutor who quotes the words of a defendant and of a jurisprudential text:

Does the defendant claim that her co-accused "persuaded her by devious means", that she was ... "not there at the time", that both parties were "drunk and not fully responsible" ...? Well, how can all of these be true? If "truth" ... is understood in "the usual ways" ... and not to suit one's need to evade the consequences of one's actions ... "the convenient ways" ..., then some of her claims must be false.

Practice differs, of course: but then, practice is confused. (By the way: procedurally here, the meaning of A adjacent to B must be loose enough to allow that there be a space between A and B.[Wording modified later.–Noetica])

• You are curious about my proposed simplified rewrite; but I have developed a conflict of interests with other activities, and now prefer not to put such innovations forward on Wikipedia. I could: but I do not offer it because the effort would very likely be wasted (compare once more Archive 108, and the futility with possessives). For such widely discussed topics, meticulous "original research" might be more welcome elsewhere.
• Procedural questions are manifestly the most pressing on this page now, and attention is a scarce resource. Dealing at length with one question often means that other questions get less attention than they merit.
• We may indeed have different editing styles. I focus intently on the smallest matters (like spaces with en dashes), and the big picture (like procedure and the nature of consensus), but tend to ignore the mesoscopic, which may be your preferred focal range.
• I'm sure we could all work better together, with greater effort and with respect for each other's strengths and insight into our own weaknesses. But as I have said, I only returned to MOS because there was an itch with citations of guides that I wanted to scratch, and I have decided that my circumstances will not allow me to continue – neither here nor at Wikipedia as a whole. For now, that is. I'll put a note at my talkpage soon. No big deal.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is not the best thread in which to overhaul the rules on spacing ellipses. Perhaps we will discuss it another time. Nevertheless, I very much enjoyed seeing your example! I agree that such ellipses ought to be spaced. (I also agree that "adjacent" needs to be carefully specified.)

I hope that your hiatus is short and that you are able to return to editing Wikipedia soon. Ozob (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ordering the Latin symbols at Edittools

Noetica, you said, at 11:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC): "There is every reason for the Latin section to be in alphabetical order, for example, and no reason for it to retain its present type-of-diacritic order, which is fiendishly annoying in practice." Both orders can be accommodated by the use of both dimensions (horizontal and vertical), as follows. The display is incomplete but illustrative.

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Á   Ć   É       Í     Ĺ   Ń Ó     Ŕ Ś   Ú       Ý Ź
À       È       Ì           Ò           Ù
   Ĉ   Ê   Ĝ Ĥ Î Ĵ         Ô       Ŝ   Û   Ŵ   Ŷ
Ä       Ë       Ï           Ö           Ü       Ÿ
à       Ẽ       Ĩ         Ñ Õ           Ũ       Ỹ
    Ç       Ģ       Ķ Ļ   Ņ       Ŗ Ş Ţ 
                                        Ů
Ǎ   Č Ď Ě       Ǐ     Ľ   Ň Ǒ     Ř Š Ť Ǔ         Ž
Ā       Ē       Ī           Ō           Ū       Ȳ
Ă       Ĕ   Ğ   Ĭ           Ŏ           Ŭ
    Ċ   Ė   Ġ   İ                                 Ż
Ą       Ę       Į           Ǫ           Ų
      Ḍ       Ḥ       Ḷ Ṃ Ṇ       Ṛ Ṣ Ṭ 
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
á   ć   é       í     ĺ   ń ó     ŕ ś   ú       ý ź
à       è       ì           ò           ù
â   ĉ   ê   ĝ ĥ î ĵ         ô       ŝ   û   ŵ   ŷ
ä       ë       ï           ö           ü       ÿ
ã       ẽ       ĩ         ñ õ           ũ       ỹ
    ç       ģ       ķ ļ   ņ       ŗ ş ţ
                                        ů
ǎ   č ď ě       ǐ     ľ   ň ǒ     ř š ť ǔ         ž
ā       ē       ī           ō           ū       ȳ
ă       ĕ   ğ   ĭ           ŏ           ŭ
    ċ   ė   ġ   ı                                 ż
ą       ę       į           ǫ           ų
      ḍ       ḥ       ḷ ṃ ṇ       ṛ ṣ ṭ

-- Wavelength (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A worthwhile exercise, Wavelength. It shows the interaction of the two categorical variables: base letter (upon which almost universally accepted alphabetical ordering can be imposed) and type of diacritic (for which no widely accepted ordering applies). The edittools are not organised to implement such a two-dimensional array, though. The best we could have is a sub-sequence of all A-forms, then of all a-forms, then all B-forms, b-forms, C-forms, .... Within each sub-sequence there should be the same ordering by type of diacritic. One way to show the result, using the characters you present above:

AÁÀÂÄÃǍĀĂĄaáàâäãǎāăą Bb CĆĈÇČĊcćĉçčċ DĎḌdďḍ EÉÈÊËẼĚĒĔĖĘeéèêëẽěēĕėę ...

