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

Ellipses – Proposal to expand the treatment thereof

I feel like I'm missing something (have I?), but I see two arguable omissions in the current treatment of ellipses:

• First, the MoS doesn't clearly state a preference regarding placing a space before the ellipses, i.e., "this... way" or "this ... way". I see each method used frequently on WP, but only the first appears regularly in the real world; I think we should clarify. (Note: if we're going with the second, spaced method, a non-breaking space is required, I think.)
• Second, I was taught that in formal writing a four-dot ellipsis was used when multiple sentences were omitted – essentially, it's a period either preceding or following an ellipsis. This looks ugly, but I believe is widely followed. Some Wikipedia editors do it, some don't (and some used the spaced ellipsis for multiple-sentence omissions and the unspaced for single-sentence, which just looks weird to me); I think the MoS should address it explicitly. atakdoug (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're missing the fact that the MOS does in fact state a preference, and it is for the latter. (Put a space on each side of an ellipsis, except at the very start or end of a quotation--the latter clause merely meaning you don't need a space between the quotation mark and the initial period, I suppose.) I myself prefer no initial space, and no trailing space when a quote begins with ellipses ("...this"), and despite having been chided for this above I fully intend to ignore this element of the MOS until such time as I am presented with a convincing argument for the unnecessary spaces. Andyvphil (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy. I felt like I'd seen it somewhere. I wonder who in the world thought of this one -- I have never seen it done that way in the real world. If I thought there were any chance at all of altering the status quo, I'd propose changing it. atakdoug (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks perfectly normal usage to me. The ellipsis is spaced at both sides because it assumes the same role as [...] (which I prefer); we do not use ellipses in prose, so its usual "real-world" usage is very rare, only present in quotations. Waltham, The Duke of 16:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So, what's up with capital letters?

I remember editing the .hack pages here because of capital letter problems; for instance, here the title of ".hack//SIGN" is ".hack//Sign", with no capitals, even though in all official .hack-related print and such, it's SIGN. Why are we forced to use regular capitalization when a title is different, due to its creator? Yuki Shiido (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Pediapress and typography

Currently the MoS sometimes prefers ease of input over standard typography (e.g. with the style of quotation marks and apostrophe, but not for hyphens and dashes where different characters may help semantic clarification). One argument in the discussion was that Wikipedia is mostly used in browsers with computer screens, where typography commonly doesn’t reach as high a standard as in print. Does Wikis Go Printable change this significantly?

That’s all I want to know, I don’t want to rehash the whole discussion. Christoph Päper (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

See my excerpts from their example above, Crissov. I note also inconsistency of punctuation, stray spaces before and after points of punctuation, both sorts of double quotes, etc. They can't get it right. We have to make the task easier, with realistic rules. They are not professional print publishers, any more than WP editors generally are professional HTML writers. We need to be realistic. Painful, but true.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 12:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am too bothered by the typeface they used to actually read the PDF. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of units in tables

While there seems to be agreement of parallel usage of metric and US units in general in the Manual of Style, I am not certain whether this was ment to apply to statistical tables also. Use of metric AND US units in one table can enlarge the table beyond practical proportions. An shortened example from the Gilbert Islands:

• normal version with metric units only:

Atoll/Island	Main village	Land area (km²)	Lagoon area (km²)	Pop. (c. 2005)	Min. number of islets	Number of villages	Location
Makin	Makin	6.7	-	2,385	5	2	3°23′N 173°00′E
Butaritari	Butaritari?	13.6	191.7	3,280	11	11	3°09′N 172°50′E
Marakei	Rawannawi	13.5	19.6	2,741	1	8	2°00′N 173°17′E
Gilbert Islands	Tarawa	281.10	1866.5	83,382	117+	156	3°23'N to 2°38S 172°50' to 176°49'E

• expaned version with metric and US units, from User:MJCdetroit, who used a presumably self-developed template for unit conversions:

Atoll/Island	Main village	Land area	Lagoon area	Pop. (c. 2005)	Min. number of islets	Number of villages	Location
Makin	Makin	6.7 km2 (2.6 sq mi)	-	2,385	5	2	3°23′N 173°00′E
Butaritari	Butaritari?	13.6 km2 (5.3 sq mi)	191.7 km2 (74.0 sq mi)	3,280	11	11	3°09′N 172°50′E
Marakei	Rawannawi	13.5 km2 (5.2 sq mi)	19.6 km2 (7.6 sq mi)	2,741	1	8	2°00′N 173°17′E
Gilbert Islands	Tarawa	281.10 km2 (108.5 sq mi)	1,866.5 km2 (720.7 sq mi)	83,382	117+	156	3°23'N to 2°38S 172°50' to 176°49'E

Besides making it too wide for many displays, some numbers are not aligned anymore, and the units (km² or sq mi) are repeated with each number. I envision another solution, and I ask the programmers if it can be done, better yet, if someone would volunteer to proceed: a clickable toggle that switches a column (or the whole table) between a metric and a predefined US measure (eg. meters/feet, hectares/acres, km²/sq mi, kg/pound, or °C/°F). This could look similar to sortable tables where a click on a small field in the column header sorts the table according to this colum. If it can be done, I ask if there is agreement for that type of solution, instead of using tables getting out of proportion by parallel use of metric and US measures in one view.--Ratzer (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I didn't develop {{convert}} and that example was from a few months ago. If I was doing that table today I'd leave out the unit symbols. Here's a quick example for what I am talking about:

No.	Region	Area		Western Border	Eastern Border
		km²	sq mi
1	Kronprinsesse Märtha Kyst	970,000	370,000	020°00' W	005°00' E
2	Prinsesse Astrid Kyst	580,000	220,000	005°00' E	020°00' E
3	Prinsesse Ragnhild Kyst	540,000	210,000	020°00' E	034°00' E
4	Prins Harald Kyst	230,000	90,000	034°00' E	040°00' E
5	Prins Olav Kyst	180,000	70,000	040°00' E	044°38' E
6	Haakon VII's Vidde	The Polar Plateau is considered a sixth region. With an undefined northern border (approx. 80°S) its area is contained in sectors 1 through 5
	Dronning Maud Land	2,500,000	970,000	020°00' W	044°38' E

Regards,—MJCdetroit ^(yak) 22:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For further discussion, it might be helpful to show how this improved method would render the Gilbert Islands table. The Queen Maud Land table, after all, originally had only one column to be converted, so the second column with the US conversions didn't enlarge the table beyond reasonable dimensions. If more than one column must be converted, tables tend to get messy if metric and US units are shown at the same time. Which is why I renew my plea for a toggle that lets columns or whole tables to be switched between metric and US units, if US units must be shown at all (or metric units in some tables concerning the United States).--Ratzer (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To see how the new method renders the table, go have a look. I took the liberty of adding {{convert}} back in but in table mode this time. To my eye it hasn't cluttered the table: I took some of the blank space which had been sitting idle in the number of islets and villages columns. Of course, there is a limit to how much you can squeeze into a table but I don't think we've gone past that in this case. Jɪmp 07:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a significant improvement, we should use it until we have something better. Now before I further pursue my thought of a toggle to switch colums or whole tables between metric and US measures, I would like to know beforehand if such a solution will get the consent of the English Wikipedia. Is it important for the users of US measures to see the metric equivalents in the same view of the table, or would a toggle be sufficient? It's just much more elegant IMHO to have a optimally compact table with two columns less, two colums that provide no additional information but only redundancy. It would be nice to get a few opinions on that.--Ratzer (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is this example Jimp and Ratzer are talking about. Do not expect people who have been lurking until a concrete idea comes forth to read every word of your posts to figure out where the example is. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

True.

• old version without sq mi
• MJCdetroit's version with conversions to sq mi using the old version of {{convert}}
• my version with conversions to sq mi using the new version of {{convert}}
• current version

Jɪmp 03:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimp, thanks for collecting those examples. It certainly seems like a neat system for those cases where both units should be shown. As for some toggle that changes a column based on user preferences, I would want any such mechanism to be under the control of the person who creates the table. There are instances where conversion would be inappropriate, for example, a topic that is usually written about in SI units even by American authors and publishers. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[deindent] It is possible to toggle a page between different units, though I've no idea how it's done. See http://www.peakbagger.com/list.aspx?lid=21425 for an example. The link in the upper right, "Show List using ...", adds "&u=m" or "&u=ft" to the URL.

—WWoods (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Try and vs. Try to

Are both these usages acceptable or do a lot of people make the mistake?

I want to try to discover the correct usage. Can I also try and discover it?

IMO if you are going to try and do something, make up your mind, either try, or do it, but not both.

Hope that sense makes :) Franamax (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Try and sounds too informal to me. Strad (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I know J.R.R. Tolkien preferred to use "try and" in his works, and was often "corrected" by well-meaning editors when publishing his works. I found that in the Note on the Text in my 1995 single-volume HarperCollins paperback edition of The Lord of the Rings, page xi. I'm not sure what to conclude from that, but I wanted to mention it here. Phaunt (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Tolkien was idiosyncratic in other respects too. I agree with Strad -- "try and" is perfectly fine informal English, probably with a very long pedigree, but it's not appropriate to the register of English used in an encyclopedia. --Trovatore (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Other users of "try and": Charlotte Bronte, Lord Byron, Lewis Carroll, Wilkie Collins, Joseph Conrad, James Fenimore Cooper, Charles Dickens, Arthur Conan Doyle, Theodore Dreiser, George Eliot, Kenneth Grahame, H Rider Haggard, Thomas Hardy, Henry James, DH Lawrence, Herman Melville – without even venturing into the second half of the alphabet. All abysmal stylists, of course. Our editors must be warned away from such catachrestic usage as theirs.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

These are fiction writers, at least the names I recognize. When you're writing fiction you do what you like; you finely calibrate the particular effect you're trying to evoke in the reader. Writing for a formal reference work is quite another matter. --Trovatore (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Trovatore. And what would they know about proper language? Let us by all means guard against following their example, as reference works with titles like these appear to have done:International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, International Encyclopedia Of Economic Sociology, Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, The Concise Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management, Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas, Medieval Germany: An Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Academic American Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of the American Judicial System, Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War, and a zillion wannabes from that same "college of dullards" (in Mencken's memorable phrase). Standards, I cry!

(Meanwhile, we can't even get the hard space sorted out. Or the ellipsis.)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 02:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't "try and" imply success at what was tried, while "try to" carries no implication of success? Whether "try and" is correct might depend upon whether the author wanted to imply success. Is the debate about a specific rule of grammar without any artistic license? -- SEWilco (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "try and" implies success. It's just a more informal way of saying "try to". --Trovatore (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Working through the words, "try and" would imply success, but that's not how I see it used, I tend to agree with Tr that it is informal usage, of course that's why I'm asking. Anothger point is that I am currently "trying to" find the answer whereas almost no-one is ever "trying and" find such a thing.

I have two specific questions: is there such a rule of grammar? what is the appropriate usage in Wikipedia mainspace articles? Franamax (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And thank you Noetica for the new word! I don't think I'll be accusing my friends of catachresis anytime soon though, could get me in trouble. :) Franamax (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(Happy to help with the lexical supplementation, Franamax.)

This thing with try and has been turned inside and out for eighty years at least. Fowler's first edition approves of it, and does indeed find in it a suggestion of encouragement towards success that is absent from try to. The latest Fowler's gives the issue almost a page, approvingly. M-W's Concise Dictionary of English Usage (fabulous work, along with its earlier unabridged sibling) devotes almost two full pages to the issue, and finds the form quite acceptable (citing, among many other sources, a letter by Jane Austen). Both of these current authorities observe that inversions and similar contortions are impossible with it: you can't have this: "Arrive on time? I'll try and, at least!" But you can have this: "Arrive on time? I'll try to, at least!" Duh.

(Meanwhile, we can't agree on a rational policy for punctuating captions!)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No one's saying there's anything inherently wrong with it. It's in the wrong register. I stand by that. --Trovatore (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a feeling try and would turn up a million times in a corpus search. That's good enough for me. Strad (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with "Try and", as in "Try and do it" is its implication of "try [to achieve something]" AND "do it [succeed in doing it]". It's a round-about expression that should be conflated into a single meaning ("Try to do it"). "Try and" is more common in speech than writing, I suspect, because it avoids the t ... t and can be slurred lazily as "Try 'n". It may have its place in fictional dialogue, but not in serious writing such as WP articles aspire to. I always correct it where I come across it. Tony (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You "correct" it? You alter it. It is presumptuous to call it correction when the usage is enshrined in great works of English literature (by no means only, or even predominantly, in dialogue), and common in good serviceable prose outside of fiction as early as the 17th century. As my small sample shows (see above) it is also in common use in reference works, and approved by major authorities on theoretical and empirical grounds.

I might alter it, too, for style: but I would not think or say that I was correcting. Ameliorating, rather: after a nuanced weighing of context and intent.

Why seek to legislate on such subtle matters here, when so much else is more pressing? And why pretend that such questions are not subtle, when the literature shows very plainly that they are?

My intention here? As Milton has it: "At least to try and teach the erring soul" (Paradise Regained).

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 11:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see that's been misquoted (missing comma). The text (my emphasis) actually says:

"At least to try, and teach the erring soul,/Not wilfully misdoing, but unware/ Misled; the stubborn only to subdue."

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not seeking to legislate on it; I'm not pretending that it's not subtle. You could have chosen not to accuse me of being presumptuous. Tony (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(Serves tea all round) Silly me for coming here looking for an answer, I forgot the WP in WP:MOS :) I tend to agree with Tony that the "try and" usage is a little easier to say, thus tends to get written the same way. Would it be fair to say that "try to" is a preferred usage?

And who's that Milton guy? I haven't seen him editing around lately :) Franamax (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Milton hasn't published anything recently, so he's not qualified to be considered a writer. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think "try to" is preferred for Wikipedia articles, but I can see situations where "try and" will reasonably appear. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

One convenient place for an outside opinion on usage is the American Heritage dictionary online. They have a usage note for try and at the bottom of the entry. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think try to makes more sense. Per CBM's comment above, the usage of "try and" seems to be informal, and while its actual grammatical correctness is perhaps in question, its formality doesn't seem to be, and formal writing should be preferred in an encyclopedia. Also, while it may not be viewed this way, at least technically "try and" implies that one will succeed. For example, "I will try and find a solution to this dilemma" can be viewed as you are going to make an attempt at solving the problem, "and find a solution..." While many people may not view it this way in the interest of ambiguity I would say go with "try to". Of course other options like "attempt to" are even better. Just don't "take a crack at it"--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To make my view of the matter even clearer than I have already, and to answer a couple of recent comments, I present these points:

• I do not accuse any person of being presumptuous, but I say that certain behaviour is presumptuous. It is presumptuous to "correct" usage that has been established for centuries in the language, from the pens of great writers. It is presumptuous to think that commentators in all editions of Fowler's, and other major authorities, are wrong and that one's opinion is by natural right more weighty then theirs. It is presumptuous to think that the competence of a huge number of reference works in print is less than ours here. As I have pointed out, we can't even get good policy on the hard space, ellipses, or punctuation for captions. And we can't sort out the formatting of dates and numbers. Why should we think editors here have any better judgement on this matter? If we agree that the matter is subtle, and if we don't seek to legislate, we should let editors have their way and not "correct" them as a reflex reaction. (Tony says: "I always correct it where I come across it.")
• Milton may or may not have been misquoted. I was perfectly aware of different punctuations of the line I cited. I chose to follow the OED's version (in the entry for "and"). Until any of us has cited and named a proper textual version, there is little more to say. Even if we have it recorded, and not some editor's attempt at emendation, the punctuation of Milton's time was vastly different from any modern practice; and it would take further argument to demonstrate any relevance to the present question, anyway.
• I say we should work on what's more important, and not dwell on minor, disputed, and subtle questions of style. It this were the most urgent of our concerns we would be in a happy situation indeed. That is the point of what I have contributed above. Of course style is important, and I myself am constantly making alterations to improve it. But this will always be a matter of individual judgement or negotiated consensus: except in those cases where there is already an established majority opinion among those who have actually looked, analysed, and thought on the matter.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 21:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me make my view clearer. There is nothing wrong, in English grammar, with the phrase a lot in the sense of "many" or "much", and I would hazard a guess that you can find the usage in the works of many great writers, and that Fowler probably had no problem with it (though this is a guess). But the tone is wrong in an encyclopedia article. If I happen across a lot while reading an article, I will most likely change it to something that sounds more formal. (It does depend a bit on the subject matter of the article -- if the article itself is some piece of pop-culture fluff, I'm more likely to leave it alone.)

I would do the same thing with try and, for the same reason. We needn't call it a "correction", if that word strikes you as a presumption. --Trovatore (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Trovatore. I might change try and, myself. Same for a lot and a bit. That is not presumptuous: it is a large part of what editors are there for! But I would weigh each case, and not rush to coin inept rules that intimidate more often than they encourage.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, we're on the same page there. I might go a bit further -- I tend to think the MOS is generally too detailed and too pushy now. --Trovatore (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In the case of try and, could you suggest an example of where this phrasing would be appropriate? I'm not trying to stir things up here, I really would like to know when it would or would not be appropriate to change the text. Noetica, you are right that there are more important things to work out, but it would be nice to get agreement on this small issue, at least I'd feel better :) Franamax (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You want me to try and treat the two differently? OK. I agree with Tony that the sound may be a factor; but I think that's perfectly legitimate. I recently advised an editor at WP:FAC to change this text: "At around the same time, Cage started studying...". I suggested "...Cage began studying...", which is much easier to say. (No -ge st-, etc.) Good prose stands up well when spoken, I say: and nothing is lost by changing started to began. Now, try to say my own first sentence here, but with to instead of and: "You want me to try to treat the two differently?" A bit harder, yes? Why should we not think that Milton chose and for the same reason? Try to say this: "At least to try to teach the erring soul." All those sibilants and dentals!

So sound gives one sort of reason. And then, sometimes a colloquial feel is no bad thing. It depends on the kind of article. But try and convince the pedants of that ! :)

(Another? Yes, why not! One lump, please.)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, best to reword in this case: "You want me to treat the two differently"; I suspect that the "try" thing is unnecessary here. Thanks for the compliments. Tony (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you've raised an important point that's often forgotten. It's the inner sound of the language that determines good prose, not any number of arbitrary and ever-changing rules. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

But Noetica has changed my question! I didn't ask for two things, I asked for one: treat the two forms differently, I don't insist on success, I just ask for the attempt, failure is an option, so I haven't set a "try and" task, I've set a "try to" task.

I do take the speakability point, too many t's in a row leads to spittle, however generally encyclopedias are read, possibly with lips moving, but generally in a deliberate manner, so the inner sound is no more important than the inner meaning. That's why I brought this up, what gives the best meaning?

And looking at the Milton quote again, using the alternate punctuation: "At least to try, to teach the errant soul / Not wilfully misdoing..." - add that 1/4 second pause and maybe I've just out-Milton'ed Milton?

What is the appropriate tone for an encyclopedia? I suppose the lesson I will draw here is that "it depends" Franamax (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Franamax! I only did it that way to set up an example! To answer more directly: you could use try and in all sorts of contexts, and there is usually very little difference between it and try to, as far as meaning is concerned. Since that is so, we can let sound determine the choice in many cases. Especially in articles where a less formal tone is acceptable. You can try to make your own example. Think of an article about a TV show, perhaps. Make a sentence with spittle and twisted lips and try to, and change it to try and. Try and find a way to do that!

As for your having out-Miltoned (no apostrophe) Milton, perhaps the change to to with the comma alters the sense, to something like "to try, [and in so doing] to teach". We'd have to do a deep analysis, using a proper text, to try (in the sense of test) whether Milton actually meant that or simply to try to teach.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 02:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did see the deliberate example(s) and chose to respond by pointing out the dichotomy I see in your chosen phrasing. Perhaps I met your rhetoric with my sophistry? Dunno - I get lost around apostrophes, and, often, use of commas. :) I've always thought of the usage in question as a corruption: "trying to" - "tryna" - "try'n" - "try and"; and of course if that's how it happened, well that is the living language, it is correct by right of its own evolution. I suppose I will continue to change the phrasing but try to be careful in choosing my spots.

Having now looked up the context of the Milton quote, I agree a deeper analysis would be needed, it seems as though the aim is the trying itself since in the event of failure the option is to simply subdue the stubborn. Set up the discussion sub-page as you wish :) I do like that Wikpedia-ready line though: "by winning words to conquer willing hearts".