This would be far more usable for the Latin edittools: anyone looking for some variant of E, for example, can see immediately where it will be found.

I raised all of this with an admin, who fixed some other things that were easier to implement, but not this. I think we should make a new section at MediaWiki_talk:Edittools, based on both your array and my response here. (They usually don't discuss deeply or consult widely over there, I regret having to report. There's another area that needs procedural reforms, just as we at MOS do.) Would you like to do it, or should I? Or mjb?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Noetica, if you make the initial representation, I'll chime in to back you up. We really do need to foster closer working relations with that page. Tony (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see MediaWiki talk:Edittools#Arrangement of Latin characters below edit window. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hell yes, curly quotes should be removed from the edit tools. What a pain in metaphorectum those things are. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 11:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

Wikipedia:Consensus lacks a clear definition of consensus, so it is not an adequate guide for Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
-- Wavelength (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That IAR thing should never have been inserted. It is not a governing feature. It is a useless rule. Tony (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style says of itself: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions."

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So ignore it, duh. BTW, it was among the first rules ever on Wikipedia.[9] ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 12:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Examples of consensus

I am posing this challenge to all viewers of this discussion page. Please provide (if you can!) links to examples of MOS discussions where decisions were reached by consensus. Please be prepared to explain (if you can!) what consensus means in each example, and how we can be certain that it was actually achieved. You can help to organize this section by arranging your examples under new subheadings as follows, substituting your user name for the words in square brackets, and using "=== ===".

• [First editor]'s example 1 of MOS consensus
• [First editor]'s example 2 of MOS consensus
• [Second editor]'s example 1 of MOS consensus
• [Second editor]'s example 2 of MOS consensus

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC) ...... [I am inserting "links to". -- Wavelength (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)]
[I am adding "of MOS consensus" to each proposed subheading, for clearer linking. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
[I am changing "name" to "user name". -- Wavelength (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)]
[I am clarifying further, with "=== ===". -- Wavelength (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)]
[I am converting the sub-subheadings to subheadings. I am revising the second subheading to "Darkfrog's example 1 of MoS consensus".
-- Wavelength (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)]

Maybe we shouldn't be looking in the MoS archive. Maybe we should be looking at other pages. Yes, the MoS is fundamentally different from most Wikipedia articles, but if what we're looking for is a civilized, reasoned and fruitful discussion resulting in Wikipedia consensus, then any example would be better than none. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Art LaPella's example 1 of MOS consensus

#"From" and "between". Both of us agreed, so that was consensus by any definition. This is trivial, but perhaps it will help Wavelength to clarify what kind of example he really wanted. Art LaPella (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Darkfrog's example 1 of MoS consensus

Proposed new text. It was a vote, so it's not an ideal example of a Wikipedia consensus and perhaps the reason it went so smoothly was because it was an issue that had been fought over before, but the discussion 1. allowed everyone a chance to speak 2. was resolved relatively quickly and 3. did not devolve into a fight, so maybe some expansion of our support/oppose structure could be of use to us. It would also be simple enough for newcomers to understand without much explanation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Linking section heads

Created the page List of Swedish football transfers winter 2009–10 to cover the transfers in the two top leagues in Sweden, when creating the article i linkt each team section to each teams articles on wikipedia as i saw as better and quicker way then to search for each teams article, however that have now been reverted following a WP:MOS i cant clearly find. I still think that its better if section heads are linkt to each team, but its not something that needs to be done everywhere, however i would not a majore opinion that they should not be linkt. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 20:43, 09 January 2010 (UTC)

Links within section titles can cause accessibility problems; you can use {{main}} immediately after the title, instead. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 21:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realize that reason for avoiding them. In general there are lots of good reasons for avoiding markup, of any kind, in section headings.

• The one that's my personal peeve is that many sorts of markup break clickability of edit summaries. The anchor that's generated for the little arrow by the edit summary is different from the one used in the page in itself, and when you click on the arrow, you get sent to the top of the page, and have to search for what you were looking for. That bugs the crap out of me. (However, simple unpiped wikilinks in a section heading do not cause this problem.)
• It's overloading too much functionality into one thing. Section headings are not simple text; they're sort of markup themselves. They should not have other markup superimposed on them.
• When just part of a section heading, or otherwise highlighted text, is wikilinked, it just plain looks terrible. Part of the reason that it looks terrible is that it interferes with communication, by forcing the reader to process the fact that this text is highlighted together, yet part of it is highlighted differently. (This deserves stating separately: Never wikilink only part of bolded or italicized text; possible exception when the italics are used to indicate quotation.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• "a WP:MOS i cant clearly find"? I think you're looking for WP:HEAD: "Section names should not normally contain links ..." Art LaPella (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders/Manual of style is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders/Manual of style (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad Sentence

Modern editions of old texts routinely replace ampersands with and (along with disused glyphs and ligatures)

Do disused glyphs partially replace ampersands, or are they replaced by and? Neither, of course, but this seems to say one or the other. 68.239.116.212 (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Anonymous. I have now edited Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Ampersand to fix this.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not that sure about "routinely". The example closest to my hands right now, i.e. my edition of Blake's poems, was printed in 2007 but it still has ampersands. Maybe it had better be replaced by "often". ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 13:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, A di M. But that sort of edition is not a "modern edition", to borrow a term our guideline uses to make the point plainly. Of course there are editions that preserve all (or a selection) of the old variant characters, just as there are also facsimile editions. (Imagine how this looks with a "faithful" edition of Petrarch, Chaucer, or Villon.) Wikipedia articles are not normally concerned with those, and I doubt that the guideline would be improved by adverting to them at the cost of clarity.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 19:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think replacing "routinely" with "often" (or with "often routinely", to show that the ones which do that usually do that consistently) would worsen clarity that much, but that's not a great deal, anyway. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 21:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest against "often routinely"? It seems a bit clunkier than we need it to be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Digits

A recent change now says "Alternatively, render numbers that take one or two words as either words or numerals ..." Although the given examples are all multi-digit numbers, if we take those words at face value they say that alternatively, it's OK to say 6 instead of six, even if the exceptions don't apply. That would negate the main point of the section, contradict WP:MOSNUM, and be a major undiscussed change. So I presume that was a mistake. Art LaPella (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct. I only meant to clear up the chunkiness of the phrasing, not introduce a change in meaning. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Art. These number sections are traditionally supposed to be synchronised with WP:MOSNUM. Since recent changes, they are not: at least in their wording and markup. I have restored the intended meaning, and reworked these most basic provisions for simplicity and accuracy. I will do more, now.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am changing "numeral" to "figure", in accord with the title of the section and because numeral includes both words and figures:

[1 ...] B n. 1 A word expressing a number. M16.
2 A figure or symbol, or a group of these, denoting a number. L17. (SOED, "numeral a. & n.")

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Range of years which has not ended

How should a range of years which has not ended be written in a title? "2007-Present" seems obvious but against standards. "2007-" seems good. "2007-2010" seems to imply that the range has ended. The current title in question is W:Financial crisis of 2007-2010. Darxus (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've raised this before, and my preference for "Since 1999" rather than "1999–present" (which is like a rash all over popular culture infoboxes) was dismissed with a wave of the hand. I have never liked the dangling en dash, which seems to beg the death of the subject (we're waiting to complete the range ... please die). An en dash, not a hyphen, should be used for ranges. Tony (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that "since 1999" is better than "1999–present" in many cases, but I am not sure how one would apply that to the article title. ("Financial crisis since 2007" is of course no good; and it makes me think, "Financial Crisis^TM: Since 2007!") The article ought to have a stable title, which none of "Financial crisis of 2007–Present", "Financial crisis of 2007–", "Financial crisis of 2007–2010", or "Ongoing financial crisis" can provide. (Also, the last one is something you'd hear on cable news, yuck!) You could consider "Great Recession", but I don't think that name is well-accepted enough to be the article title. You may be stuck with the present title (but with an en dash instead of a hyphen).