I'll bow out now with thanks to all thoughts above. I've posed the same question to The Economist, my exemplar of English usage, if I get a response I'll be sure to reappear (who knows, the same argument may be raging through their offices right now). FTR I like full stops after captions and ,,'s for nbsp's is a fantastic idea, put me on the list for notice when you decide to unveil. Thanx all! Franamax (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Very well, Franamax. Thanks for tea. And thanks also for noticing our push to reform markup for the hard space, which needs promoting at every opportunity. (I must go and [sic; not go to] update that page right now.) I look forward to your report from The Economist.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Trovatore and Oni_Ookami_Alfador make good points. In new text, I would use "try to" because I feel it is more encyclopedic. I'm less sure about replacing existing occurrences of "try and". I'd make the change if rewriting the sentence completely for other reasons, or for consistency with use of "try to" elsewhere in the page. As usual, there are exceptions: "I try and [I] succeed" deliberately differs in meaning from "I try to succeed". Certes (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That

I would like to suggest a section be entered into the MoS to encourage the removal of extraneous "that"s. 9 times out of 10, the word "that" simply does not belong. I do not tell you THAT my plans for global domination will occur, I simply tell you they will occur. You do not tell me that I am stupid, you simply tell me I am stupid. That guy over there, however, works. I find sentances flow better without random thats. It's in the vernacular, true, but so is "like" prefacing every announcement of past action or emotion. I was like, totally pissed off! And if "like," is not really appropriate, why should extraneous "that"s? Howa0082 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting opinion, H. It's in the vernacular, you say? In fact, such a that is commonly omitted these days, and the effect is often poor prose. Let's take your first sentence:

I would like to suggest a section be entered into the MoS...

(I'll confine myself to commenting on presence or absence of that. More could be said.)

The reader is left momentarily unsure whether a section is the object of suggest. Of course, it turns out that the object is [that] a section be entered into the MoS... . So what, you say? The reader soon understands. Yes. But the more you burden the reader with such fleeting uncertainties, the harder it is for your message to get across clearly and efficiently.

There are many worse cases than that one! I was just lucky to find it right in front of me. Consider this more serious example:

We expect a Democratic victory, after years of domination by successive Republican presidents and adverse rulings from a partisan Supreme Court, will be impossible unless more citizens take the trouble to vote. And they will not.

You see? Because that is missing, the reader is misled by the beginning of the sentence. Skimming the text would give the wrong impression altogether; and a page break might intervene, making things even worse. Several commentators make this point, and it is an important one. What may seem redundant is often vital, and readers often feel this even if the writer does not.

Because that is a common word with several uses, sometimes it clutters a sentence:

He said that that was the last thing that he wanted.

Of course this can be improved, and it is pedantic to insist on the first and the last that. Far more natural, and at least as easy to grasp:

He said that was the last thing he wanted.

But you can't always trim in that way! Clarity comes first. We should also guard against what I call straining for formality. People do that a lot at Wikipedia. By default, they choose what seems like a more "formal" word: thus (not so), thusly (not thus or so), whilst (not while), on a daily basis (not daily or everyday), and so on. Here's one I can't stand:

He loved the way in which she painted.

This in which is becoming common, but it serves no purpose except to "formalise" and to obstruct the easy flow of the sentence. It's similar to what you object to, Howa; but I would argue that it has no redeeming value.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the fleeting uncertainties which arise from omitting that fall into a group of sentences called garden path sentences. They are examples of syntactic ambiguity, illustrated by "The horse raced past the barn fell" and "The old man the boat". Not all garden path sentences can be disambiguated by including an omitted that (with suitable other small alteration.) The problem is that one may be too bound up with what one has just written to realise an ambiguity exists and so think a that can be safely omitted.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ban every instance of that where it's not absolutely needed? Some people have strange ideas about what constitutes good writing... Strad (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we also ban every instance of a vowel where it's not absolutely needed, as in text-speak? There's a worrying ascetism creeping into the MoS; words that aren't absolutely necessary aren't always bad for you, or more importantly, the reader. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thts a gd pnt. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Not all redundancy is bad. It can often help things flow more smoothly and produce better writing. I don't think we should give the Language Police any more powers by banning thats thought of as being unnecessary.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are anal as hell, aren't you? Please re-read my comment, wherein I never said "ban the use of the word that!" If we've got a section which says not to use contractions, because of Bullshit Aesthetic Reason X, why not one for this, too? Oh, and the example about the Democrats not being able to win because of Bullshit Reason Y? I managed to figure it out in one pass, dude. It's not my fault if you can't. So please turn down your snob dial, folks; 11 is a bit too high for my tastes. Anyway, I'll let you guys sit on your shitpile and not bother to contribute on this page again. Have fun. Howa0082 (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no experience of hell. How anal is it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for taking you seriously, Howa0082. Have a nice wikilife! :)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding any further exchange of insults, suffice it to say that people disagree about under what circumstances one ought or include "that". Lacking consensus, it's best if we don't regulate it here; it's okay if our articles lack consistency in use of "that" as this is a subtle differentiator, unlike the spelling issue. Dcoetzee 00:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Spaces after Punctuation

I just would like to document here that there should probably be two spaces after a period as it is possible for someone to write a converter for the MediaWiki engine that converts string "(punctuation)(space)(space)" to (punctuation) . —Dispenser (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So then document it, please. Most typography books that I have read state that the 2-space rule is a typewriter convention which is not used in typesetting.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to make any such change in MOS, though. Putting long spaces after punctuation is a pain in the proverbial. It is a mercy that HTML ignores repetitions of normal spaces (as opposed to hard spaces, em spaces, and so on). Practice is so variable and inconsistent that we'd be asking for trouble and unmanageable complexity, even if longer spaces were found to be desirable. (Which they won't be, except by a minority of diehard typewriter types.)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Full stop#Spacing after full stop its 1.5 spaces in with proportional type face at least it was. —Dispenser (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Orthography differs by country. I was taught (in England) to leave two spaces after a full stop, and that Americans leave one space after a period, but I've seen plenty of variations from respectable authorities in both regions. I don't know the situation in the rest of the English-speaking world, so I'll just add a gentle reminder that it may need to be considered. At WP, I habitually type two ordinary spaces after a . and am vaguely aware that "the computer" (form posting, HTML renderer or whatever) converts it to a single space. Certes (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Markup for the hard space: update

I am pleased to announce that we have a complete draft proposal for you to inspect, comment on, and modify.

Just go to the working group's development page, read the instructions at the top, and take it from there.

Or click "show" to see a draft, right here:

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Geographic features: not capitalised?

Currently there is a lot of inconsistentcy in the capitalisation of many generic geographic features, like northern (southern, western, eastern) hemisphere, arctic circle, equator, north (south) pole. These are not proper names and so I would conclude from the manual of style that they should not be capitalised. Is that a correct conclusion? Is it ok to decapitalise them? If not, can the rules be amended to create more clarity? −Woodstone (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

They may not be proper names but they are proper nouns, because they represent unique entities. This is a reason to capitalise them. To my mind, lower case does have a welcome modern feel but mixed case seems more encyclopedic. Any clarified rule must make an exception for "real" proper names including those words, such as North Korea. A pedant might also mention the usual grammatical reasons for deploying a capital, such as starting a sentence. Certes (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to section

WP:section link#Redirects with section links says:

A redirect to a page section does not go to the section. However, one can add the section anyway as a clarification, and it will work if the redirect is manually clicked from the redirect page. However, links with a section to a redirect will lead to the section on the redirect's page.

This is no longer correct in Wikipedia and so the text should be changed. See meta:Help:Section#Section linking and redirects.

This is relevant for WP:MOS#Section management which currently says

• Change a heading only after careful consideration, because this will break section links to it from the same and other articles. If changing a heading, try to locate and fix broken links; for example, searching for wikipedia "section management" will probably yield links to the current section.
• When linking to a section, leave an editor's note to remind others that the title is linked. List the names of the linking articles, so that if the title is altered, others can fix the links more easily. For example: ==Evolutionary implications==<!-- This section is linked from [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Daniel Dennett]] --> .

That's tedious. There's even a bot User:Anchor Link Bot doing it. It would be easier to create a redirect to the section and replace all sectionlinks from other articles with links to the redirectpage. Then, if you want to change the sectiontitle, you only need to change one inlink, i.e. the redirectpage. Also, if you refactor the section into anew page, you can just use the redirectpage (moving it to a new name if necessary). For example: ==Evolutionary implications==<!-- This section is linked from redirect [[Evolutionary implications of Foo]] --> . I think the current advice is no longer best practice and should be replaced. And Anchor Link Bot reprogrammed accordingly. jnestorius^(talk) 16:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There have been no comments, so I'm going to be bold and change the page...maybe...soon...jnestorius^(talk) 11:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Research guide

I point out {{Research guide}}, as used in David Baltimore#Research guide, in case there are suggestions about the article or section style. There are article and user interface issues involved in the guide concept. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Please consider replacing the existing External Links section on some pages with the Research Guide. The substitution may actually REDUCE the number of links appearing in many articles. The results are more substantial and they are dynamically updated. The basic research guide template could be copied so the secondary template is modified to fit individual cases when necessary. The following is an example: Template: Research guide Baltimore. I am working on improvements.

Note that the user who deleted my template from the Baltimore article User:SEWilco has this message on their user page: "This user's activities on Wikipedia have been restricted by illegal[1], unreasonable[2], and arbitrary[3] ArbCom restrictions [4] and enforcement[5][6]." Shannon bohle (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Hard-space proposal: invitation to comment

A completed draft

The working group on hard-space markup has completed a detailed proposal. Click "show" to see it:

We took the discussion elsewhere so we could work on the proposal without cluttering this page, and to keep things self-contained. But we now present our work for your comments and assistance, right here at WT:MOS. This is not a call for a vote, or for formal expressions of support or opposition.

Any thoughts on the proposal as it now stands?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of ,, as a substitute for &nbsp; seems odd, and exactly counter to your examples of ''...'' for <i>...</i> and '''...''' for <b>...</b>. The more wiki-like technique would be something like ,,...,, (e.g., ,,17 sq ft,,) to turn all spaces within the markup into hard spaces. RossPatterson (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ross. Yes, it isn't wiki-like if we assume that wiki markup must affect a whole block of text, rather than standing for a single entity. But single insertions of the entity   are what we need most pressingly.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to devote improvement efforts to making the Wikipedia editor show Unicode hard spaces distinctively, and making them easy to insert. This would not only solve the problem of new text, but also allow editors to work effectively with articles that already contain Unicode hard spaces, or to work effectively with passages that are copied from other sources which already contain hard spaces. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The current proposal tends toward that sort of clear visibility, doesn't it? What will ,, mean, if not a hard space? It doesn't mean anything else at present. We never see it! If we didn't already have '', that markup would look just as suspect and counterintuitive. But we recognise it, insert it, and edit it very naturally. I'm interested in your mention of "articles that already contain Unicode hard spaces". Are there many of those, in fact? It's hard to research such a thing. In any case, if ,, were adopted surely bots could be deployed to convert both existing Unicode hard spaces and occurrences of &nbsp;. Soon all hard spaces would be very visible, and all would have the same appearance to editors. Thanks for your comment.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, Mr Patterson's proposal is reminiscent of the nowrap template, the deficiencies of which have already been indicated; the double double-commas idea, though less intrusive, would still present problems, including greater confusion in reading it and more mistakes in applying it correctly. Waltham, The Duke of 10:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That equivalence is hard to understand. After all, there don't appear to be any acknowledged deficiencies of the bold and italic wiki markups after which my suggestion is modeled. If the working group's proposal is to stand on its own, perhaps it should explain why Wikipedia should introduce this new concept of "wiki character entities" before making arguments about which notation to use for it. RossPatterson (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is intended for more Mediawiki projects than just English Wikipedia, here is probably not the best place to discuss it, because there may be issues with the proposed markup in other languages, e.g. ,, may look very similar to „, which is used as an opening quotation mark in some languages.

I think the underscore _, maybe doubled __, would be more intuitive, because it already represents (soft) spaces in links. _foo_ or __foo__ is used in some adhoc inline markups for underlining, though, and sometimes for Tex-like subscripts too (CO_2).

If we did character replacement markup, there would be some others I’d like to see: typographic quotation marks ("foo" → “foo”, for English) and apostrophes (foo's → foo’s), dashes (foo -- bar → foo – bar, foo---bar → foo—bar), ellipses (... → …), arrows (-> =>), Tex-inspired diacritics (f"oo or f\"oo → föo), superscripts (m^^2 → m²), fractions (3/4 → ¾, although also an OpenType feature), mathematical symbols (1deg * 2 N*m >= x → 1° × 2 N·m ≥ x) etc.pp. — Christoph Päper (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Crissov's underscore for hard spaces may be a worthwhile idea; but to push for a large number of shortcuts at once is likely to capsize the whole thing. Hard spaces are our major concern, and I hope that we can keep to the original, specific issue here. Of course it needs to be taken elsewhere, but I think the matter has been raised here to generate constructive comments and much-needed support if this important initiative is to succeed. Let's see if we can succeed in this first addition to MediaWiki's code for a long time; with that experience behind us, more may be possible. Tony (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I also think underscore would be far more intuitive; though it would clash inside math tags, I'm not sure if that would pose real problems. I'm not convinced ,, is as intuitive as ''; and as for ,,,--, : yuck! Also, the date example in the exposition is infelicitous given MOS:DATE#Autoformatting and linking. jnestorius^(talk) 14:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Several of the above comments start discussing the exact form the new markup should have. May I take that as an approval of the principle of adding some markup symbol(s) for hard to enter special symbols? −Woodstone (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's an appropriate argument by extension. There seems to be a significant difference between spaces (hard or otherwise) and everything else. In other words, the English Wikipedia would die if you were forced to type spaces as   (and to read them that way in the editor), but it will probably survive every other character-handling difficulty. RossPatterson (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think each additional symbol needs to be more intuitive to justify the mental cost of learning it. Far more people are familiar with HTML tags than Wiki markup. Replacing <BR> with markup seems pointless at best; it's mostly easier to read concatenated XML tags than long strings of punctuation symbols, and often easier to read character-entities too. In summary, I would quite like to see -- for en, --- for em, and _ for nbsp, but any more complicated markup, or any extra other replacements, seem unnecessary for the default edit mechanism; though clever mappings and substitutions in whatever layer may be useful options for particular users. jnestorius^(talk) 17:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Many valuable observations! Already our request for comment has paid off.

Waltham is right that Ross's ,,...,, is relevantly like (not equivalent to) {{nowrap}}. I don't know if Ross's suggestion is serious or just illustrative; but let's note in passing that it wouldn't work well. Apart from problems of parsing (surmountable), consider an en dash, with hard space before and normal space after:

,, –,, ; or

,, ,,– .

And if the en dash were done another way (see below for --):

,, --,, .

All silly-looking! But then, consider the current options (setting aside direct use of a Unicode hard space):

 — ;

{{nowrap| –}} .

Does any of us like any of those? Under the current proposal:

,,— .

Stands up rather well, does it not? Then there is one possible extension touched on in the proposal, and mentioned above by jnestorius:

,,,--, .

The status of future extensions has been problematic in the proposal. It is important to address wider implications of ,,; but all we need is to show that more could be done, without attempting immediately to do it. Anyway, surely we can see the virtues of ,,— . If there is any option, current or mooted, to which jnestorius does not say yuck, perhaps it should be this last.

The underscore _ might be more intuitive than ,,, but unlike ,, it has too many existing applications, whether these are deprecated or not. Christoph raises other matters: the curly question of ‘’ and “”, for example. Again, we do need to have an eye to the big picture. Despite earlier exchanges in this forum, I am sympathetic to calls for better typographic substitutions. (Not all available ones: preformed … is inferior to ..., I think.) Regrettably, none of that seems achievable. Faced with this reality, we have attempted to solve a single pressing problem.

Ross makes a useful point by considering an extreme case: "if you were forced to type spaces as &#x20;...". Yes, WP can survive anything short of such absurd inconvenience. But that is no reason to refuse reforms.

Finally, jnestorius comments on intuitiveness. So have we all! But in the end, intuitiveness is not an intuitive matter. There is very little intuitive about ''...'' or '''...''', but they work. So might other markup, given a gentle push forward.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Noetica, and should like to add the following:

• Although the underscore is indeed more intuitive than the double-comma, the latter is, nevertheless, much more intuitive than most other symbols, as it is restricted to the base of the line, much like an underscore; there are no dots or lines hovering above the commas.
• True, more people with Internet experience are more familiar with HTML than with Wiki-markup; however, there are infinitely more people without any experience with markup. This ought to be taken seriously into consideration when judging what would be easier for editors to use.
• The resemblance of the double-comma with a „ might indeed pose a minor problem, yet not nearly as great as one may imagine; the distinction in the edit box is quite clear, and if editors use the preview button (which is, of course, always recommended in every editing manual) they will immediately notice the effects of what they have typed; the position of hard spaces is also rather characteristic and quite different from wherever one might expect to find quotation marks. In my opinion, there is no obstacle here.
• Finally, in respect with the date example, I agree that there is an error there (one which had slipped under my radar until now); there is no practice of hard-spacing a day with a month in a date. However, it is still perfectly valid to use a hard space between the first date and the connecting en-dash.

Waltham, The Duke of 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Waltham is right, I think, that the similarity of „ and ,, is a minor concern – compared to the potential for confusion of '' and ", in some contexts of WP work. We have to remind ourselves of the relative frequency of these things. A hard space will be required orders of magnitude more often than „ . In the few articles that use „ an inline note could be supplied at the head, to alert editors if confusion is at all likely.

Minor it may be: but we hadn't noticed it, and it's great to have such a thing pointed out.

[Corrected contribution]– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusion between ,, and „ may be little (here and now), but choosing double comma for the no-break space makes it unavailable for other uses. (Obvious fact, but sometimes worth pointing out.) Such a future use might be entering „, if language-dependent replacement of " would not be implemented, but more ASCII character aliases as envisioned earlier were. — Christoph Päper 09:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Christoph. I agree: obvious facts should be on the table for discussion, so they are not neglected in the rush to address every last subtlety. I too had thought about unavailability, though not for „. Any system of coding, from the profligacy of hieroglyphics to the parsimony of binary, involves decisions so that what is important or common is given an easier representation than what is trivial or uncommon. I can't think of a character that needs reformed representation more urgently than the hard space. I know you are a crusader for other characters! I would be too, as I have said above, if Wikipedia were ready for huge changes. I'll just add this: the hard space supports many of those characters that interest you (and me), so that they sit properly with their adjacent text. Hence the privileged treatment some of us have given to the problem of the hard space. The difficulties with {{nowrap}} (see below) are yet more evidence that the whole thing has been neglected and misunderstood for too long – by developers of wiki markup, browsers, and HTML itself.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 12:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Amendments to the draft, and problems with {{nowrap}}

I have made amendments to the draft, prompted by two considerations:

• Amendment 1. The date example has been disputed. MOS currently says this: "In compound items in which numerical and non-numerical elements are separated by a space, a non-breaking space (or hard space) is recommended to avoid the displacement of those elements at the end of a line." This is, quite properly, very general. On a reasonable reading it applies to dates (which have numerical and non-numerical elements). But since there are further contested guidelines for dates at WP:MOSNUM it seems better to remove that example from the draft. I have substituted "89 sq in – 3 sq ft". Which may look contrived (it is!) and unlikely (not necesarily); but it illustrates the sort of thing that can arise in real editing.
• Amendment 2. I discovered that the behaviour of {{nowrap}} is not as documented at Template:Nowrap; I have therefore added this text to the draft, at Objection 4: "Currently, {{nowrap}} does not behave as specified in its documentation, since a space at the start or end of the enclosed text is rendered in HTML outside of that text, leading to unexpected breaks." This fact is of some interest for the proposal and the discussion here. See my detailed report and request for amendment at discussion for {{nowrap}}.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Technical report: the nowrap template

As I mentioned above, there has been some action at discussion for {{nowrap}}. Woodstone, a key participant in the hard-space working group, has since joined me in exploring the behaviour of the template, and of the HTML code it generates. Here are our findings, and latest developments in documentation of {{nowrap}}:

• x{{nowrap| TEXT }}y generates this HTML code:

x <span style="white-space:nowrap">TEXT</span> y

This is against expectations, since the spaces are forced outside. This anomaly has now been added to the documentation. We are informed by editor Random832 that it cannot be corrected without radical changes to the parser.