Why is it that we call them "recessions" or "financial crises", anyway? How about, "Panic of 2007"? It's so much more evocative. Ozob (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I learned in history class that the difference between a recession and a depression is technically the duration of a certain numerical part of the economic downturn. If it lasts less than one year, then it's a recession, but if it lasts longer than that, it's a depression. Since then, though, the media has taken to calling depressions "recessions," probably to avoid references to the thirties. I'm pretty sure from history class that the word "panic" was retired because it sounded too panicky. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Every economist has a different definition of normal vs recession vs depression. The tabloids love the last two terms. WP should be cautious in their use. Try to think how it will be viewed in retrospect. On the closing range in the title ... I took a breath at that. Next time, let's call it "Recession starting 2007" until the period can be understood in retrospect. Tony (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

In Australia, the economy is considered to be in "recession" if there are two (consecutive) quarters of negative growth. I don't know if that definition is used elsewhere.  HWV258.  03:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Where's Ben Stein when we need him? Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That article used to be called "Late 2000s recession", but the late 2000s are over now... (And I agree that I prefer "Since 1999" in places other than article titles.) ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 21:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The new decade starts 1 Jan 2011 (since there was no year 0 – a bad mistake). Therefore, the previous name was prematurely changed to something undesirably specific and predictive. Tony (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The 2000s are not the same thing as the 201st decade. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 01:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but the 2000s is problematic because it's not clear whether they should last 10, 100, or 1000 years. In speech you could theoretically fix this by calling them the twenty-ohs, though I don't actually specifically remember hearing it in the wild. --Trovatore (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that "late 2000s" refers to the decade, as it's certainly not late in the 21st century. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

While A d M makes a good point, I agree with Trovatore. "2000's" can refer to the millennium (which technically starts in 2001, etc.) or the century or the decade. While context can make this less ambiguous, it would be better to pick a term that is specific in the first place. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, the 1000-year period called the 2000s started in 2000, obviously. --Trovatore (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It overlaps 99.9% with the third millennium, though. (And while it's true that 2000s has at least three meanings– here's why it's a disambiguation page, recessions seldom have a duration of the order of half a century, let alone half a millennium.) ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 12:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of those points were discussed recently at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 December 24#Six days left and I'm still uncomfortable calling them the "ohs", "aughts" or "noughties". How about you?.

-- Wavelength (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I happen to have run into this same problem today, independently, as I had to clean up after a bot that changed article prose saying "financial crisis of 2007–2009" to "financial crisis of 2007–2010". (As it happens, both the old and the new prose were not supported, as the cited source (published in 2008) talked only about the "the financial crisis of 2007–8"; what a mess, eh?) Apparently it is the style in finance to use closed ranges when talking about ongoing events, perhaps on the theory that it's bad luck to write things like "financial crisis of 2007–". No solution to this problem is satisfactory, so perhaps we should simply grit our teeth and do as the financial press does. Eubulides (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Noetica's edits

I am very pleased to see that Noetica is making some much-needed clean-up edits to the MoS. Thank you, Noetica! Tony (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. I have just been making up for time in which I did not attend to the task. Myself, I'm very pleased when one person's taking up the shovel prompts a whole team to do the same. That's happening now, and genuine WPian collaboration reigns.

We can all learn more from edits if they are explained fully in edit summaries. I hope people will make that additional effort a bit more consistently.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

And good to see the formatting of examples fixed. Let's also avoid "for example,...". Tony (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Defenceman

There is a requested move at Talk:Defenceman#Requested moves. The participation of others would be welcome there. Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ranges of birth and death outside biographical articles?

In biographical articles we list the range of a person's lifespan per MOS:DOB. But I've seen a fair number of non-biographical articles which also does this when introducing a new name (together with a link to that person). See here for example of what I mean. Is this in line with this style manual? If not, could we add words to that effect to MOS:DOB?