• x<span style="white-space:nowrap"> TEXT </span>y is the expected code for the template to generate. But it too would be inadequate, because both Microsoft IE and Mozilla Firefox still allow a break before and after TEXT with this code.
• x<span style="white-space:nowrap">&nbsp;TEXT&nbsp;</span>y also breaks in IE before TEXT, but not after it. This does not occur in Firefox.
• x&nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap"><code>TEXT</span>&nbsp;y, quite remarkably, also breaks before TEXT in IE (but not in Firefox).[Correction: inadvertent <code> tag deleted from the code. See posts below.– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 09:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)]

Conclusion 1

The template {{nowrap}} is irredeemably quirky, and deficient for some purposes.

We might think it doesn't matter if spaces at the start or end of the included text are allowed to break. What are they doing inside in the first place? But there are situations in which we do want them inside. In fact, such a situation arose in the last few days, here at WT:MOS. That's how I made the lucky discovery that prompted my enquiries.

Conclusion 2

The code  , along with markup that inserts it, is superior to {{nowrap}}.

Conclusion 3

The hard-space markup proposal should be supplemented and strengthened with these further facts.

We can do that some time later, perhaps.

Conclusion 4

Deficiencies in this template, and allegedly in the parser, suggest that template solutions to the hard-space problem generally will not work.

This is interesting, because we examined one such solution. It came second in our poll, in fact. Further research would be useful.

Conclusion 5

WP:MOS should alert editors to these deficiencies in {{nowrap}}.

Anticipating agreement on this obvious point, I'll make an addition right now.

Comments?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 09:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pure shock, sir...

...and, thinking of the increased acceptance of the double-comma solution this would bring about... Glee... (Evil grin) Waltham, The Duke of 15:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree that case #1 is "against expectations"; Wikipedia's general template markup documentation makes it very clear that whitespace between and around parameters and their values is ignored. I.e. x<span style="white-space:nowrap"> TEXT </span>y is not the expected output, if you absorb the templating system more fully. This has its minor downside, but it is generally pretty helpful for most cases. For example it, it's what lets us do:

{{WPBiography|
|class=Start
|priority=Low
}}

instead of:

{{WPBiography|class=Start|priority=Low}}.

(The readability/usability importance of this may not be clear until one uses a template with 27 parameters...) The principal downside is that occasionally one wishes that the spaces were interpreted as literals, and the workaround for that is to use  .

Your second, "also breaks in IE before TEXT, but not after it", example: Well, what else is new? IE is just known to be severely broken. More than 300 (X)HTML and CSS bugs have been documented in it, and the ver. 7 "upgrade", while yes there were some security improvements, was mostly cosmetic plus addition of widgets (RSS parser, etc.); if you read the MS developer blogs and various other forums, it is clear that MS made a conscious decision to not f'ing bother fixing the CSS and other parsing bugs in the last long-overdue IE development round, despite it being clear that the most-needed IE fixes were precisely the ones they punted on. We (by which I mean web developers generally, not WPians in particular) cannot keep bending over backwards to account for IE's failures to follow the standards forever (and yes the abiguity of that phrase is intentional). If the result for MOS purposes is that some things will wrap in broken browsers, but will behave properly in standards-compliant browsers, then that's just fine. Inveterate, insistent users of IE are already used to having to mentally compensate for their preferred but weird browser's shortcomings, so this will be nothing new for them.

The third case – "quite remarkably, also breaks before TEXT in IE (but not in Firefox)" – is invalid markup, so who knows what would actually happen were it cleaned up. The tag order in that passage is: begin-template code nowiki span code /span /nowiki /code end-template; there is not only a missing /code, there is a span code /span /code overlap. With XHTML that broken, the results cannot possibly be predictable; different browsers have different failure compensation modes.

Hope that helps. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If I may "reconclude": Your conclusion 1 and 4 are incorrect with regard to there being something broken with the nowrap template or the template parser, and I remain neutral on conclusion 1's second point that the template may simply be deficient for some purposes (since I can't imagine all possible purposes :-) Conclusion 2: I've been saying that all along. Conclusions 3 and 5: Probably so, though I think these findings and the alleged deficiencies need to be seriously re-examined given what I've said so far. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, SMcCandlish. We have needed someone with sufficient knowledge to address template matters. A request at talk for {{nowrap}} was ignored. Some comments and queries for you, though. Your text in italics:

I can't agree that case #1 is "against expectations"; Wikipedia's general template markup documentation makes it very clear that whitespace between and around parameters and their values is ignored. I.e. x<span style="white-space:nowrap"> TEXT </span>y is not the expected output, if you absorb the templating system more fully.

The normal experienced editor's reasonable expectation is that a template will do what its documentation says it will do. This one did not, and that has now been acknowledged and rectified. The documentation for templates and the templating system as a whole is generally poor, and impenetrable to non-geeks. Is this satisfactory, when templates are supposed to be a service to all editors?

[...] The principal downside is that occasionally one wishes that the spaces were interpreted as literals, and the workaround for that is to use  .

Well, yes. And in the present case, which is all about spaces, that should have been accounted for and pointed out. We could ask for greater clarity in the documentation. Question: would it have been possible for {{nowrap}} to use multiple instances of   instead of span tags? If so, could the system be made to pick up a first or a last space and do that with them? After all, it seems to be able to identify them in order to drop them outside the span tags, yes?

Your second, "also breaks in IE before TEXT, but not after it", example: Well, what else is new? IE is just known to be severely broken.

That's certainly true. I wouldn't use IE except to test things. Relevantly for this whole discussion, in IE x – y and x — y will not break after the first  , but will before the second  . And x … y (preformed ellipsis) will not break at all. None of these will break at all in Firefox.

[...] If the result for MOS purposes is that some things will wrap in broken browsers, but will behave properly in standards-compliant browsers, then that's just fine. Inveterate, insistent users of IE are already used to having to mentally compensate for their preferred but weird browser's shortcomings, so this will be nothing new for them.

Perhaps. But we should remember that we write for all browsers, no matter which we use ourselves. Despite IE's serious shortcomings, it does seem to behave better with   (at least breaking after a dash rather than before, as explained) than with {{nowrap}}. We should document this for editors, and take it into account, shouldn't we? To excuse ourselves on the ground that a major browser is a non-compliant "outlaw" seems a bit rash and unrealistic.

The third case "quite remarkably, also breaks before TEXT in IE (but not in Firefox)" – is invalid markup, so who knows what would actually happen were it cleaned up. [...]

So sorry. I input the code wrongly here and at talk for {{nowrap}} (fixed now), with a stray and unmatched CODE tag. The corrected code:

x&nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap">TEXT</span>&nbsp;y

Do you acknowledge that this is valid code that might turn up in attempts to circumvent IE's and WP's deficiencies? This code is what I tested, with the result that I report. And it is generated by:

x {{nowrap|TEXT}} y

So I still think there are more deficiencies in WP's existing options for the hard space than are acknowledged or documented. For the non-expert, it takes an extraordinary amount of time, cunning, and effort to hunt these things down. This just reinforces the need for better analysis in the first place: and better documentation, coding, and understanding of what a sound editing system demands. That is not being delivered – certainly not for the hard space, certainly not for most editors. Hence our attempt at reform. So far we have seen many invaluable comments here; but I have to say: I see nothing compelling against the proposed markup with ,,. They would have to be an improvement over the present arrangements, surely?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 06:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[Amended contribution– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)]

Well, if we can't sort this out here or at Template_talk:Nowrap I might make some enquiries at WP:VPT. It's important for us to sort out just what these templates can and can't do. How is it, I ask, that a template can shift spaces but not convert them (to  , say)? Can anyone help with an answer?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This process of development

The process of working on the hard-space proposal has been unusual. We set up a page in userspace (a subpage of my own userpage: User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP). Our experience, I think, has been positive: we were able to educate ourselves and each other, and keep to a system that appears to have been fruitful. We are not closing that page, but transferring discussion to here for now, before making the proposal even more public in the wider WP community.

Any thoughts, positive or negative, on that process? I think it's independently interesting.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is. Ignoring for the moment the possibility of a multitude of unchartered "working groups" and Wikipedia's mixed opinions on experts or expert groups, I like it. But if you expect the proposal to derive some credibility from the group's status, membership, deliberations, etc., it might have been helpful to start with a set of stated goals. The User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP archives imply that the proposal itself is the goal, but given the numerous alternatives considered, I doubt that was the case at the beginning. As things stand right now, I expect you're going to have to recapitulate the private discussions "in public", so it will be interesting to see how the working group members handle the concomittant frustration. But thanks for giving it a try! RossPatterson (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see my message in the next section (item #1: idea about project page). Waltham, The Duke of 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would have been preferable to conduct the whole process here, with more users, a simpler structure, a lot less text, and a greater level of pro-active presumption with invitations to criticise. In my experience, relatively fast-moving, stratified democracy is the best way to garner expertise and opinion from a wide range of people without losing momentum. It did lose momentum, I'm afraid, and I found the page unnecessarily difficult and time-consuming to negotiate, when all I wanted was to be clearly directed—like a sheep—to the decisions already made, the issues that needed input, and the plans for action. Only early on when we were asked to vote on candidate codes was it easy to see what was going on and to contribute. Even then, it would have been simpler to ask people to list their first, second and third choices in one simple row separated by commas (4, 1, 5) and to sign once than to negotiate the table in the edit-box. Keep it simple and quick is my advice. We still don't know how/where/who further down the line, and it's this lack of a big-picture strategy that put me off. IMV, one-to-one legwork to produce options for where to take the proposal would have made a difference, not open-ended discussion lacking fine-grained goals and interim deadlines.

However, I support the proposal, thank Noetica for taking the initiative, and look forward to progress. Tony (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony. Interesting and useful to have your views concerning our experiment recorded here. I will not give my detailed response, though there is much to challenge in what I have just read. I'll wait for others to give opinions.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 11:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Recording" my views wasn't uppermost in my mind; just responding to your call for feedback. I didn't see it as combative. Tony (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Combative? I didn't see it that way either. You have indeed responded to my call for feedback, and I have thanked you. But in my assessment you raise some questions on which we disagree, and which it is not profitable to pursue right here, right now. Good to have a range of opinions recorded.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the "recording" idiocy, both of you; we are not at Abbey Road here. Focus on the subject, please. Waltham, The Duke of 15:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How to promote the proposal

The working group would appreciate your thoughts on how to move forward with the completed proposal. Certainly your interest and help are important, for a start. We had thought Village Pump (proposals) would be a proper place to present it. But that may not be best. It needs a big vote of support, from editors who have studied it and have come to see the need for this simple change.

Suggestions?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, this proposal is even more embracing than the rollback tool, for it concerns a markup: it is meant to be used by literally everyone, regardless of status, and as a part of the regular editing process. Therefore, I believe that it ought to receive maximum publicity. These are the steps I think we should take:

1. Create a page in the project namespace, thoroughly explaining the proposal and the procedure by means of which it has emerged. The discussion on the proposal and any potential straw polls will take place there. The page shall, of course, be appropriately tagged; it might also have a shortcut.
2. Leave messages in the Village Pump's Technical, Proposals, and Policies sections, referring to said page.
3. Leave messages in the relevant Manual of Style talk pages: here, in dates and numbers, and in mathematics.
4. Leave a note in the Community Portal's bulletin board calling editors to comment on the proposal.
5. Leave a message in the Administrators' Noticeboard similarly calling sysops to comment.
6. Create an entry in Centralized discussion regarding the proposal.
7. Leave messages in the talk pages of all the relevant WikiProjects (ideas including the League of Copyeditors and the Punctuation and Typo projects).
8. Leave messages in whatever other relevant pages' talk pages we can locate.

I do not find it necessary to ask an administrator to create a watchlist note; we could mention it somewhere, but if the proposal does gather momentum, someone will probably do it on their own accord anyway.

Anything I have left out? All this might sound slightly excessive, but, seriously, we are talking about a major change here; we need all the input we can get. Waltham, The Duke of 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps seeking an article in the Signpost would effectively bring it to the attention of a large number of committed editors. Franamax (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. However, it will probably be hard to gain more than a mention in the Signpost; a full article will be written if this becomes a story worth including, which will only happen if and when a lot of activity takes place. See what happened with the rollback debate: after the discussion, the poll, and the reactions, and only then, was the story published. Waltham, The Duke of 15:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, maybe this kind of treatment would be excessive; after all, this is just one of tens of such proposals being made every year (not to say hundreds). However, if we are to discuss it in the Village Pump (instead of creating a separate page in the project namespace), we probably ought to prefer the Technical section, as more relevant. Waltham, The Duke of 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My experience of that is that the entry will soon be covered in a swamp of others, possibly without comment. Tony (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Tony. Being swamped is the problem: just as the developing proposal would have been lost in noise if it had been pursued here, as experience shows for other such efforts.

Waltham, looking at the various pages of Village Pump, I don't think this belongs primarily in the technical area. There are certainly technical implications, but the immediate question is to do with policy: in general, the kinds of markup that WP should embrace, and then the specific suggestion for one change, regardless of the deep technical mechanisms involved.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, Noetica, it could have been managed here, and experience has shown that reforms have been worked through successfully here. I'm not interested in the bickering though, so let's concentrate on moving forward the hard-space reform. Tony (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to see your further opinion recorded, concerning what can and cannot be achieved here (and at WT:MOSNUM, perhaps?). I see no bickering, but sure: let's work on the job in hand.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, do I detect an inability to play nice together? Tony, the best way to show you're not interested in bickering is to not bicker, especially in the immediately preceding sentence. Noetica, if you see no bickering present, best not to introduce your own example. Did either of your most recent posts here get us farther toward implementing double-comma? Just asking. :) Franamax (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they didn't; Interesting to see your rejoinder recorded here, Noetica. What else are we going to record? Tony (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you are aware that every time you click "Save page" the text you entered is recorded in perpetuity? That's how wikis work and it's a correct statement, I hope you're not accusing Noetica of making a correct statement. Are you trying to pick a fight? Maybe this isn't the best place to do so. :) Did that last post help with the double-comma proposal? Let's cool down a bit. :) Franamax (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Or are you being combative now, Franamax? I just object to the continual explicit framing of my contributions as recordings, rather than current engagement in discourse. The mild put-down is not helpful, and nor is your "recording". For example, I could frame your entries as "html code", although even that would not carry same negative connotation as "recording". Understand? Tony (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c I think this is the right spot)Umm, I guess the short answer is: no I don't understand :) I'm certainly not trying to be combative, I was actually trying to defuse a potential off-topic fight I saw developing. Obviously I've failed in that effort, but I don't mind failure, in fact I've honed that skill throughout my life. :) I'll include my recent posts in the question "are we advancing the subject of the thread?", the question applies to all of us, and I'll offer apologies if I've offended you. Franamax (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I say (and said) that it is a Good Thing to put useful and relevant opinions on record. We are all doing that. I asked for that, more or less. Tony, you think it is a put-down to label a contribution as an act of recording? I didn't see it that way. Sorry if you were offended. I simply wanted to record that I disgree with you on some matters, and also that I don't want to engage with you about those, at this stage.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I should like to add that you are all being ridiculous, and amusingly so, too. (chuckles) Seriously, can we go back on-topic, please? I fail to locate the reason for this distasteful digression.

Now, do we, or do we not, agree that this page is suitable enough to serve as the main forum of discussion for the hard space proposal? Please answer this question, and no other. Believe me, it is for the best. Waltham, The Duke of 15:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't find it amusing. I hope that, having insulted each other, Noetica and I can very soon move on and resume our very productive friendship. Tony (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

When is text a quotation and when is it just text?

An RFC at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Style guideline for PD sourced content involves interpretation of whether all pieces of text are a quotation. Some editors claim any public domain text in an article must be in quotation marks, while others distinguish between public domain text being used as text versus what is intended as "a brief excerpt" as a "direct source of … insight" (as Wikipedia:Quotations mentions). This carries implications for existing EB 1911 text and reuse of free material from other projects (Wikipedia and other). Some examination of the situation and the MOS description of a quotation may be helpful. -- SEWilco (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's public domain text being repurposed, e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 text serving as the basis for a WP article, it would not be quoted. If it is a quotation for purposes of the prose at a hand (e.g. "According to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 'foo bar baz' "), then it should be quoted, and whether it is public domain or not is of no relevance. Agree that MOS could be clearer on this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's that simple, besides your agreement that some more clarity in MOS would be helpful. For instance, I've taken issue with SEWilco before, involving the copying of long passages of PD text from a particularly eloquent National Park Service writer. Especially if a text is really well written, shouldn't it be "better" to credit the actual writer for the writing, by using quotation marks to indicate that exact wording is copied (and separating that material from other non-copied, wikipedia-editorship-written material). I don't think it is good policy to leave it to any copier (plagiarist?) to state whether it is his/her intend to repurpose or to quote. Perhaps some limitations should be applied, that for instance the encyclopedic quality, or not, of the source should be considered. DANFS or the 1911 EB may be very well regarded, and very factual, while other PD sources are valuable and factual and unbiased in the view of only a small minority. It is a simple policy, on the other hand to say that it may be "better" to use quotation marks when copying text from a source, PD or otherwise. Anyhow, I agree with SEWilco that your participation over in the other discussion might be helpful. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting support

User Drphilharmonic does a fair bit of text editing on Wikipedia for "logic, grammar, syntax". He recently cleaned up some articles which are on my regular watchlist. In my opinion, some of his work was useful (e.g., removing informal contractions), some of it was unnecessary imposition of his personal preferences (e.g., substituting "in general" for "generally"), and some of it actually introduced punctuation errors into the text (e.g., hyphenating "relatively-few patients") or made inappropriate changes to the meaning (e.g., he changed "treatments are medically necessary" to "medical treatments are necessary," presumably because he doesn't know that medical necessity is a technical issue).

I tried to engage him in a conversation about my concerns on his talk page, but his responses have been insulting and irrelevant. I have asked him to rephrase his rude remarks to address my specific concerns, but I don't really expect to make much progress. Is there are copyediting group that could review his recent changes for me? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There is the WikiProject:League of Copyeditors, who may feel able to help. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew there'd be a group somewhere; I just couldn't find it earlier. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But next time, please consider not raising such personal criticisms in a public place; at least not in this amount of critical detail. Tony (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is this supposed to be used?

I couldn't find on here anywhere where this is supposed to be used. I would guess that it doesn't apply to talk pages, but it does apply to articles, and it probably applies to project pages (policies and guidelines). Will someone please update the manual of style with where it's supposed to be used? Fredsmith2 (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, hold on a moment, dear fellow, catch your breath first! What exactly are you referring to? Waltham, The Duke of 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fredsmith posted to Policy and Guidelines, that some editor(s) told him that this Manual of Style applied to article-space, but not to wiki-space. That is, that it did not apply to the WP: space. When you read the main page here, he is saying it doesn't specifically state to which space it applies. Wjhonson (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I was at a loss for a while too, Waltham. Fred wants to know about the scope of MOS's application. The answer? All articles, certainly. Beyond that, who really knows? Good question.

There are also uncertainties about the status of some pages as components of the MOS. Is Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style in the fold as an offshoot of Wikipedia:Citing_sources, which itself is a component of MOS? (That is the wording at the top of such "official" pages: "This guideline is a part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style.") The question has been asked, and it is now buried somewhere in achives – unanswered.

I have said before that the suite of MOS articles needs rationalising from the top down. I still think so. Another special project for a working group, perhaps.

Wjhonson, please give a link to that other posting.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't apply to user comments or user pages. It certainly applies to templates that are used in articles. Most parts of it seem to apply to portals. Beyond that, I really don't know. Dcoetzee 00:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Noetica trying to make me remember what I did five minutes ago is pure evil. Here's your link. I do agree that this page should state that MOS applies to WP: space as well as article space, template, categories, but not to user pages nor to any talk pages anywhere. Wjhonson (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made the assumption that the MOS applies to WP: space. When I have changed misused hyphens into endashes in essays and in policy pages no one has reverted me. An explicit declaration would please me. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We hope that MOS is worth following in all WP spaces; I think that its function as a guideline officially applies to WP space. I agree with Noetica: an overhaul of the structure is long overdue. But please consider making this page the base for discussion, with links to proposed texts/sandboxes to avoid clutter. Simplicity and time-lines are essential. Tony (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) If a declaration is ever made that the MOS should be followed in places other than the article space, it might be worth pointing out that while other style guides usually include prescriptions on how to format citations, this MOS does not; that is all in a separate Citing sources guideline. The use of anything but in-text citations may be impractical on many non-article pages. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm keener to rationalise the structure of the myriad MOSs and styleguides before making such a declaration. Tony (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, Tony. There is a desperate need for that.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain more fully what you mean by "rationalise the structure of the myriad MOSs and styleguides"Wjhonson (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The relationship between MOS central, its subpages, the style guidelines that aren't officially part of MOS, the policy pages for—say—naming conventions: there are probably too many of them and they need to be coordinated more efficiently. Internal changes on these pages are probably necessary, too. Tony (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the MoS should formally apply to policy or other "Wikipedia:" pages. Informally, yes: it's worthwhile for our internal-use pages to use good writing style. But the purpose of policy pages is vastly different from that of articles, and aside from basics like grammar, spelling, and usage consistency, I'd say little of the MoS has relevance to them.

Yes, there are some policy or other Wikipedia pages that are terribly written. Some are scarred due to edit-warring (the MoS will not fix those); others suffer from neglect. In the latter case, I doubt we need to invoke the MoS: just {{sofixit}}.--Father Goose (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on the applicability of the Manual of Style is this: all pages likely to be viewed by plain readers should follow the MoS because they need to be well-written, clear, and adequately formal. Of course, all non-deleted pages of the English Wikipedia are ultimately viewable (except some Special pages), but I am specifically referring to pages containing information of interest to non-editors. This definition includes the entire main and Portal namespaces, most of the Category namespace (which has little text anyway), and from the project namespace (yes, it has a name) all policies, guidelines, and disclaimers. Oh, and all the templates transcluded into any of the aforementioned types of pages (mostly article message boxes). This is our face to the world, and, as has been said time and again, we put the reader first, and the editor next. It is for the readers' benefit that we have a Manual of Style—in other words, it could be argued that it is part of the encyclopaedia side of Wikipedia, and not so much a part of its community side. Waltham, The Duke of 14:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Style Rationalisation Project

Tony is there a centralized list of all these subpages, style guidelines and policy pages? Perhaps that would be one important place to start, just with that linkfarm and then we can all see the scope of the problem.Wjhonson (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been discussed on this page over the past six months, but the archives now make it so hard to locate material. The nearest you get to lists is on the templates such as the one top-right of MOS. But there are other lists, too. Tony (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hyphen in political family names

I noticed that some political families use a hyphen, although others use an endash. (Ex: Smoot–Rowlett family compared to South-Cockrell-Hargis family. As I understand the manual, they should all be endashes. They should all be moved, correct? Cool Hand Luke 19:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Luke. On the model of Michelson–Morley experiment, these contructions should have en dashes. If they represented real family names (like Bowes-Lyon), they would have hyphens.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds correct to me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, there ought to be redirects from the versions using hyphens, so this ought to be taken care of every time an article is moved to a version using an en-dash. Normally, I should ask you to flag these redirects with the appropriate template, only that I am not quite sure myself which one that would be (either {{R from alternative spelling}} or {{R from ASCII}}). Redirect categorisation is, sadly, still in a foetal state, and the overseeing WikiProject is on the verge of complete abandonment. I actually plan to join it when my exams are over, try and help a little. Waltham, The Duke of 12:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, when an en dash is used in the article name, all of them should contain a sort key with a hyphen (or maybe a space), not an en dash, through the magic word defaultsort or individual sort keys. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why so? Is there a categorisation problem with en-dashes? Waltham, The Duke of 13:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not understanding this. At any rate, I'll move joint family names (as opposed to single hyphenated names) to have en dashes. Cool Hand Luke 04:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary guides

Is there any validity to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (exit lists) being titled and tagged as a part of the Manual of Style? The page appears to be provide project-specific guidance and does not appear to be linked from by the main MOS page or any of its supplements and is not in any MOS categories. Can any project create a page and call it a part of the Manual of Style? Is there some other tag that is more appropriate for such pages? older ≠ wiser 15:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent questions, O≠W. It is indicative of the poor state of the MOS pages that no one has responded to your questions in over two days. One reason: a lot of this is not settled and hardly examined. We don't know. People prefer to look at the trees rather than the forest. What we need is a complete and general reform of Wikipedia's MOS, starting with an examination of structure and process.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I put this question late last year, and no one seemed to have an answer. I think we need to form a priority list for overhauling the structural relationships between and within the MOSes and the styleguides. Towards the top of that list should be the creation of a written-down process for becoming part of MOS. Tony (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Dashes: Parent-instructor example

Under the section on dashes, specifically the part on slashes, there is an example given which states that "parent/instructor" should be rewritten as "parent-instructor", under certain conditions. However, it states that a hyphen should be used, whereas the example text appears actually to have an en dash (not a hyphen). I would correct this myself but am not quite sure which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpavey (talk • contribs) 14:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted, Mpavey. I have changed it to a hyphen, in conformity with MOS. We say: "...a hyphen is used instead in Mon-Khmer languages which lacks a relationship...". The coverage of such cases – joined nouns, whether used adjectivally or as composite nouns – is uneven and indeterminate in major style guides. We do the best we can. By the way, sign at the end of your contribution by typing ~~~~.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Even the MoS itself doesn't comply with the MoS. So what chance does a poor little FAC have? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's right, Malleus. As I have pointed out before, the world is imperfect and variegated. So is Wikipedia, so is MOS. So are all style guides that I am familiar with – and that's all the major ones, and more. But we shouldn't be complacent. I'd like to see a major effort to improve all MOS pages systematically, rather than in the present haphazard way.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You may perhaps have misunderstood me. I am not complacent, and I fully support your efforts to improve the MoS. I was simply echoing the conclusion that any reasonable editor would probably already have come to. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, dear Malleus! I think I did not misunderstand you! And I do not say that you are complacent, but that we shouldn't be. We tend to coast along, dealing with small concerns as they appear in our visual field, and we do not work hard at the big picture. Many are beginning to realise this, now. Something will start happening about it – if we make it happen. It would take a much larger effort than specialised projects like the hard space push, for example. And believe me: it's been extraordinarily difficult to get where we are with that, even.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 02:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Project guidelines

Back in September when we had the discussion that WikiProject guidelines shouldn't be part of WP:WIAFA unless they were part of WP:MOS,[1][2][3] as I recall, the only WikiProjects that had garnered community-wide MOS approval for their Project guidelines were WP:MEDMOS and WP:MILHIST. Both had (or MilHist was going to) subjected their guidelines to community wide approval via posts to multiple projects, Village Pump, etc. In three recent FAC/FARs, I've come up against Project members who believe that Project guidelines trump WP:MOS (see the F-4 FAR, Boeing 747 FAC, although a lot of that dialogue was on my talk page, and now the Transformers (film) FAC, where WP:MOSBOLD isn't being followed.) I see that the film guidelines were added to MOS in September.[4] Where is a the global discussion for the addition of these guidelines to MOS? Was it discussed here? There needs to be some overall guidance on these Project standards before they become part of MOS. Did that happen, for example, for Music and Film? By what process are these Project guidelines getting tagged as part of MOS? WP:MEDMOS was only added after it was posted at Village Pump and over 20 other Projects to gain community wide consensus, for example. Can someone point me to that process for Film? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

More generally, by what process are we determining that any of the recent additions conform to WP:MOS and have achieved broad consensus for addition to the MOS template? I know MilHist and MEDMOS went through the "process" of garnering broad consensus,[5] but what about others and who is watching this template? Examples in addition to Music and Film:[6][7][8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, can we address the general problem of Project guidelines that may be out of step with WP:MOS by adding to MOS a statement outlining the overall hierarchy, and making it clear that MOS trumps when Projects are out of step? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Very pertinent questions, Sandy. They are all part of an even broader question. Using the term WP:MOS most inclusively, how should WP:MOS be structured, with what range of content, with what process in place for maintenance and coordination, endowed with what level of authority over what pages?

Such a broad question should trump all others at this talkpage because it affects how all subordinate questions are dealt with, and what effect the answers to those questions can ultimately have. If no else formally initiates this dauntingly important discussion, I will. When I have time.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 02:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but that's a long-term project which ignores the fact that there's an immediate problem. A proper project to address this problem ought to have both long and short term goals I would suggest. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, I couldn't have said it better. I have two, soon to be three, FAC/FARs that hinge on this issue, and editors insisting that their Project guidelines "count", even when they are out of step with WP:MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. But I for one can't answer your excellent questions, Sandy, and I wanted to explain why I can't. I doubt whether anyone can provide a definitive answer, given the present chaos. Most pointedly: "Where is [the] global discussion for the addition of these guidelines to MOS? Was it discussed here?" That puts the difficulty in a nutshell. As far as I can see, such things are not addressed in any forum that is at all obvious to the searcher. No ready solution presents itself. There is no genuine alternative to tackling the overarching problem.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think that a definitive statement that the MoS trumps any local MoS would be both common sense and hopefully lead to a productive debate on why any project would feel it necessary to come up with a different style guide. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But Malleus, who is to make that statement? How is it to be arrived at? The question spills beyond the boundaries of any particular MOS-talkpage. Are you sure you disagree with me? I would like definitive statements about all sorts of things, too.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who is sufficiently WP:BOLD can make that statement.There are no rules. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, if it's not abundantly clear that WP:MOS, which enjoys wide community input, trumps over every little group of editors who put together some Project guidelines and may or may not run them by the broader community, the problem is bigger than I thought. I thought this was given, straightforward, but somehow never got stated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't envy you in your role as FA director(?), but I do have faith in your common sense. I know that's not much help though. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not director: delegate, proxy, just a helper :-) The problem is that my prose is crappy; can't someone draft an overall statement for discussion? It should be clear to everyone that MOS trumps, but shouldn't we discuss a way to state that here? Noetica or Malleus, both of you would be better at drafting something than I am. No, it won't solve the immediate problem with specific articles, since we need to discuss this addition, but it will get us started. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But it should not "trump". No guideline trumps any other; the strength of amy guideline is the arguments and practices it contains; it has no real power that the arguments and evidence would not separately. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And this is a recipe for chaos. Whatever "real power", "arguments" and "evidence" you're referring to, Anderson, better that they be expressed in a single place, so we all know where we and WP stands. Would you have the fair-use policy and copyright issues expressed in a multitude of different, competing pages? Would you dismantle the five pillars of WP and let them push and pull each other to bits on competing pages? No, of course you wouldn't, so why object to a rational step to centralise discussion/consensus/objection WRT style and formatting where there is disagreement among MOS pages? Tony (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

• I formally propose, as a first and relatively straightforward step, that where there is inconsistency between MOS and its subpages, MOS prevails. This is the only sane way of organising the Manual. If editors at a subpage disagree with a particular MOS guideline, let them come here and argue it out. This proposal concerns attracting discussion onto this very talk page, where things can be debated and both MOS and its subpages managed centrally where the left and right hands say different things. It is a means of encouraging rational interplay between the groups of editors who inhabit MOS and the subpages. And it is a means of clarifying what is what for the hapless nominators and reviewers of FACs, who might well complain at the moment that they find it confusing. We owe it to WPians, especially newbies, to provide proper, coordinated guidance. I suggest that this arrangement be expressed in the lead of MOS. Tony (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be prudent to announce this discussion on the talk pages of the other MOS pages so that their readers are aware of this discussion. Fg2 (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done the active ones for the time being. Tony (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You missed MOSFILM. Do you want me to copy your message over, or will you do it? Steve ^{T • C} 16:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit but the specialism sometimes need to override the generalisms. Rich Farmbrough, 21:41 5 February 2008 (GMT).

And so it should; who suggested that MOS-central wouldn't change where joint consensus among the custodians of both pages was for the wording on the sub-page? See my example below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please support (or oppose), provide brief feedback if you wish, and sign.

• Support—It's a good first step towards rationalising the chaos. Tony (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - agree, there is such a rabbit warren of information there has to be a default option at a particular point in time until changes are nutted out properly (in cases of discrepancy). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support which will become a support should clarification be received. This is a good idea, for the reasons stated by Tony. However, I would like to know if there will be scope in the wording to allow the listing of certain exceptions which individual projects might bring up. A one-size-fits-all approach for different article types is not necessarily the best aid to reader comprehension in some circumstances, and it is that which we should be primarily concerned with. Any such exceptions would of course have to be discussed and approved on this talk page before being implemented on the MOS subpage in question, so overall control would still retained here. Steve ^{T • C} 10:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC) I'd envisaged the new arrangement as two-way—that MOS central might very well change to the wording of a sub-page if it suits everyone. Tony (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support – This is an essential preliminary if we want a properly organised MOS, worthy of respect throughout the WP community. Long overdue. The details will need sorting out, as Steve points out above: longer discussion should often be at a subpage first (like the protracted conversations at WT:MOSNUM about the hard space, and about spacing in long decimal numbers). But all matters affecting the substantial content of MOS should come here in the end for final community discussion and endorsement.– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 10:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Question How does anyone propose to enforce this? Sorry, but if project editors are willing to not adopt the "prescriptions" of a guideline which enjoys "community wide approval" without discussing it here, then adopting a proposal which says "WP:MOS pwns you all!" seems in danger of resembling the act of someone putting on a tinfoil crown and declaring themselves king. Moreover, the wording of the proposal "where there is inconsistency between MOS and its subpages, MOS prevails" appears to go against the very nature of guidelines themselves -- to quote a policy page, "Guidelines are more advisory in nature than policies." Is the advice that WP:MOS offers "Do as we say"? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Sturm (talk • contribs) 11:17, 5 February 2008
  • "Enforce"? I didn't see it as black and white as that, like houses of parliament rejecting each others' bills. More like a centralised place for consensus-generation, which is what HAS to happen anyway to coordinate policy. And FAC people need to know which one prevails, frankly. It's a serious process that is bound to follow these pages, so ... which one? It's only fair to make it transparent and straighforward, isn't it? And BTW, MOS-central editors don't own MOS or any other pages; all editors are welcome to contribute to debate here, yes? Tony (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• To be perfectly honest I assumed this was the accepted practise. Hiding T 13:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Need more examples. Tinfoil hats? MOS discussions are such a guilty pleasure for me, even when I suspect a certain amount of, um, inefficiency. Count me in - Dan Dank55 (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Question: what are we defining "inconsistency" to cover here? Is it only active contradiction (i.e. the MoS says to to X while another page says to not to do X), or passive contradiction (i.e. the MoS says nothing while another page says to do Y, or the MoS says to do X while another page says to do X+Y) as well? In other words, does the omission of some point from the MoS allow other groups to specify such a point, or prohibit it? And, more generally, are more specific guidelines—as appropriate for particular subject areas—to be permitted, or will "the main MoS doesn't require this" be a valid objection to all of them. Kirill 14:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A great question, and personally I plan to go by the sniff test. If moving a discussion to a sub-page feels like "forum-shopping" to me, then I would tend to support the sense of the main page, whether the sense is conveyed by expression or omission. If the information on the sub-page feels like it really needed to be on the sub-page to be argued properly, then I would tend to respect the more nuanced or more detailed answer on the sub-page, although anything that the main page stated explicitly would still govern, at least if the current consensus holds. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Only active; see my reply below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good; I'm fine with the proposal based on that understanding. Kirill 02:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• The proposal may give the impression that you're trying to overrule sub-MoSs by stealth. I can understand the argument that a consensus here should trump a consensus at a sub-MoS, but first of all a discussion between the people here and the people at the sub-MoS should take place. I think it's improper to say that this MoS prevails over a sub-MoS before such a discussion has taken place. For instance, I just saw that WP:MOS and WP:MOSMATH disagree over one point: WP:MOS says you can use we in mathematical articles and WP:MOSMATH says you cannot. Looking at the relevant discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 93#Recent edit to "avoid first-person pronouns" and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Encyclopedic vs conversational tone, it seems to me that the text in WP:MOSMATH has seen wider discussion and should thus prevail over the text here (on this one point) if it's necessary to pick one rule. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support, absolutely essential to tame the chaos and create a central MoS. We have FACs and FARs appearing that contradict MoS because they are following other Project guidelines. Sub-pages must come into compliance with MoS or propose/discuss changes here. Per Kirill's question, only active contradiction (i.e. the MoS says to to X while another page says to not to do X); passive contradiction (i.e. the MoS says nothing while another page says to do Y, or the MoS says to do X while another page says to do X+Y) is no problem, if those additional guidelines have gained broad consensus from outside that individual Project. By the way, wording was added last week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In the case of a discrepancy between a guideline as stated here and how it's described in one of those sub-pages, then the guideline as stated here takes precedence.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose – a blanket rule as is suggested is not a good idea. As far as possible, sub-pages should follow the conventions set out in MoS. However, I believe the purpose of sub-pages is to deal with specific situations not covered by MoS. In such cases, generalia specialibus non derogant (a general provision does not derogate from a special one). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Your response contradicts itself; have you read Kirill's query above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing out Kirill's posting. However, I'm still slightly uncomfortable with the wording "In the case of a discrepancy between a guideline as stated here and how it's described in one of those sub-pages, then the guideline as stated here takes precedence." Let me try and clarify my first comment. What I meant is that editors should, as far as possible, ensure that what is stated on sub-pages is in line with the guidelines set out in MoS. However, isn't it possible that there may be situations where compliance is simply inappropriate (e.g., because of certain regional conventions)? I realize it's a difficult to talk in the abstract, but shouldn't any proposed guideline on the matter take that possibility into account? That having been said, the MoS deals with pretty basic matters and not with issues such as how people's names should be indicated, so perhaps the scenario I've posited may not happen too often. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that providing a means to encourage MOS to speak with one voice is going to alter the status of MOS in relation to the project as a whole—not one jot. It will still be a guideline, with the same caveat in the template at the top. The proposal concerns only the internal relationship between MOS and its sub-pages. It seeks to provide a default mechanism for resolving inconsistencies, rather than allowing them to survive unchecked in a way that is unprofessional and smacks of the sloppiness that gives WP's detractors ammunition. Tony (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I agree with the overall goal, but I'm not sure that this is the best way to get there. I'd support a policy that says "Sub-MoS guidelines should not conflict with MoS; exceptions can be granted through the following process: (add a couple of reasonable steps, like announcing the conflict on the MoS talk page)." I'd also support a policy that says that compliance with a project MoS is strictly optional until it has been accepted by (fill in this blank with a couple of reasonable steps). What I don't like about the current proposal is that it basically says, "When there is a conflict between MoS and a project MoS, even if it involves a technical issue that has never been considered in MoS, please use MoS rules instead of the good sense that the MoS is supposed to promote." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• So, it sounds like you support the proposal, but want clarification on the wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd characterize my concerns as having more to do with the content and application of the proposal than with word choice. I do not support a mindless and absolute preference for one set of rules, especially when we can't predict what conflicts may appear. For example, you will readily agree with me when I say that env is a gene, and Env is the protein it produces. On its face, MoS doesn't approve of following this convention: the name of a gene is not an authorized opportunity for using italics, and it's not clear that Env should be considered a proper noun. I'd be sad to see someone remove the italics from the gene and the capital letter from the protein simply because MoS doesn't accommodate this convention.

Ultimately, where there are conflicts, I think that the specific conflicts should be addressed and resolved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're saying that genes should always be italicized, that is reflected neither at WP:MOS nor at WP:MEDMOS, and you should put up a proposal to get it added to both. Again, no reason for the two to be out of sync. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I give this as an example of something which could be reasonably specified at MEDMOS, and which might reasonably excluded from the main MoS page, and which a non-expert might object to as an "inconsistency." If a non-expert actually tried to turn a statement like "env is translated into Env" into the de-formatted "env is translated into env," under the mistaken impression that the Manual of Style approved of producing unintelligible nonsense, then I will certainly propose a formal approval of this convention at that time.