It seems to me that this "Name (year-year)" practice would only be acceptable (outside of a bio) when such dates aren't redundant, such as when the person doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. If there's a link to the person's bio, skip the dates. Any thoughts? Gabbe (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. While it can be fun to ride the Wikilinks from page to page, we should write articles with the assumption that people will read at least one paragraph per sitting. If the information is relevant, then we should not interrupt the reader mid-paragraph by forcing him or her to go to a new page to get it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to write the same as Darkfrog24. In most cases, it is unnecessary to do that, but in the article you link, short of following the links, the reader will have no idea of whether bacteriology was founded in the late 17th or early 20th century. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 14:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that is easy to avoid: Say, "In the 19th century ..." or "In the 20th century ..." or some similar phrase. As Eubulides notes, if the researchers were properly credited with the dates of their discoveries, then this would be entirely unnecessary. Ozob (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This issue is best resolved case-by-case. For Microbiology #Modern I agree that all those birth-and-death-year annotations are distracting and irrelevant. What counts for that section is not when the microbiologists died, but when they made their major contributions: although the article does not contain this more-important information, it should, and after it is modified to have it, the value of the birth and death dates will plummet to zero and they can be removed. Eubulides (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as a non-scientist, the dates of Leeuwenhoek, Pasteur and Koch are of interest to me and something I don't know already. As one of the microscopic sliver of Wikipedia's readership who has installed WP:popups, this isn't of such great concern to me personally, but 99.95%+ of the readers don't have pop-ups, and the lead sentence of an article doesn't always include dates. On the other hand, while dates might be informative at Socialist Party of America#Prominent members, they'd probably make the whole list pretty indigestible. And adding dates to everyone's first mention in running text could be cumbersome for both editors and readers. This is probably an area where general guidance and suggestions fit better than any kind of rule. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Permalink template for FAQ links to consensus

I discovered what is possibly a useful template in The Signpost, for diffs:

"The election administrator stated such and such."

The syntax is {{diff|page=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009|diff=332592102|oldid=332588134|label=stated}}

Otherwise, there's a "Permanent link" button to the left of every page. Tony (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes {{diff}} is handy for showing changes to pages. You can see some uses of {{diff}} previously on this talk page. For permanent links to old versions, you can use {{oldid}}. Eubulides (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style Register has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style Register (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What's a Style Register? How can some page that appears to be 5% complete, whatever it is for, be part of the Manual of Style? And why does what little content there is appear to be regurgitation of the MoS? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 12:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dashes as character entity codes vs. Unicode

Unresolved

 – Topic was deferred and archived but is actually unconnected to other issues and still under active discussion.

• The MOS should
  1. Recommend explicitly that en-dashes, em-dashes and minus signs be done as the character entity codes –, — and −, respectively, rather than the corresponding Unicode characters
  2. Defer to WP:MOSMATH on minus signs in actual formulas
  3. Not recommend (i.e., remain silent on the idea) that the Unicode characters be removed from the editing tools
  4. Forbid bots from changing these character entities to Unicode characters.

The rationales, given many times but repeated here in case anyone missed them:

• The glyphs for these characters are completely or nearly indistinguishable in many fonts, meaning that for many editors the only way to be certain the proper character is being used when an entity code is not present is for the editor to replace the character with the entity code.
• The glyphs for these characters are completely or nearly indistinguishable for many very constructive and active editors due to their eyesight, even with glasses on and regardless of font, resulting in the same must-use-entities-for-certainty issue.
• The editing tools below the edit window should still have the Unicode characters, as they are easy to use, having the correct Unicode character in place is better than having a normal hyphen where it does not belong, and we can't expect non-technical editors to memorize entity codes, just to not remove them.
• Bots (and AWB scripts and other judgment-reducing tools) replacing entity codes are undoing conscious human-editor work that improved the editability of the encyclopedia, and even probably reduced disputes (see example below).
• The minor increase in edit-window clutter is small price to pay for correct dashes, as edit mode is cluttered anyway, and is more cluttered all the time as increasing amounts of plain prose are replaced by typing-aid templates and other code.
• Accessibility: Many more screen readers for the visually impaired, as well as old browsers on old computers (remember the other kind of accessibility - en.wikipedia is also for impoverished English speakers and entire nations of them such as Jamaica and Belize) have better support for basic character entity codes than for Unicode, if any for the latter at all.

While I've frequently had issues and frustrations with dashes for vision and font reasons, and even gotten in brief arguments with other editors about the matter, I never saved any clear diffs. I just ran into one, however, which is clearly evidentiary of the fact that the use of Unicode in these cases is causing real problems for real editors: Talk:Pleonasm#Article issues (as of this diff). Fortunately both editors in this case were communicative, patient and clueful, but that holy trinity is not always with us...

Nothing about the other dash-related issues under discussion would affect this proposal in any way, nor vice versa.

Proposed language

It is preferable that en-dashes, em-dashes and minus signs be input as the character entity reference codes –, — and −, respectively, rather than the Unicode characters –, — and −, so that it is clear in editing mode which character is being used, and because the codes are more accessible in current screen readers and in older browsers than the Unicode. However, it is still better for non-technical users to insert the Unicode character called for, via the editing tools below the edit window, rather than use hyphens indiscriminately.

Or something like that. Left out any mention of MOSMATH (I don't know it well).

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 12:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)