The possibility that more obscure technical conventions will affected by this rule is the basis of my opposition. I would support the proposal if it said, "where there is inconsistency between MOS and its subpages, MOS can be assumed to prevail until the conflicts have been properly addressed on the MoS talk page." WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So if you discover that inconsistency, you'd probably raise it at both MEDMOS and MOS, suggesting which you think should be changed. Until that time, the MOS wording would prevail. Rather than the ridiculous situation in which the hapless editor doesn't know which to believe, here's inbuilt motivation for all MOS-interested WP's to sort it out promptly. That is the intent. At the moment, there's no such motivation to house-clean regularly, to reconcile, to cross-talk at both pages. The proposal has in mind the fostering of a collaborative culture—a sharing of expertise—among MOS and sub-page editors. It's not an attempted power-grab or coup d'etat. The striking thing about MOS and its plethora of sub-pages at the moment is how litttle the experts talk to each other; this should be of concern to all WPians who yearn for a cohesive project. Tony (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose the proposal if it said "where there is inconsistency between MOS and its subpages, MOS can be assumed to prevail until the conflicts have been properly addressed on the MoS talk page." The MOS and subpages should agree on their face; readers shouldn't have to search through years of talk page archives to see if they actually agree, even though the plain text disagrees. If the details of a certain style issue are too complex to repeat in the MOS, it could contain a statement along the lines of "see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) for rules concerning italics in medicine-related articles." --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Gerry. WhatamIdoing, First, we're extending into unreasonable hypotheticals; as one of the main writers of MEDMOS (along with Colin and a few others), I can assure you that it conforms with MoS and was subjected to broad community consensus before it was added to MoS, and will conform with MoS as long as we're watching it. In fact, it may be the only subpage that was subjected to that consensus, and that is the concern (that other Projects have not). If you want genes italicized, I encourage you to bring it to MoS for broad consensus. There should be no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any indication of genes being italicized in any FA, so this is a good example of why centralization is needed. Do you have a sample? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Strike. This is already part of WP:ITALICS, so I don't know what the discussion was about. MEDMOS doesn't contradict MoS, and MoS covers it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support per Sandy and Krill's discussion. Also, people who declare themselves kings stopped wearing tinfoil crowns years ago. The latest fashion trends dictate that they wear aluminium foil crowns! Unless they're poor, then they just steal the paper ones from Burger King. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 20:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support, but ... As a matter of logic, the main MoS should state the general guidelines for style to be used throughout Wikipedia; sub-pages should elaborate on specific guidelines. Therefore, if this proposal passes, any editor would be justified in deleting or changing any material on a sub-page that contradicts anything in the main MoS. Indeed, in my opinion, logic dictates that this would be so if this proposal had never been made. Still, logic notwithstanding, I have a few practical reservations.
  • The Wikipedians who regularly edit particular a sub-page tend to be individuals with special expertise in the the sub-page's topic. The attention given to a sub-page's topic on that sub-page is generally more focused and thorough than the attention given the same topic on the main MoS page. Therefore, one could argue that, for topics that are treated on a sub-page, the main MoS should summarize the main points of, and should conform to, the sub-page. This would be analogous to an article that has a section about a topic that is treated in its own article, often introduced with {Main} template.
  • Unlike a real (pardon me: I write from the perspective of a former editor of an academic journal) style manual—that is, one that is prescriptive, is systematically revised every several years rather than haphazardly modified every few minutes, and is actually followed by those publications that profess to adopt it—inconsistency among the pages that comprise the Wikipedia MoS is inevitable. Here, a relatively small number number of Wikipedians are extraordinarily active on the MoS pages. Some edits, including significant ones, are made without discussion. Where there is discussion, a so-called consensus on some point may be based on fewer than five non-unanimous expressed opinions. While it would be nice if those who revise some part of the MoS revise other parts that treat the same point, not all Wikipedians are this conscientious. So our MoS understandably, and for the same reasons, mirrors the inconsistency throughout Wikipedia articles, where subsections of several articles will treat a topic that is the subject of its own article, often inconsistently with one another and with the main article.
  • If this proposal were adopted, who would police it? It is unrealistic to believe that adopting a new guideline will affect the behavior of Wikipedians. Could the time that would have to be devoted to maintaining consistency of sub-pages with the main MoS page be invested more productively in improving Wikipedia articles themselves? Indeed, how much time should be devoted to refining the MoS, given that most Wikipedians ignore it when editing articles? Finell (Talk) 20:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • MoS is not ignored at WP:FAC and WP:FAR, and it is enforced on featured articles; clarity is needed in those cases where individual Projects have put guidelines in place, supported by a few editors, which disagree with the main MoS page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Further, for examples of Project guidelines which did gain widespread support from outside their Projects and do conform with the main MoS and do contain specific guidelines which go beyond MoS, see WP:MEDMOS and WP:MILHIST. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that MoS compliance is considered for WP:FAs; that represents a tiny percentage of Wikipedia and Wikipedians. Consideration of WP:GAs pays some attention to the MoS, but less rigorously. Personally I devote a large proportion of my edits to Wikifying and to copy editing. Still, my statement that "most Wikipedians ignore" the MoS is accurate, unfortunately. As for the projects, their enthusiasm for following the MoS, or even knowledge of it, is mixed. Articles within Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture largely ignore the MoS. Math articles largely ignore Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics), especially the section on Writing style in mathematics. Finell (Talk) 00:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I'm slightly concerned that someone may use a strained application of a rule in the main MOS as justfication for making an inappropriate edit to a subpage, when a reasonable reading of the main MOS is that it really does not apply to the situation. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, but this can happen at the moment. Tony (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as above; the force of a guideline consists solely of the cogency and general acceptance of the arguments in it. If MOS is weaker in either aspect (and it is not impossible for it to be weaker in both) it should not prevail; and it cannot make itself prevail merely by saying so. If it can, then any obscure guideline can prevail against it by the same method. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If I can make out the twists and turns in your comment, Anderson, if any part of MOS lacks cogency or general acceptance, it's up to the editors to argue it out, as has always been the case. As I've stated above, the proposal has no effect on the status of MOS a propos the rest of the project, and will make no difference to the push-and-pull gradualist mechanism that characterises all of WP. It is, if you like, a matter of disciplining ourselves, within MOS and its sub-pages, to interact more often and more productively. The default prevalence of the main MOS page is simply more practical than a default that a sub-page should prevail. The expectation is that inconsistency will be short-lived—and certainly not be allowed by the custodians to persist for long periods as now, simply through neglect. We do need to work more as a team on MOS and its sub-pages: it's as simple as that. Tony (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• • This entire violation of our guideline policy is provoked by the silly claim that every jot and tittle of a MOS page should be binding at FA, whether it was intended to be or not, whether it represents more than a couple of cranks or not. The easy way out is to stop saying that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Question: I don't come here often so I am not familiar with MOS main contents, or with its discussion page. It would help me form an opinion if some examples were provided of inconsistencies that are causing concern. It would be particularly helpful if the examples could be discrepancies with WP:MOSNUM, with which I am more familiar. Thunderbird2 (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, the precipitating concern is that MOSFILM has declared that the names of actors and the characters they play should be in bold text in all film-related encyclopedia articles, and everyone who is not part of the film-industry project is horrified to see text formatting rules derived from celebrity column stylebooks, as if Wikipedia were just another promotional opportunity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you WhatamIdoing. I think the main page should contain general principles, with details thrashed out in the sub-pages. Mostly I would expect the details to clarify the principles, in a manner that is consistent with the main page. But I would also expect to find the odd exception, and I think the best place to spell out exceptions should be the sub-page not the main page. Like Rich Farmbrough I find myself agreeing with the principle but questioning the details. It's tempting to sit comfortably on the fence, but on balance I oppose the proposal. Thunderbird2 (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the precipitating concern at all. The current situation is that any Project (say six or eight editors) can put together some Project guidelines that contradict the overall WP:MOS guidelines and consider them part of MOS, without gaining broad community consensus. The proposal is designed to make sure that Projects attempt to conform with MOS, or bring exceptions to the broader community for input. Otherwise we have chaos, as Projects consisting of a small number of editors can contradict the community consensus that MoS enjoys. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just on a point of fact, WhatamIdoing, while some interpretations of the guideline have resulted in difficulties recently, MOSFILM does not actually conflict with the main MOS on bolding. Steve ^{T • C} 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have doubtless been incomplete, but your note at the top of this discussion (immediately above the proposal) specifically names the discrepancy between the rules on using bold-faced text as stated in MoS and in MOSFILM (which, IMO, does not officially exist, precisely because it is low-consensus subversion standard MoS rules) as an example of the kind of problem that needs to be addressed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And, as Steve correctly points out, MOSFILM doesn't contradict MoS. The question is a general one, since everybody and his/her brother can add random guidelines to MoS unless we put something in place to govern the chaos. MEDMOS submitted to at least 20 projects and Village Pump; since then, other Projects have randomly added guidelines, and we have no means of making sure they have attained community consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - whatever practices are widely accepted should be followed, and the guideline which does not reflect the commonly accepted practice should be modified to conform. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If the content of Wikipedia articles as a whole (not just the better ones), rather than the content of the MoS, determines "whatever practices are widely accepted", then the answer is that no practices on which reasonable minds can differ are widely accepted, and there are no guidelines to which the MoS can "conform". If there is any place for prescriptivism on Wikipedia, it is in a style manual. If that degree of prescriptivism is inconsistent with Wikipedia's culture, then at least the MoS should reflect some consensus on best practices to which Wikipedia should aspire. Finell (Talk) 02:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If indeed its impossible to get a widely accepted consensus on this issue, then we won't be able to have rules. It wouldn't hurt the MoS to become 95% shorter. One of the problems with this page is that its content has historically been controlled by people who like making rules for their own sake; unfortunately that spirit is detrimental to the growth and continuing success of Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose in the strongest possible terms. This frankly looks like a power grab by the sort of folks who hang around the MOS. Tony, this is frankly reprehensible. Even if the proposal passes I intend to ignore it entirely, because the people likely to oppose it are, naturally, not likely to be here. --Trovatore (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please work on WP:AGF; this proposal was likely precipitated by me, not Tony, since contradictions in MoS pages have arisen at FAC and FAR. Since consensus isn't determined by "votes", do you have a logical reason to oppose some sort of coordination of sub-pages and the main page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Whoever "precipitated" it, Tony "formally proposed" it. Personally I don't care much about FAC and FAR or the other dens of wikiwonkery, as long as they stay out of the hair of the mathematics articles. But I do say that if mathematicians and non-mathematicians disagree on a style point for the math articles, the mathematicians should be listened to. --Trovatore (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think the proposal should be read as, if the MOS and a subpage disagree, the MOS prevails, but if those knowledgable about the subject matter of the subpage don't like the MOS, they can gather a consensus and either change it, or put in an exception for certain subject matter. If we consider the case of mathematics articles, what about the case of an editor who knows math, but seldom if ever publishes in math journals, so is not familiar with the finer points of math style. This editor takes the trouble to read the MOS, but doesn't notice that a MOS for mathematics exists. As things stand, he might follow the general MOS. If there was coordination, he would find a warning that he ought to go look at the mathematics MOS for certain style rules. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Which they can do by coming to MoS, to make sure both/all are on the same page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, this strategy that Trovatore uses every time is to launch into a personal attack on me and accuse me of power-grabbing every time I'm involved in proposing a change. It really is childish. I could play the same game with him, but I wouldn't bother. Perhaps he says that he intends "to ignore it entirely" because people tend to ignore him entirely. It's perfectly plain why they do. Tony (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Trovatore 100% and strongly oppose this "formal proposal." Policies and ArbCom decisions span all of Wikipedia -if a policy says "do this" we do it, no matter where we're working. Style guidelines are the exact opposite. The MOS tells us wonderful things about how to style articles, but there is no uniform format for Wikipedia - things like section headers are written "Like this" not "Like This." But the MOS is a general guideline - it gets refined and adapted to whatever region of Wikipedia we're talking about. Am I qualified to speak on the MOS? No, not really, I don't contribute to it, I'm not 100% familiar with every aspect of it, but it is not something to be enforced throughout the land of Wikipedia by decree of the MOS-regulars. I assume that is not the intent, but that's what this "formal proposal" amounts to, as far as I'm concerned. I'm extraordinarily surprised that people even use the term "enforce." If the MoS disagrees with another guidline (let's not forget, these are guidelines), it's not a moment for MoS people to flex their muscle and "enforce" anything. In fact, if the project, subject-specific manual, or local consensus disagrees with the MoS about how to deal with issues related to that project/manual/locality, then there's something wrong with the MoS, not the other way around. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm curious at how far off-topic these comments are going, and the reluctance to address the core issue. If three different subpages of MoS or the main page of MoS say three different things, which do our editors follow? And by what process that a small group of editors, say a dozen, turn a page into a Guideline if there is no consensus gleaned via, for example, Village Pump? There are currently subpages of MoS that have never gained community consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• They use their judgment. The MoS has a role to play, but there are those here who want to go too far in supplanting the role of the judgment of individual editors. --Trovatore (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• That doesn't answer the question or address the issue. What stops ten different groups of editors from having ten contradictory guidelines, right hand not aware of the left? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Is that rhetorical? I'll assume it's not and say that they would follow whichever is most specifically applicable to the article in question (with flexibility - something else that this "proposal" seeks to abolish). If that cannot be immediately determined, the issue should be discussed at the artlce's talkpage. I don't understand why this convoluted "formal proposal" was made, but it looks alot to me like declaring absolute power to a guideline. It doesn't make any sense, and it continues to inform alot of people who work in specific fields/projects/whatever on how the MoS is used or will be used by people foreign to those areas. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Manuals of Style are supposed to reduce flexibility, but not to the point that it becomes impossible to express a thought, or to the extent that expressing the thought is much more difficult than if the MOS were ignored. The goal is to make different articles look like each other, so long as doing so does not prevent or impede the expression of thought. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, up to a point. There is a role for the MoS, as I said. But the MoS is already pretty near that point, and may be past it. Further attempts to extend the reach of the central MoS strike me as a shift of power from the experts on content to the process wonks. When this shift is proposed by those very wonks themselves, it is not out of line to point out that they are not disinterested parties. --Trovatore (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Every professional writer will be aware that their work has to conform to the style guide of the publication that their work is to appear in. The purpose is not to "reduce flexibility", but to increase consistency, for the benefit of the readers. Remember them? BTW, you ought not to be "expressing your thoughts" as you put it, you ought to be writing encyclopedia articles, which by definition express the thoughts of others. Think about it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think Malleus Fatuarum is the first one in this thread to use the phrase "expressing your thoughts" [emphasis added]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry Ashton (talk • contribs) 04:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly I wasn't the first, as I was quoting. If you have a point to make about anything that I have said, then I must admit that I am yet to understand it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• My point is that Malleus Fatuarum misquoted me. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as worded. I offer a counter proposal: If editors find a discrepancy between the MOS and one of its subpages they should bring the issue to the talk pages of each to hammer out the differences and build a consensus. I think this addresses the issue at hand without the appearance of "power-grabbing". -- Fropuff (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think Fropuff's idea is pretty good. --Trovatore (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm more interested in examples than in yes/no. Trovatore, can you think of something done in math articles that you wouldn't want to bring up to the entire community of MoS editors, for fear that they will try to overrule and override you? (Hm, I guess if the answer is "yes", you wouldn't want to say. Okay, warn me, at least :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per PMAnderson above. In matters like this, you can lead people, but you cannot drive them before you. Wishing that it were otherwise will not make it so. -- Dominus (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. A manual of style offers guidelines, which must be interpreted applied with common sense. The aim in having a manual of style is to make the encyclopedia easier to read for our users. In specific cases common sense may dictate that not literally following the guidelines serves that aim better. Often, when the more specific guidelines of subpages appear to contradict the guidelines of the main page, the reason will be that in the specific circumstances covered by the the more specific guidelines, the latter do a better job of serving the purpose of readable presentation of the information. Making it mandatory that all such cases be added as a rider to the main page will only result in making that page unreadable, like a legal contract with lots of clauses and small print.  --Lambiam 06:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, the page doesn't change; the subpages are linked in a template, just as they currently are. Do you have other objections? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  If the page does not change, it would (under this proposal) continue to trump the subpage and nothing would change.  --Lambiam 18:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as unnecessary instruction creep. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Unfortunately, the time, energy, and vehemence devoted thus far to this argument exemplifies the third reservation I expressed above in casting my Support, but ... vote. First, it is logically indefensible that the main MoS and a sub-page should contradict. Logic aside, what's a poor, conscientious newbie supposed to do when the MoS taken as a whole contradicts itself? Second, there are sub-pages and there are sub-pages. That is, some sub-pages elaborate guidelines in the main MoS (e.g., date and numbers, links, text fromatting, citing sources); there is no conceivable argument for inconsistency for this type of sub-page, although inconsistencies do arise through inadvertence. Other sub-pages deal with particular types of articles (e.g., biography, math). At the Wikipedia-wide level of generality that the main MoS addresses, logically there should be no contradiction between the main MoS and a topical sub-page. The math sub-page should not promote guidelines for heading capitalization (one of clearest, most widely accepted, and also most violated guidelines) or use of italic that contradicts the main MoS. On the other hand, for stylistic matters that are unique to a specialized topic (e.g., punctuation within mathematical expressions), there is no occasion for inconsistency and the wonks on the main MoS page need not be consulted. Third, it is pointless to try to make order out of the chaos of Wikipedia, because the proponents of chaos are numerous and vocal. Finell (Talk) 07:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Did you read Kirill's post above? I'm sorry this was set up as a "vote" and not a discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Re what is a newbie (or an oldbie for that matter) supposed to do upon seeing an apparent contradiction: what's wrong with talking to someone, rather than trying to find another rule to follow in cases of contradictions? It may not be a contradiction after all, or it may indicate a problem with one of the guidelines that needs fixing, neither of which will be uncovered by blindly following rules. And if it really is a newbie, how do we expect him or her to know about the rule describing which guideline to choose from? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

    • Why not clean it up in the first place? None of us would put up with inconsistencies within an article. We'd all, to a person, scoff at inconsistencies between an in-text statement and a reference cited in support of it. Why do we object to a simple measure for default resolution in our style guide, which will only ever be temporary until the inconsistency is resolved by getting together and talking it through. That is what any self-respecting publication or organisation strives for: mechanisms that encourage self-correction through collaboration, not chaos by neglect. Tony (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

      • If it's a temporary measure I switch my 'oppose' to weak support, but I would like to see a clearly identifiable end-point, so I know when it's safe to dip my toe back in the water. Thunderbird2 (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, but some clarification along those lines is clearly needed.
  1. There should be a distinction between subpages of general applicability (abbreviations, dates and numbers, capitalization, and the like) and subpages of more limited scope (Anime & manga articles, Japan-related articles, Latter Day Saints), with the former as a group generally being controlling over the latter.
  2. More specifically, for those parts of the main MoS page which include a Main article cross-reference, that subpage should be controlling in some sense, but not necessarily as proposed here, over both the MoS main page and the specific-topic subpages, for the scope of that section of the MoS. It would be pretty good to go why what has the "Main article" pages now, but it would be reasonable to review that if a breakdown of these lines is given a more formal recognition as being part of the main MoS, and it would be helpful to include more cross-references on the main MoS page to the other subpages which are not "main articles" on the topic.
  3. I think it would be helpful to have a discussion page devoted specifically to perceived conflicts between the MoS and its subpages. Or maybe conflicts between a "core MoS" group of pages of general applicability vs. the special-topic pages also connected to the MoS.
  4. There are some rules that could maybe be specifically identified in some way as controlling over special-topic guidelines, but not all the details associated with the rules on the MoS page and the examples shown deserve the same treatment.
  5. The ever-changing nature of all these pages are a factor that needs to be taken into consideratino. Not all of the rules presented on the MoS at any one time have been put there due to general support. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. While I sympathise with SandyGeorgia and others that inconsistencies between MoS, its subpages, and WikiProject guidelines cause problems at FAC, this is not the answer. This "first and relatively straightforward step" is nothing of the sort. By declaring that one guideline trumps another, it goes completely against community principles such as Pillar Five and WP:What Wikipedia is not (policy). The solution is to stop taking MoS so seriously: it is just a style guideline, for goodness sake, to be treated with common sense. I'm quite shocked to hear editors speak of "enforcing" it: guidelines are advisory. I'm also surprised by the changes to Template:Style-guideline: we should not be using the word "breach" to describe not following a guideline! Guidelines reflect consensus, they do not determine it: their applicability comes entirely from the consensus they reflect. MoS carries greater weight only to the extent that it reflects greater consensus.

Discussions at FAC should be based on what improves the article and hence the encyclopedia, not on Wikilawyering between different guidelines. If there is a conflict between one MoS guideline and another, the solution is to go back to Wikipedia's policy on improving the encyclopedia: either apply a little common sense, or quite possibly, if two style guidelines conflict, then perhaps it means that the difference doesn't actually matter. Geometry guy 10:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment on "subpages". To refer to the guidelines on Wikipedia with "Manual of Style" in the title as subpages of this page already begs the question. The actual subpages of this page are are all proposals, surveys or redirects. An alternative viewpoint is that the various manual of style guidelines on different issues are the manual of style, and this page is just a summary of some general points. For instance, pages such as WP:MEDMOS and WP:MSM are quite independent guidelines on stylistic issues that arise in medical or mathematics articles. They are not subpages of this page and I see no consensus for the recent edit to {{Style}} to suggest that they are. Geometry guy 12:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, GG. It's good that you have pointed it out: the term subpage has been used in two different senses. That's just a small part of the confusion that arises when things are never given a clear explicit structure, and never clearly and publicly named. That's the very sort of confusion the present proposal begins to address, though a huge amount more would then need to be done. A related ambiguity: as the template at the top of the page has it, the various "subsidiaries" (or what you will) are included as a part of MOS:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

Not a subsidiary at all, but a part. Yet when we refer to MOS we often mean just WP:MOS, and paradoxically the wording in the template does that as well, in a way.

All very mixed up. Reading through the analyses above, I am not convinced that people understand just what a mess we have on our hands. Even if you are entirely laissez-faire about adherence to Wikipedia's Manaual of Style, surely you'd want it to be a coherent, readily identifiable, and hierarchically organised body of text, wouldn't you? It's useless otherwise.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 13:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The mess should be cleaned up. But this cannot be done by fiat. Simply declaring the mess gone will accomplish nothing of value. -- Dominus (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Lightmouse (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm particularly impressed by Geometry Guy's negative, Gerry's affirmative (although perhaps more relevant generally than to math in particular), Trovatore's negative, and David Eppstein's invocation of WP:instruction creep. I have great sympathy (and a little fearfulness) concerning Trovatore's point that he expects bad things to happen when someone comes to the MoS community and says, "Our little community at Wikipedia has always followed the following policy and needs this exception to MoS rules in order to engage and appeal to our readers". So, what's the track record on questions like this? Is he right? I don't think his concern should be dismissed or outvoted; I would appreciate examples, and lots of them.

But on the other hand, what makes Gerry's argument so compelling is that policy questions at Wikipedia work by consensus or don't work at all...we can't solve any problem with Balkanization. We all know that manuals such as the Chicago Manual of Style are already regarded by even professional journalists as being so large that it's not reasonable to expect journalists to know all the material...that's what copyeditors are for, is the consensus. We also all know that (our) MoS and related pages don't have the luxury of being as compact as even the Chicago Manual of Style, because we can't simply say that "this is how it should be done" in a self-satisfied way; we must admit that we live in a world of people with various abilities who follow various usage rules, and we must be as inclusive as possible because we need as many people as possible to help us work on our encyclopedia. Therefore we don't have the luxury of restricting the question to what's best, we must constantly ask what is acceptable, how far tolerance can stretch, what is practical. But, as the kids say, ZOMG: that means that even in the best possible world, MoS and related guidelines would be an order of magnitude larger than a body of knowledge that professional journalists already consider to be an order of magnitude larger than what they can be expected to know. Gerry is pointing out the obvious: if we compound this problem by having subcommunities go their own way without debate or acknowledgement, on the grounds of being pessimistic about ever getting consensus, then we've just added a third order of magnitude to the number of rules that conscientious people would need to read to know what to do read, or worse, to intuit on their own, in order get a good feel for what everyone is doing and why. Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'm also impressed by Noetica's comment just above mine - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. I also want to point to Tony's comments in font=brown above. I really like how Sandy and Tony have defined the goals. What I'm taking from the negative arguments is that they know from experience, or predict, that certain things will go wrong. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, most of the opposition to a coordinated MOS (at least seven that I count so far, maybe more) is coming from the Math Project, who has also in the past sworn off of GA because of differences they had over guidelines and policy. It's unfortunate that one Project (for reasons I'm not aware of) would stall coordination on MOS, where we currently have a situation allowing for multiple, contradictory guidelines. I didn't know Tony1 had planned to put this up for a "vote", and would have preferred we hammer out some wording first, since many people reading this proposal don't appear to understand the proposal and don't appear to have read the discussion. Specifically, pls see Kirill's query early on in this section. I'm not sure how we should handle one Project stalling aims to better coordinate MOS; perhaps the proposal should be withdrawn, wording should be hammered out, and we should approach a broader audience via Village Pump. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of us are opposed to coordinating the MOS with its subpages. I think we can all agree that this is a good and noble goal. We are opposed to the notion that the MOS should automatically trump the subpages. This is just the wrong way to go about things. When discrepancies are found they need to be addressed and resolved. Maybe the subpage is right or maybe the main page is, but this can only be determined by a discussion and a consensus. I think the proposal under discussion has enough opposition to withdraw it for now. -- Fropuff (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree that opposition from one Project constitutes broad opposition, I still feel the proposal was premature in that wording hadn't been hammered out and discussed, and one Project appears to have overreacted and misunderstood the issues. For those reasons, I suggest withdrawing and re-approaching a broader audience when wording is ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I confess to being a bit taken aback by some of these comments from you, Sandy. First, this is not a vote, it is a discussion to determine consensus on a specific proposal (there are no support/oppose sections and arguments are preceded by bullets, not numbers). What counts in such a discussion is weight of argument, not numbers of editors, or where they "come from". This last is rather difficult to define anyway, as most editors work on a variety of different things on Wikipedia. Were you counting me as "coming from the math project" for example? Whether you were or not, your comment that the math project "has... sworn off GA" is incorrect and irrelevant to the present discussion, and borders on being the project equivalent of an ad hominem argument. :-)

Anyway, I guess we can pass over this: I agree with your main substantive assertion that this proposal is poorly worded, and your suggestion to withdraw the current proposal and rework it. If a proposal can be put forward which addresses the perceived problems of inconsistencies without violating basic principles of Wikipedia policy and without referring to one guideline "prevailing" over another, then my arguments against this proposal would immediately become invalid. Geometry guy 19:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY WP:CREEP. Individual manuals of style are tailored for a reason. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• More than anything, this is a question. I can see where the Math project is coming from, but could we have some examples? I'm on the fence on this one, and I could be persuaded either way. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Tito, look at this section and the one right below it. A simple guideline that could be covered at least on four different pages, creating potential for contradiction/confusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I see you fixed the ArticleHistory template, but I'm not sure which section I'm supposed to be looking at... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• grrrr ... darn new laptop/touchpad. Link fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, that example gives me even more pause. You can have four pages that prescribe different treatments to the same text, correct; but that doesn't necessarily mean that the proper way to treat this conundrum is by making the MOS the prevalent page, elevating it to the level of policy. An alternative way is to treat the MOS subpagesmanual pages as the normative recommendations, with WP:MOS being the summary of those recommendations. In a way, that would transform this page into more of a portal or introduction page to the Manual of Style. But even then, the way this proposal is worded is just too ambiguously to accept. So, oppose for now. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with your reasoning. Wording might have been hammered out via discussion before this turned into a "support/oppose vote". The idea is that we need a method for coordinating all these pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I find the proposal a bit CREEPY, and in general I prefer bottom-up over top-down. I think Fropuff's proposal is better. Paul August ☎ 19:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Paul, do you consider it CREEPY that we currently have a system where we could have as many as four pages (in one example given below) covering the same guideline, and perhaps contradicting each other? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes having pages contradict each other is a problem. But it is a problem better solved through discussion and consensus than rules. Paul August ☎ 21:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• So the next question is how we even bring those situations to light if we don't have some sort of central coordination, whatever we label it, however it's handled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• The entire Wiki experiment is based on the virtues of decentralization of power over centralization of power. Paul August ☎ 21:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• OK. Why do you consider consistency in style guidelines a "power" issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have an idea to address the issue. See below. Geometry guy 21:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Consider a "sub-page" of MOS as inheriting (in the sense of OO) from the general to the specific. A general guideline, meant to be broadly applicable, can and should be over-ruled by a specific guideline formulated for a particular area; just like slowing for school zones on a road that generally supports a higher speed limit. Mathematics, for example, has very hoary ancient traditions about typography (such as the restriction to single-letter names for everything, obliging the use of multiple alphabets and typefaces) which can't, and should not, be consistent with more general style guidelines. Of course I don't mean to imply that the current (spaghetti bowl?) system of MOS articles is hierarchically organized, but we want to allow for development in that way. Pete St.John (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Did you read Kirill's post at the top of this proposal? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. What PeterStJohn said. There is no way to write down universal rules that will cover everything that can arise in a work as large as Wikipedia. The only way to structure things reasonably is to have some general guidelines that give good results in most cases, and supplement them with more specific guidelines about cases where unthinking application of the general guidelines lead to bad result. This proposal seeks to forbid such and organization; it says that no matter how necessary and well thought out an exception from a general rule in a particular context may be, the general rule must still take precedence. Under such a system, all special-case exceptions need to be stated at the same time as the general rule; this will make the guidelines impossible to read, impossible to edit, impossible to maintain, and impossible to disucuss. It will be a disaster. –Henning Makholm 22:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Another failure to understand the proposal: in fact, the proposal seeks to coordinate the very structure you describe. Obviously, there is a problem with how the wording has been put forward here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Did some vandal remove a negation in the proposal, or flip words to make it say something else? Right at the moment it reads: "where there is inconsistency between MOS and its subpages, MOS prevails." This says in clear and plain English that subpages cannot define exceptions to general rules in the superpage, because in that case the superpage will still prevail. –Henning Makholm 22:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Which I think is perfectly correct. Someone introduced the OO analogy earlier, not entirely correctly, but to take that one step further it is for the superclass to say what may be overridden by its subclasses, not the other way around. The superclass must always prevail. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is what prevails, not subclasses, superclasses, subpages or whatever. As I pointed out above, MoS does not have subpages. It doesn't have subclasses or superclasses either. Geometry guy 23:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

CONCLUSION: The proposal fails for lack of consensus. Finell (Talk) 23:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• CONCLUSION: The proposal will eventually pass, but many "opposes" appear to be under a misapprehension; clearly this needs more discussion, which should take place here, now. Tony (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Tony: Don't patronize. Finell (Talk) 05:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(Feel free to move this around, this section is already 66K.) Okay, so we're back on. Affirmatives: you never presented your best argument, the order-of-magnitude argument: it's simply impossible for someone who considers WT:MOS to be their "hangout" to simultaneously keep up with all usage guides, but it's not impossible for someone who feels primary connection with a specialized usage guide to keep up with at least WP:MOS, and possibly also WT:MOS. For reasons I gave earlier, this would be a completely unreasonable burden to put on WT:MOS editors, and therefore it's only appropriate to put the primary burden on proponents of the other (I think we've all learned not to say sub :) guides to bring discrepancies to everyone's attention. Negatives, you gave solid general principles, but they generally relied on distrust of the people who hang out at WT:MOS...that is, there was generally implicit the idea that if you did what I just said, and always brought up discrepancies to the WT:MOS guys, bad things would happen, since you know more about your subject area and they wouldn't be willing to admit that or step aside. Well, where is the evidence that that has happened? I don't doubt that you have some, at least looking at it from your side, but your argument would be strengthened considerably by presenting it. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, particularly the current wording. Trying to invest central authority to one arm of the multi-limbed manual of style is both impractical and conflicts with our understanding of what a guideline should be – something to be treated with common sense, and not as a prescription; moreover, it's certainly not clear that WP:MOS would be the natural place in which to invest such authority, were we capable of doing so. While, I understand there are concerns about inconsistencies between different MOS guidelines, and with practices in at least one mentioned project, the way to address this is via discussion, and not by decree. (FWIW, some kind of task force/project to focus on style inconsistencies sounds a more practical solution to me.) --Sturm 11:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. These are supposed to be guidelines, not a legal system where some laws have precedence over others. Consistency is good but can be achieved through normal means. --Itub (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to close discussion

The use of term sub-pages, in retrospect, may have unfortunate. However, everyone understands that the MoS includes all the pages that have been referred to here as sub-pages, so the problem being discussed arises where any page of the MoS contradicts another MoS page (including but not limited to the page named Wikipedia:Manual of Style). And it is a problem, regardless of how one feels about bureaucracy. Further, it is factually incorrect to say that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style page itself is just a summary of the other MoS pages: some matters treated in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style page are not treated elsewhere in the MoS. However, even without adopting a new policy, editors can and should edit MoS pages so that they are consistent with one another, just as inconsistencies elsewhere in Wikipedia can and should be fixed. For example, if something said in Nicolaus Copernicus were to contradict something in Heliocentrism, editors should fix the contradiction when they discover it. Those Wikipedians who find inconsistencies within the MoS pages can and should harmonize them, always with discussion at all the involved pages to achieve consensus on the best solution to the contradiction. Time would be better spent doing that than in continuing the necessarily abstract argument here. Let's please close this discussion or proposal and get back to improving Wikipedia, including its articles and its MoS. Finell (Talk) 18:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to close the discussion, and also agree that "summary" is not an accurate description of this page (I described it as an alternative viewpoint, not an accurate one). I would urge you, however, not to make analogies between guidelines and articles. There's been a whole load of trouble over at WP:LEAD recently, caused partly by one editor insisting that WP:LEAD should be written in accordance with WP:LEAD, despite the fact that WP:LEAD is a guideline for writing articles, and WP:LEAD itself is not an article. In this case, if something said in Nicolaus Copernicus contradicts something in Heliocentrism, then editors can consult reliable sources to resolve the contradiction, and if reliable sources are contradictory, then both articles should discuss the disagreement in accordance with WP:NOR. However, neither WP:RS or WP:NOR apply to guidelines, so the process for resolving disagreement is entirely different. As you say, it is called consensus. Geometry guy 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Was closing the proposal some kind of joke? It was open for two days and active discussion was taking place. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject MoS?

I have been struck (in a good way, I hope) by the following exchange, which I quote from the proposal discussion above.

• Yes having pages contradict each other is a problem. But it is a problem better solved through discussion and consensus than rules. Paul August ☎ 21:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• So the next question is how we even bring those situations to light if we don't have some sort of central coordination, whatever we label it, however it's handled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, what do we normally do when we need to provide a mechanism to coordinate editors of multiple different but related pages? How do we provide central coordination, communication and discussion without centralizing authority?

Answer: we form a WikiProject. So how about WP:WikiProject Manual of Style? Not associated with any individual guideline, and with no more authority than the consensus it reflects, is something like this not the right Wikipedian way to find and discuss inconsistencies between individual MoS guidelines? Geometry guy 21:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Projects are good, in principle. Centralization of discussion is good. Consensus is ideal. However, the MoS is already treated as a project. Each MoS page is a project page, with an associated Talk page. If a new project would help coordinate the MoS pages and would be a means to consensus, fine. If, as I suspect, it would become another sandbox for the denizens of the MoS pages to have another place to argue at each other, then a new project is a bad idea. As I proposed above, further argument (that is all it is) is getting nowhere. We don't need another guideline and we don't need another project. What we need to do is go out and fix whatever inconsistencies exist among the MoS pages, resolve specific differences of opinion by consensus, and PLEASE STOP THIS USELESS ARGUMENT ABOUT ABSTRACT PHILOSOPHY NOW! [Notes to other editors: (1) Talk page posts need not conform to MoS text formatting conventions. (2) Yes, I am shouting.] I intend to refrain from further discussion of this topic. The proposal for a new guideline obviously fails for lack of consensus and should be closed. End of discussion, PLEASE! Finell (Talk) 23:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

NO! IF WE HAVE NO PHILOSOPHY, WE DON'T KNOW WHY WE ARE WRITING A MOS. DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE NO REASON TO EXIST ARE ALMOST ALWAYS CRAP! --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm both sorry and surprised to the see the hard feelings. I left a nice message of support on Tony's page, and got this in return:

I don't know what to make of your strong expression of support when I see a similar posting on the talk page of this Geometry person, who has just tried to sabotage the whole process. Very strange behaviour on your part. Tony (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So...once again, from the top. I was not aware that there were two "camps", because no one told me (and I still don't have convincing evidence that that's true. Not all of the negatives came from mathematicians...I had reservations, for instance...and all the negative comments seemed, and seem, perfectly sensible, even if the lack of examples was unhelpful). I pointed out Tony's 3 comments in brown...how could anyone not support those? I pointed out Geometry Guy's two comments, no one disagreed, they added important relevant facts to the discussion, why should I not support that? And sure enough, GGuy has continued to think hard and carefully about the problem, and said that my support and input was helpful. Now, exactly what sin was it I committed? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Actually...let me rephrase, that sounds like I'm lobbying for support, and I really don't care. What I would like is for you guys to acknowledge that this problem is really very hard, that was the entire point of my argument...as in, the amount you have to know in order to feel really comfortable with all the issues that would form the "facts" (if this were a trial, which it's starting to sound like) is 3 orders of magnitude higher than journalists are generally willing to put up with. Isn't it possible that people are simply not understanding each other, rather than trying to blow each other up? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sensible remarks again. I'm also somewhat taken aback by the heatedness of the discussion. This is another reason why I think a WikiProject might work better: WikiProject talk pages tend to encourage a more constructive spirit of discussion than guideline talk pages (again, recent experience at WP:LEAD). I don't see two camps here, more a spectrum of opinion, ranging from supporters of the proposal as is through to some downright distrustful opposition. In between there are a great number of editors who do not support the proposal exactly as written, but agree that there is a problem here that needs to be addressed.

No one seems to have addressed my comments or similar comments about the nature of guidelines; that may be because they are so firmly grounded in community policy and principles that there is little one can say in response. I'm sad when ad hominem arguments individuals and projects fill the void when arguments of substance remain unaddressed.

The proposal above would not have to be modified a great deal to line up better with community policy. On the other hand there may be better alternatives, and a WikiProject is one which has merit, I believe. Geometry guy 09:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Manual of Style title

I was just wondering what the rationale behind the capitalisation of the word Style. I'm writing a manual of style for my wiki and was thinking it contradicted the guidelines to use a capital S, where a capital should only be used on the first letter of the first word unless a word is a proper noun. Could some one explain please? --Leirith (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's intended to be a proper noun, I think; the idea is that it's a work entitled the "Manual of Style", rather than just a manual of style. Kirill 02:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly so, Kirill.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Energy Solutions arena...

I have a question: On the EnergySolutions Arena page, we have a bit of a disagreement, and so I thought I'd ask for a consensus. Until a few days ago, the first three words read "The EnergySolutions Arena ..." but now it has been changed to read "The EnergySolutions Arena ..." and I'm not sure that's correct. If you go to energysolutions.com, it is written as EnergySolutions only, so I reverted it to EnergySolutions Arena, but it was quickly changed back and given the justification of

"Thanks, but no thanks. Energysolutions.com is entitled to have its a style. Wikipedia has its own, at WP:MOS, and this is no exception."

So, I took a look at WP:MOS and couldn't find anything relevant, so I'd love some opinions. Thanks, Darkage7 (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything either, but we should go with what reliable sources use—not necessarily what the source itself uses. No newspaper report I can find retains the italics. Therefore, we shouldn't either. If sources did adopt their typography, I would feel differently, but they don't. Cool Hand Luke 06:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Most relevant guidelines:

• WP:MOS (trademarks): "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. This practice helps ensure consistency in language and avoids drawing undue attention to some subjects rather than others."
• WP:MOS (text formatting): explains when boldface and italics are to be used on Wikipedia.
• Style used by most other publications that follow guidelines like the AP Stylebook don't do this either. It's almost unheard of. It's quite understandable how EnergySolutions, or any other company, might do this on their own web sits. It's also true that publications commonly include decorative diacritics (such as Häagen-Dazs or Stüssy), but if Wikipedia is to consider formatting such as italics as part of a proper name, where do we draw the line? Should we duplicate the coloring, fonts, and character spacing as well? That's probably another good reason nobody else does it either. Reswobslc (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, then we might wind up with articles named I ♥ Huckabees. Oh wait...

Our policy favoring English is very weak for a variety of reasons. We have a lot of users committed to diacriticals. We include diacriticals when virtually no English source does (say, Slobodan Milošević). Nonetheless, I view these as failures of our process—the same committed users repeatedly vote in favor of diacriticals and other dubious "official names." In all of these cases, I think it would be much better if we deferred to reliable sources.

Reliable sources don't italicize, so neither should we. Cool Hand Luke 11:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces in citations

Discussion at MOSDATE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Columns: New template?

I've created the template {{columns-list}}, which is based off of {{reflist}}. I think that it's simpler to use than {{col-begin}}, {{col-2}}, {{col-end}}. Additionally, if new items are added to the list on either side, {{columns-list}} will automatically adjust, while the {{col-begin}} series will have an imbalance unless it is manually fixed. Any comments or objections before I start migrating {{col-begin}} to {{columns-list}} with AWB? (Please suggest any improvements you may think of.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The auto-adjustment isn't necessarily a good idea; sometimes (for example, when the columns include blocks that shouldn't be split) the uneven columns are actually the desired layout. The new template is a neat idea, as an additional layout option; but I strongly object to forcing its use in place of the existing ones. Kirill 02:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a somewhat more obvious practical issue: it simply doesn't work on IE, since the multicolumn div CSS isn't supported there. {{col-begin}} et al. work fine there, since they're actually implemented as a table rather than a true multi-column div. Kirill 02:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there an IE-compatible way to way to automatically align columns? (I'm not trying to replace all uses, but in most cases you would want the columns to match up.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of boldface in film articles (copied from MOSBOLD)

There has been long-standing agreement over at the manual of style for film articles for the inclusion of boldface in cast lists which are written as prose. When written as prose, these lists are far easier to supplement with real world cast and character information, and it is the recommended method when such information is available. Using boldface on the actor and character names can be a genuine aid to reader comprehension when entries span more than a couple of lines at normal resolution; where boldface is not used, the names of the actors and their characters are not immediately apparent when quickly scanning the section for such information.

Examples of articles which use boldface like this include Sunshine (2007 film)#Characters and State of Play (film)#Casting, amongst many others.

However, some editors have recently pointed out (quite rightly) a potential conflict between the guidance given at the manual of style for films and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Boldface. As SandyGeorgia points out above, there are issues at stake as to which MOS guideline trumps which, and so I'm bringing this out of the local MOSFILM guideline (which I see may not have been subject to the wider community consensus) in order to find out what you all think. At the latter MOS I reference, three examples are given on the permitted use of boldface. I would like to propose the addition of a further entry which permits the use of boldface in some lists (such as film article cast lists) in certain circumstances only, worded something along the lines of:

• Film article cast lists which are written as prose, only where the use of boldface would be an aid to reader comprehension. e.g. Sunshine (2007 film)

Or, y'know, something a little less clumsy. Your thoughts and guidance on this are very much appreciated. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 09:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Have you seen how ugly it is? Look HERE. Tony (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose that addition, as it disagrees with current WP:MOSBOLD guidelines, is ugly, and impedes readability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Transformers one is formatted quite differently to what the current MOSFILM guideline recommends, in fact. It was a stylistic choice on the part of the primary contributor to the article in order to surmount the unusual problem of a film which features human characters, speaking non-human characters, and non-speaking non-human characters. I thought it was a novel solution, and a decent idea, but I realise that not everyone agrees with that, and I have recommended to the editor in question that if resistance persists on the issue, he should amend the article accordingly in order to bring it back to what the current MOSFILM guideline recommends. In short, the Transformers matter at present has little relevance to the issue I'm bringing up here. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 10:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You've posted this in two places, splitting up the discussion. Since this page has more responses, I'll reply here.

There has been long-standing agreement over at the manual of style for film articles for the inclusion of boldface in cast lists which are written as prose. That doesn't seem to be in line with the way I read the FILM guidelines. Both the film guidelines and WP:MOSBOLD make it clear that bolding is use in definitional lists, as in David E. Kelley. Bolding is used in lists, not in prose, and when it is used in prose—such as currently at Transformers (film)—it's unsightly use of fonts that impedes readability. FA must comply with WP:MOS; MoS calls for boldface in lists, not prose.

The Film guidelines have a bigger problem; someone added them to the MOS back in September, but they don't appear to have ever been subjected to community wide consensus (via posts here, at Village pump, at FAC, at other Projects, for example) as WP:MEDMOS and WP:MILHIST guidelines were. By what process were those guidelines made part of MOS? Do you have the history on that, because they don't appear to have been subject to broad (outside the Project) scrutiny. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have no history on that as, IIRC, I was not fully active in that area in September. As for the issue at hand, the Transformers example, as I have said, is not a typical one and should probably not be cited here. The issue of MOSFILM's compliance/acceptance, etc. is also one I'd like to leave to one side for the time being, which is why I've brought the bolding issue here to gauge the wider community thinking. The the manual of style for films does indeed give an explicit example of the type of thing I'm looking to add:

"Robert Russell as John Stearne: Playing Hopkins’s thuggish assistant, Russell certainly looked the part. However, as filming progressed, Reeves found the actor’s high pitched voice unsuitable for such a rough character, and after production was completed he had all of his dialogue dubbed by another actor, Jack Lynn (who also appeared in a small role as an innkeeper)."

Which could be classed as a list of prose entries once the other cast members are added. I'm not disputing that this might conflict with MOSBOLD; what I'm looking for is to gauge opinion on a potential amendment to MOSBOLD to permit such use. Your objection seems to be directed at the non-standard use of bolding in the Transformers article; can you clarify and tell me whether a similar objection would apply to the use of boldface as I have presented above? Steve ^{T • C} 12:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition: in fact, upon closer inspection I note the definitional list example at David E. Kelley isn't actually that different from this usage. A properly-bulleted and bolded cast list which contains prose does not in fact contravene the example. I appear to have wasted everyone's time here, for which I apologise. Steve ^{T • C} 12:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Steve, I was in a hurry this morning to get to an app't. Yes, the example you've given above (Robert Russell) looks fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I was worried about the potential conflict for a minute there, and having to go through dozens of film articles to remove such usage. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 16:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetization

Wikipedia really ought to have some sort of guidelines for alphabetization/collation. Which comes first, "Silver Spring" or "Silverdale"? (I'd say "Silver Spring"). How about "Sap" vs. "St. Joseph" (I'd go with St. Joseph). "Mainland" vs. "McAllen" (I'd go with McAllen). Even if my preferences aren't followed, this is exactly the kind of thing the Manuel of Style needs to set an arbitrary rule for. john k (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that with "St.", there's really only one decent way to do it, since it's pretty much never the case that something is always written "St." and never "Saint". Alphabetization shouldn't depend on whether one has decided to use an abbreviation or not. john k (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Does nobody care? This is exactly the kind of thing a manual of style needs to deal with. john k (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I care, John. I think it's a good idea (and I agree with your ordering on all three examples). The solution needs to handle all characters likely to be used in English WP lists, including those in foreign place names. It's not obvious whether Viðey comes before or after Vígľaš. ASCII and Unicode numbers may help, but they aren't a complete solution because both place ñ after o, and a after Z. I think we can restrict ourselves to A-Z (with accents) and "foreign" letters commonly mixed with them like å and þ, ignoring alphabets like Greek that most editors would transliterate. Certes (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A big issue is German umlauts. ä,ö, and ü can be written in English as "ae," "oe," and "ue," and I've sometimes seen them alphabetized that way, but that's pretty counterintuitive, and doesn't seem to be universally done. "å," as I understand it, can be written as "aa" - again, the alphabetization is confusing. For accents used in Spanish, Portuguese, and French, so far as I know, alphabetization is not effected by accents marks. This is all complicated stuff. I do think, though, that we should try to immediately resolve the other issues mentioned - "St.", "Mc," and the one word/two word issue, since all of those are independent of the foreign characters issue. And we should certainly ignore Greek and Cyrillic. john k (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of reading material for us both (and anyone else we can interest) in Collation and the documents reached from there such as [Unicode collation algorithm]. Certes (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm heavily involved in maintaining a number of long aviation-related lists here, and think that some kind of Wikipedia-wide standard for this is long overdue. I've long believed that there must be an ISO or some other standard out there that we could adopt, but I've been unable to locate one. So summarising the above; the issues we could consider include (in no particular order):

1. Spaces (ignore or not?)
2. Accents on basic latin characters - á, è, î, ö, ç, š, ñ, ł, å, ø (ignore or alphabetise separately?)
3. Ligatures - œ, æ (treat as spelled-out elements, or alphabetise separately?)
4. Abbreviations like "St" and "Mc"
5. Extended latin characters - ß, ð, þ (alphabetise as transliterations, or alphabetise separately?)
6. Non-latin characters (Beyond the purview of this discussion?)

Any others? --Rlandmann (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mac as a separated prefix (Mac Donald vs MacDonald see Heather Mac Donald); O'Surname. Hyphenated words (is hyphen treated as space, or a special character filing separately from space, or as a null so the hyphenated words file as one). Does Macdonald file differently from MacDonald (ie does capitalisation affect sorting)? Presumably all these will need a "Defsort".There must be more. Then there are things like "ll" in spanish which alphabetises differently in Spanish... but this is English Wikipedia, so perhaps we stick to English sorting order. PamD (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who shelved library books in college, I found that most patrons got that St. would be found in the S-a-i's because St. stood for Saint, but they were surprised that Mc's were found in the M-a-c's...even though that was the correct bibliographic order, most people didn't think that Mc "stood" for Mac. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

For US editors there's the Chicago Manual of Style but that's free from neither payment nor copyright. The nearest thing I can find to an ISO standard is the Unicode collation algorithm I mentioned above, but of course that doesn't cover St or Mc. For what it's worth, my personal opinions are:

1. Exclude spaces, in other words alphabetize letter-by-letter rather than word-by-word: Newton before New York.
2. Treat accents on basic latin characters as "tie breakers": place schön immediately after schon.
3. Treat ligatures as spelled-out elements: sort œ as if it were oe.
4. Treat St as if it were Saint and Mc as if it were Mac: I'd look for it there, but then I live in Scotland.
5. Put extended latin characters where they would go in their national alphabets: sort ß as if it were ss; ð between d and e; þ between z and æ. This may cause rare inconsistencies where languages disagree on the ordering of homoglyphs like ö.
6. Treat non-latin characters like extended latin characters: what's the difference?

I think Spanish changed in 1984 to alphabetize LL between LK and LM (and CH between CG and CI), matching its treatment of RR. LL and CH in Welsh may still be an issue but I think we can get away with the same rule.

My suggestions for 1-4 are arbitrary but they make it easier for a reader to find an item in a list if the relevant space, accent, ligature or abbreviation is optional, or the reader is unsure of the exact spelling. (I was originally in favour of including spaces but changed my mind for this reason.)

In case anyone else was confused, I think Defsort is described in Template:DEFAULTSORT. Certes (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be cryptic - DEFAULTSORT is central to this discussion, as it determines how things file in Category listings (and perhaps elsewhere?) (and "defsort" is my own edit-summary abbreviation for it!). See Category:Water industry, unless anyone has since added a DEFAULTSORT for Águas de Portugal, which currently files after "Z"! If we wanted it to sort ignoring the accent, we could add {{DEFAULTSORT:Aguas de Portugal}}. PamD (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Certes on several points; since Certes and PamD agree in numbering, mine here should match those.

1. This is a key issue. Spaces cannot be "ignored" when it comes to category sorting; all characters are sorted, whether it is based on the article name, DEFAULTSORT magic word (including in some cases its hidden inclusion as part of a template, other sort keys added by a template to categories which might not appear in category listings, or by piping on an individual category listing. This fact is even used to some advantage to get some articles at the top of a category listing by using a space as the first sort character, and if we are to ignore spaces that usage needs to be considered and addressed.
   • This has to do with word breaks, sorting by whole words first or all the letters run together. Should "port wine" come between "port" and "Portland", or should it be after Portland? It would be possible to treat independent words differently situations where it is closely associated, almost like a prefix or suffix to, another word. But then consider the following, assuming that as North Americans who would normally appear under L in a telephone directory or other listing, they should so appear in Wikipedia. How would you sort the following: David LaFleur, Guy Lafleur, Bronson La Follette, Greg LaFleur, Richard A. la Vay, Eriq La Salle.
   • A convention has developed in people's names that they are separated into pseudo-fields by a comma+space combination. Both need to appear, even if the order isn't changed from the order in the article's name. For example, Park Chu-Young should be sorted as either "Park, Chu-Young" or "Park, Chu Young" (depending on the separate issue of how hyphens are treated). That "pseudo-field" divider should not be ignored. Maybe it would be best, however, to ignore any spaces before that divider, and to ignore any spaces or hyphens after that divider. I'd like something along those lines
2. Ignore the accents (strip them from sort keys in category sorting) and treat them indiscriminately with the English letters. Disagree with Certes on this one; some languages might sort ö between o and p, but English does not (German usually doesn't either, in the case of the schön example; German sorts ö with o. But other languages, IIRC, do sort ö between o and p, and others such as Swedish sort ö after z. That's one good reason why English Wikipedia should never follow any other languages sorting rules for anything. Readers of our English Wikpedia should not have to learn the sorting rules of 500 other languages to be able to find something in our lists and categories, and then on top of know what languages sorting rules might be followed for whatever they are looking for.)
3. Treat œ as oe, æ as ae, anything else as a single letter. If I were dealing only with Norwegian and English, I'd sort å as "aa", and if I were dealing only with German and English, I might sort ö as "oe", but when we are dealing with hundreds of languages the only reasonable choice is to sort as the base letter, what readers can see when looking at it, alone. We shouldn't have to know if a word or a name is German or Swedish or whatever to know where to find it sorted in a list.
4. I like treating "St." (or British "St") as spelled-out "Saint". But what if it is the abbreviation for a non-English spelling? What about "Ste." and "SS." for Sainte and Saints? What about hyphens following the "St." ? What should come first, St.-Charles, Ontario or St. Charles, Kentucky? It is also possible to treat "Mac" and "Mc" as either the same or different, but what about the capitalization or noncapitalization of the next letter. Should Macdonald be sorted differently from MacDonald?
5. Disagree strongly with Certes on this one. First of all, it is unclear what exactly is presumed to fit in this class rather than number 2 above, but let's just consider the ones pointed to by Certes as being inclusive (though I'd say ð in particular should be in 2 above). Furthermore, note that many characters are used in several different languages, and the sorting order is not the same in all of them. But that's irrelevant; we aren't using some other language, we are using English. Either ß as "ss", ð as d, þ as "th", else those characters need to be banned from article names and from lists. If they aren't sortable in the English alphabet, they should not be used in English Wikipedia; its as simple as that. We only have 26 letters to sort on in English. That's what normally appears now in Category TOC navigation bars, and that is the way it should always remain.
6. Agree with PamD, beyond the scope. We shouldn't have lists with only non-latin characters in any case, and as far as article names go they should never appear on English Wikipedia except as redirects or possible articles about individual characters.

Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, DEFAULTSORT isn't a template, except that the template was created to provide an explanation for those who think it is. It is actually something called a "magic word" in Wikijargon, described under Help:magic words.

Some of this is, and should be, dealt with under Wikipedia:Categorization and subpages such as Wikipedia:Categorization of people. Look in particular at the quarter of a million entries in Category:Living people and see how the general sorting is done there. Not always consistent, but much more so than in a lot of other categories.

Lists and infoboxes are often sorted manually by editors. But in many ways the situation is different for category sorting. There, every character gets sorted. The first default is the article's name. The rules being discussed here might have to be explained differently in the two cases.

There is more, of course.

1. Uppercase vs. lowercase. I'd say that in most cases, our sorting should be case-independent. But that is hard to achieve, especially in the case of the category sorting and the existing sort keys for that purpose. Note that due in large part to initial capitalization being turned on in Wikipedia, and thus all article names starting with an uppercase letter, we almost always sort the first letter as uppercase.
2. Hyphens. Consider in particular the French penchant for inserting a hyphen between two given names. Should an American "Jean Claude Whatever" be sorted differently from a French "Jean-Claude Whatever"?
3. Other punctuation. Sure, most people wouldn't even think of including it when Strip out most every other punctuation mark. This is especially important in the case of category sorting with quotation marks or question marks and the like in the title, including of course the inverted question marks and inverted explanation points in some titles of Spanish-language works.
   • En dashes and em dashes are another special problem, especially with some people pushing to change many hyphens to dashes. These should normally be treated the same as a space, or at a hyphen depending on how hyphens should be treated. Note that in the rudimentary Unicode-number sorting we have for categories, those dashes come in a much diffreent place than the hyphens which are, like spaces, before any numbers and letters.
   • Special consideration needs to be given to the use of an initial space or initial asterisk in category sorting, as a method to get the article listed at the top of a category listing, above the alphabetical (or alphanumeric) indexing. This can also be, but often is not, followed by additional characters to sort the ones listed at the top. It isn't any special software trick; it is just that every character in the sort key gets sorted, including spaces. This is often done for the main article or a couple of related ones about the subject of the classification to separate it from the individuals listed therein. For example, you might have the article List of French architects at the top of Category:French architects, separating it from the listings of individual people who fit the category.
     

There are still more things to be added to this list. Gene Nygaard (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC) More:

• Case-sensitivity and acronyms. Note that an all-uppercase acronym as a sort key will put it before anything else where the second letter is a lowercase letter. SQL is listed before Sather in Category:Programming languages, whether it should be or not. Note that this sorting is also done, at least sometimes intentionally, in other places. Most American telephone books list businesses whose names are acronyms at the top of each letters listing, above those names of businesses or people whose second letter is lowercase. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Caveat

Maybe I mis-remember but rather than "Editors should follow it" didn't the gist once used to be was "This is what we are aiming at and if you can follow it please do, but at all events, make your contribution, someone else will fix up the spelling and style if needed" Rich Farmbrough, 14:17 1 February 2008 (GMT).

Can of worms, that. Although not ideal, IMV, the current version is better. Tony (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hyphens

Should a hyphen be used in phrases such as "a previously-identified protein" or "naturally-occurring cadmium" or "a spontaneously-active state"? My understanding is that this is incorrect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No W. As MOS says:

Hyphens are not used after -ly adverbs (wholly owned subsidiary) unless part of larger compounds (a slowly-but-surely strategy).

This is a widely accepted principle.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 21:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree: no. The main purpose of a hyphen in that position would be to resolve ambiguity. There can be no ambiguity with adverbs: there is no such thing as "a previously identified-protein" or "naturally occurring-cadmium". However, typing "wholly owned" into my search engine suggests that 41% of writers think it is hyphenated. Certes (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The usual exception applies for contrived examples with multiple adjectives, such as "naturally-dark blonde hair" (she bleached it) versus "naturally dark-blonde hair" (it's always been light brown). Certes (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's a good example. I wonder whether it should be included in MOS. Tony (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses; it is always helpful to have a way to double-check my understanding.

Perhaps someone else would be willing to re-correct the affected pages: previously-identified protein, naturally-occurring cadmium, and spontaneously-active state. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't figured out yet the split between the editors who do things, and those who quibble about how they should be done on the guideline pages. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I changed naturally-occurring cadmium. There is always the potential that a general rule in the MOS might not apply in a particular situation. However, if one goes to the web site for Science magazine, and searchs for "naturally-occurring" with or without a hyphen, one finds that Science does not use the hyphen. The fact that one of the best science journals in the world does not use a hyphen suggest that this case is not an exception to the MOS rule. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We must acknowledge that the reason for the high percentage of individuals that write wholly-owned subsidiary with a hyphen, as found by an internet search, is due to the fact that conventional practice is not always correct, and that great numbers of users of English are following the natural progression of language along the lines of logic. However, regardless of abiding convention versus adhering to logic, maybe we can all accept that there are different modes of expression of an idea; and, acknowledging the great flexibility of the English language, we can loosen the restrictions and make allowances for these differences. The question is amplified with:

a. previously-identified gene

b. tightly-regulated process

c. spontaneously-active site

d. naturally-occurring cadmium.

The two groups with contrasting viewpoints are:

1. Those that abide convention, insisting that, because there is "no ambiguity" in previously identified gene, the hyphen is superfluous and, therefore, unnecessary. And, so, the declaration was established: For "all adjectival phrases with -ly adverbs, we do not use the hyphen, period."

2. Those that adhere to logic, contending that previously is used in the way that already in already-identified gene is used; therefore, the phrase demands a hyphen in order to show a one-ness of idea.

May I suggest that we recognize the merit of both, and - in acknowledging that both viewpoints are meritorious, and one is not correct and the other wrong - not demand that one vanquish over the other? I would like to propose that the protocol within Wikipedia be to leave the phrases as the contributor of the article had originally written them, whether one way or the other, as we do not change whilst for while, knowing full well that the instrumental-ablative case had dropped out of common usage in English centuries ago and has no contemporary value, yet still recognizing the merit of the archaic form through having acquired the indispensable against from again. And, how many of us would hasten to correct the spelling of thru in the content of the semi-formal writing of a Wikipedia article, but remain with shackles on the hands confronted with drive-thru? The point is that change, sometimes even at the risk of forsaking convention, is for the betterment of our powerful communication tool called English.

[May I also put forth for consideration in this debate a few examples of how [erroneous] convention continues to provide examples of wrong literations of ideas:

1. The use of shall and its variants exclusively in the first-person form and will and its variants exclusively in the second- and third-person forms, completely ignoring not only language history but also logic:

- When a woman utters I should like to meet him, does she mean I am obligated to meet him or I desire to meet him? Due to adherence to an illogical imposition of style mandated by scribes of the king's court centuries ago, we are not sure out of context, and even many times in context. Saying what she means would solve the problem: I would like to meet him (from the Anglo-Saxon willan, meaning to desire) or I should like to meet him (from the Anglo-Saxon sculan, meaning to be obligated).

2. The exclusive use of the relative pronoun who and whom for humans and which for nonhumans, disregarding the historical and linguistic value of that:

- John is the man who spoke makes no reference to any other person, whereas John is the man that spoke singles out John among the other people in a group as the speaker. So, in order to impose an unfounded rule based on pretentious formality, that is many times replaced by who, thereby dissolving the meaning of the idea of the latter statement.

- The phrase the liver secretes an enzyme which converts phenylalanine can be erroneously understood as the liver secretes an enzyme, all of which convert phenylalanine, whereas the liver secretes an enzyme that converts phenylalanine pinpoints the idea that the liver secretes a particular enzyme that converts phenylalanine, as distinguished from enzymes that do not.

3. "All right", as in they are all right, which leaves one wondering whether the meaning is all of them are correct or they are not hurt, which begs the spelling shunned by grammarians yet correct with regard to logic and language history alright:

- already underwent the same metamorphosis, starting with all ready, then all-ready, to the now-accepted already, allowing us now to distinguish between the two different scenarios in already they are here and all ready they are here

[other examples: all together and altogether, all most and almost, all though and although]

4. All natural ingredients, which really means all the ingredients are natural and not the intended meaning: ingredients are completely natural, which is accomplished with the correct written phrase: all-natural ingredients, or, in the manner of already et al., alnatural ingredients

5. All new programs, which means all the programs are new and not the intended meaning: programs are completely new, which is accomplished with the correct written phrase: all-new programs, or, in the manner of already et al., alnew programs

6. Commercial free program, which means a commercial program that is without cost, and not the intended meaning: program without commercial(s), which is accomplished with the correct written phrase: commercial-free program, wherein free is a suffix meaning without, as less in boneless chicken.]Drphilharmonic (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Drphilharmonic makes several useful points there, some of which deserve their own sections. Personally, I would not copyedit an article simply to remove a logically-sound (sic) but conventionally deprecated hyphen, nor normally change it whilst editing for some other reason. Both forms are commonly used and serve their purpose of conveying the meaning. I didn't intend to recommend that "we do not use the hyphen, period". The MoS subsection itself describes its content as "broad principles that inform current usage" rather than a statement of what is correct and incorrect.

Perhaps neither "yes" nor "no" are adequate answers to the original question, a more detailed alternative being: "is such a hyphen mandated, encouraged, discouraged, banned, or does WP have no policy on the matter?". My reply was meant to suggest "discouraged" but on reading Drphilharmonic's argument I think "no policy" would be an equally sound response. Certes (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• While I disagree with Drphilharmonic's emphasis on a particular notion of logic over convention, I would be willing to accept an agreement from Drphilharmonic that he (or she) will no longer add unnecessary hyphens to this kind of phrase. A broad application of this principle is appropriate. For example, I would also be pleased if an original choice of "...is generally accepted..." was not changed to Drphilharmonic's preferred phrase, "...is, in general, accepted...".

• For the MoS, please note that Drphilharmonic has not named a single style guide to support "logical" hyphenation. This absence of support is doubtless because grammar and style guides from the last century all either deprecate or outright condemn the unnecessary use of hyphens in this context. Therefore, I do not support changing the MoS guideline to reflect what amounts to one editor's personal preference. Cogent or passionate arguments in support of this preference are unimportant, because hyphenation in these phrases is ultimately a matter of convention. The MoS should support the existing convention when the convention does not substantially interfere with meaning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I really like Drphilharmonic's little essay for some of its acute and well-chosen points. I do, incidentally, change thru (only accepted in America) to through, since this is not a purely American encyclopedia. For the same reason I also change alternate to alternative and through to to where the meaning is preserved and is made understandable to all speakers of English. I also change whilst to while for reasons of style; and I supply a more durably acceptable alternative to as per, thusly, and overly. We are free to improve style according to our best judgement, aren't we?

I am against allowing -ly+hyphen in our guidelines. This is contrary to all precedent in publishing practice, and to all style guides; and it tends toward more punctuation, where the modern preference is generally for a cleaner and less cluttered appearance. Some style guides are beginning to acknowledge home education students and the like, where there is no ambiguity. Like it or not!

Adherence to the consensus of all style guides is not compulsory for us; but widespread practice in poorly edited writing is no reason for us to alter our guidelines.

Certes says:

The MoS subsection itself describes its content as "broad principles that inform current usage" rather than a statement of what is correct and incorrect.

But this is not quite right. The qualification in full:

Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here; but the rules and examples presented above illustrate the sorts of broad principles that inform current usage.

That doesn't license just any departure from the rules given; it only says that there is more to say, and that it can't be said here.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tangential note: I'm an American and certainly do not accept "thru" in formal writing. Agree with most of the rest at least in broad outline. But I can't think of an example where "through" can be changed to "to" while preserving the meaning -- just what would be an example of this? --Trovatore (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I work 6 pm through 10 pm is only American. In British and other English it's I work [from] 6 pm to 10 pm, or variants. Since this to is accepted by Americans also, it is preferable since it avoids alienating either side. I work Monday to Friday may not be thought ambiguous, since it would surely be taken to include Friday. But if it is thought to be ambiguous, I work Monday through Friday is not available outside of American. Prefer I work from Monday morning till Friday evening, or whatever is more accurately intended.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree entirely with what Noetica is saying. Tony (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I work 6 pm through 10 pm is not good American English, in my opinion, nor is it clear: When do I walk off the job? At 10:01 pm? At 10:00:01 pm? I work from 6 pm to 10 pm is good American English, and is accurate. I work Monday to Friday in American English does not include Friday, although no one who means Monday through Thursday would say Monday to Friday. In American English, I work from Monday morning till Friday evening means the person's work includes all the hours from Monday morning through Friday afternoon, which includes a lot of overtime, but is only possible for insomniacs. Correct American English would be My work week is Monday through Friday. This topic has strayed rather far from hyphens. Finell (Talk) 03:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We have indeed strayed from the topic, Finell. I had responded to a query concerning a brief illustration of something. I expected that someone would disagree with my understanding of American English, and sure enough you have. Whether or not I work 6 pm through 10 pm is "good" American English, it is used very commonly. Your particular objection, though, is not apt. 10 pm is a point in time, not a duration in time. So clearly someone saying I work 6 pm through 10 pm works until that point in time, and that is the obvious intention in examples found with Google (check "through noon", perhaps). You claim that "I work Monday to Friday in American English does not include Friday". I'm sure that for many it does. Do a Google search on "Monday to Friday job" "New York". The first hit for me was this one. Go there, read the text, and then report how we are to interpret the working week (from an American online employment agency). As for your penultimate point, it is for that very reason that I added "...or whatever is more accurately intended". All of this just illustrates my point that the American through is, like it or not, often used meaning to (and from an American point of view, vice versa). It also demonstrates even more forcefully that American "through" should be avoided in an encyclopedia intended for all of the English-speaking world. But that is off-topic!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 12:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Blockquotes

Sorry, I just undid an edit without a decent explanation. Here it is.

(cur) (last) 15:05, 4 February 2008 Jimp (Talk | contribs) (112,311 bytes) (Undid revision 189016809 by Ms2ger (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:13, 4 February 2008 Ms2ger (Talk | contribs) m (112,301 bytes) (→Quotations - mw doesn't indent anything) (undo)

What the passage was saying is that <blockquote></blockquote> automatically indents the quote and it does. See the example above. Jɪmp 15:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Content of bold text in lead section

Is there guidance anywhere on what exactly should be in the bold text at the top of an article? Usual usage, so far as I can see, seems to be that the article title itself is the most commonly-used name; whereas the first bold text is the full formal name (followed by alternative names if necessary). So, for example, the article United Kingdom starts with "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ..."; and Will Smith starts with "Willard Christopher "Will" Smith, Jr. (born 25 September 1968) is...".

What's specifically brought this up in my mind is the article Richard Sternberg, where there's a mild controversy over whether he should be "Richard von Sternberg" in the bold text. The "von" seems to be used intermittently; it's not used on the front page of his website (where he is "Dr. Richard Sternberg" and "Rick Sternberg", but is used on his CV and other formal documents on there. In external sources, it seems to be used about half the time.

My feeling is that it is part of his full formal name, so should be in the bold text (but not in the article title). Does the MOS have an opinion on this? Neither Wikipedia:MOS#First_sentences nor Wikipedia:Lead_section#Bold_title seems very clear on the matter. TSP (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the first example; I could say that I am more used to seeing the official name first, and the alias or stage name later. I mean, although it is technically correct, nobody refers to Will Smith as "Will Smith, Jr.", nor are the quotation marks pretty here (in my opinion). I should prefer "Willard Christopher Smith, Jr. (born 25 September 1968), more widely known as Will Smith, is..." or something similar, like the cases with more different names.

In any case, I mostly agree with you: although the "Bold title" section hints at this by "article subject", I think it ought to make it clearer that we want the full, formal name or title of the subject. It often goes without saying, of course, but nothing really ought to be held as common knowledge in a Manual of Style. Waltham, The Duke of 14:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"We" in mathematics

I intend to remove the following sentence: "It is also acceptable to use we in mathematical derivations (To normalize the wavefunction, we need to find the value of the arbitrary constant A)." The only discussion I could find on this is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 93#Recent edit to "avoid first-person pronouns", in one editor argues in favour it and one against it. It contradicts the guidance in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics), which was arrived at after a discussion among a larger group; see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Encyclopedic vs conversational tone and discussions linked at the bottom. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jitse. "We" is good for journal articles, not encyclopedia articles. --Trovatore (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to this question for sure, but you just touched on the one issue I feel passionate about at Wikipedia (I'm entitled to my one, right?). I do see that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Writing style in mathematics says to avoid "we". I haven't looked at the history, but I suspect that was written by a MoS editor who had no actual experience reading scholarly math articles. It was a long time ago that I got my masters in math, but I do recall that we used "we" an awful lot. I also recall that we were perfectly aware of how funny that sounded to non-mathematicians, and we tended not to care. My question is: how many Wikipedia readers will be reading a math proof on Wikipedia that you probably need 4 years of graduate school to understand? Do you see the silliness of objecting to, for instance, "We intend to show a constructive proof of the Heine-Borel Theorem" on the grounds that the "we" sounds funny? Who does "Heine-Borel Theorem" not sound funny to, other than certain mathematicians, who may not hear anything wrong in the "we"? (Although understand, I'm not speaking for them, I'm saying it might be a good idea to ask them.)

The reason for my passion is that building an encyclopedia (in my case, mostly about robotics) is only half of my reason for putting enormous amounts of time into Wikipedia. The other half is that I actually want to see people benefiting from robots in the home...we desperately need them before all the baby boomers retire, and the developing world needs them to help provide food and power. I see both goals, building an encyclopedia and building robotics community, succeeding or failing together. I believe that both goals will fail if expert roboticists are not comfortable here. They won't be comfortable if their articles are reverted on the grounds that they don't sound right, when they know perfectly well that the articles are using language acceptable for their field...language that MoS editors aren't familiar with and didn't bother to ask about. I have some familiarity with manuals of style from a previous life, and this is most of the reason I'm trying to get up to speed on as much of MoS as I can...because the roboticists are very unlikely to care, and are likely to simply go back to the communities they came from in the first place if they feel disrespected here. Uninformed criticism of language is a great way to make someone feel demeaned. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

With apologies, there are one or two more points that are essential in this argument. Two months ago, I saw nothing wrong with the argument that "nothing technical needs to be in Wikipedia, that's for Wikibooks or Wikiversity". After two months of talking with students, hobbyists, academics and professionals, I realize that I was completely wrong. There is no, none, zilch, desire among these people to stop their productive pursuits long enough to go write a book on Wikibooks. Wikipedia is the top .org site in the world and has enormous cachet, enough to pull people in and get them involved. Either we make them feel welcome here, or we never get an encyclopedic treatment of robotics. (This is in no way a criticism of the many fine robotics articles here. Details are best left to WP:WikiProject Robotics.) Also, I have enormous respect for the incredibly large number of incredibly talented editors around here who would do a bang-up job on, say, an article about using a robotic vacuum for a general audience. But there is already solid support for inclusion of articles dealing with, for instance, path-finding algorithms used by robotic vacuums...you'll find similar articles through the AI Portal. But these articles should be written with the readers in mind who will actually be reading them...that is, they should be written at their level, using concepts they understand and language they are comfortable with. A MoS-aware editor, who might in all other respects be an incredibly talented and feted Wikipedian, but who has never read such an article before, would probably not be the right person to decide what to revert in such an article, and might, if successful, harm the community that some of us are trying very hard to build here. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir. I agree Wikipedia needs highly technical articles. In fact, both Trovatore and I know Heine-Borel and stuff like that and write and edit very specialized articles.

Your suspicion regarding who wrote Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics) does fortunately not reflect reality. It is written by people who write scholarly maths articles and who are perfectly aware that "we" is used there (including myself). Nevertheless, this group decided that "we" should be avoid, for the following two reasons: journal articles and textbooks are written in a less formal style than encyclopaedia articles, and it is jargon (as you say, it sounds funny). I agree that the latter reason is not really relevant for specialized articles, but the former one still stands.

I don't want to sound dismissive. Personally, I don't care about the "we" issue, I just want to clear up a contradiction. Perhaps we should discuss the use of "we" again and see whether the consensus shifted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't sound dismissive at all, you sound supportive, which is nice, given how argumentative I was (it didn't sound that way to me last night, now it does). Glad that you guys are on top of this. The context for my argument is that I am going around saying the things that I feel need saying to the relevant audiences, attempting to be honest about what connections I do and don't have and how my goals do and don't differ. I love the occasional "archness" of MoS discussions, it's a guilty pleasure, and I very much want to stay up on MoS discussions because I don't think anyone else in WikiProject Robotics will, and we need to be able to play by the same rules everyone else does. I honestly don't expect the community of MoS-aware editors to be the problem, the roboticists themselves are much more of a handful at the moment, and some past arguments made by admins seem less than helpful, and we seem to have an order of magnitude more vandalism than I would expect, given that we rarely have heated arguments.

Still, I'd just like to say: people are invited to read my argument above, and if you have any serious disagreement, I'd appreciate it if you could record it here so that I can post it over at WP:ROBO/AEL. My thesis, I suppose, is: we (the copyediting or MoS-aware community) should go a little bit easy on new editors who have technical skills that we very much need here, especially when a new WikiProject like WikiProject Robotics is starting up, and...despite the fact that there's more in WT:MoS and the relevant archives than anyone can ever know...we should accept the additional burden of learning a bit more about how various technical communities talk, and how to use language to make them feel welcome. We should do it because we can. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So let me elaborate a hair on my objection to "we". It has nothing to do with technical usage; I think technical usage is fine, though articles should of course be written to be as accessible as possible given their subject matter. It's a question of tone. "We" is too discursive, too narrative. It's what you say when you're presenting your own material, or when you're teaching a subject (as in a textbook). Wikipedia on the other hand is a reference work, and needs to be written in a more "just the facts" kind of style. --Trovatore (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a scholarly mathematical paper, so it should not be written in the style of one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore should be written in the style of an encyclopedia. That is what is behind the long accepted guidelines stated in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics), and especially the "Writing style in mathematics" section. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics) is an application of the basic, Wikipedia-wide principles of style in WP:MOS to the special requirements of math articles on Wikipedia. It specifically points out some particulars of math paper style, with which the contributors to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics) are well aware, that should be avoided on Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 02:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Jitse and Trovatore, the editorial "we", while fine in other mathematical writing, e.g. journal articles, it should be avoided in encyclopedic writing. Paul August ☎ 22:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Working example of the proposal for MOS coordination

Since there seems to be widespread misapprehension about the practical application of the proposal under discussion above, I looked for an example of how we should be resolving inconsistencies. It wasn't hard to find one.

Under "Chronological items", "Longer periods", "Years", MOSNUM says this:

AD appears before a year (AD 1066) but after a century (2nd century AD); the other abbreviations appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC).

But MOS-central says this:

AD appears before or after a year (AD 1066, 1066 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC).

Thus, MOSNUM says that 1066 AD is wrong, but MOS central cites it as an example of good usage. Under the proposal, MOS-central prevails until we get off our backsides and do something about it, either by changing MOS-central or MOSNUM.

Can we do something about it, so we don't look like fools? Which one is preferred, please? I've put a link to this section at MOSNUM talk. Tony (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the biggest problems with the proposal. In cases such as this, where MOSNUM (aka WP:DATE) is a part of the MoS of general applicability dealing with the particular section of the MoS, the specific page should control. It's not that I like the rule as stated in MOSNUM; the MoS version is much better in my opinion. But the people most knowledgeable about and most interested in a particular general applicability subpage are going to be following that page. It is different for the various WikiProject and other pages related to a specific topic not of general overall interest. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

To me this is an example of my suggestion that if two guidelines do not line up on a minor issue such as this, then it probably means that the issue is unimportant to article or encyclopedia quality. As it happens, in this case, that is essentially what MoS-central says (it permits either approach). But also MOSNUM only implicitly rules out the other format. If this is the kind of issue that causes problems during FAC discussions, then FAC needs to think seriously about its priorities. Geometry guy 19:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep your dirty hands off the discussion section and this section that needs independent resolution, Geometry. What a hide, thinking you can walk in and do what you like at almost no notice. Tony (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Dirty hands"? Shame on you! Paul August ☎ 00:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down Tony, and check the edit history more carefully. I did not remove this section. It was moved by Finell to a different place on the page (and, probably, a more sensible place). As for the proposal, SandyGeorgia and Finell, among others, called for it to be closed, and Finell attempted to close it, but did not do it with equanimity in my view, so I attempted to make a better job. Your reversion and personal comment here and on my talk page does not portray you and your relationship to this page in a very good light. Geometry guy 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Allow me to calm down in my own time. Yes, dirty hands. I don't care who called for what, I'd like to know about a proposal to remove an entire discussion—just two or three days after it was launched, when discussion is still in train—before someone launches in suddenly and removes it. How dare you. Tony (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tony: As the edit history clearly shows, I moved this to be a sup-topic under the Proposal, not Geometry guy. I moved it because it was titled "Working example of the proposal for MOS coordination", so it seemed to belong under the proposal for which it was an example. If it had been titled without reference to the proposal, I would not have moved it. Please don't be offended. For the record, Geometry guy and I acted independently. If you look at the discussion, you will see I agree with you that all parts of the MoS should be consistent and that conflicts must be reconciled, and disagree with Geometry guy's position that inconsistency is tolerable and with his proposal that what we need is a new master project page. However, it is obvious from the vehement discussion that a new guideline is not the way to achieve consistency, and that argument over the abstract principle is going nowhere and has become counterproductive. Further, MoS internal contradictions can be resolved in the usual way, without a new guideline to which there is substantial opposition. I initially supported your proposal, although I expressed some reservations (my vote on your proposal was Support, but ...). In the face of such strongly expressed opposition by many others (and I don't meant from me), it is obvious that no consensus will be reached (unless you believe that community consensus means a narrow majority vote; I don't). Although well intentioned and offered as a solution to a genuine problem, the proposal should be put to rest for lack of consensus so that continuing non-productive argument over it will stop. Please calm down and don't take it personally. And please don't resort to incivility—do you really want a response-in-kind to "Keep your dirty hands off ..."? Finell (Talk) 01:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: I wrote the above in direct respone to Tony's post that began "Keep your dirty hands off ...." I did not see the other responses to Tony until I posted mine. Finell (Talk) 01:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's disconcerting to see these conclusions about the proposal, when discussion was dominated by members from one WikiProject. The idea that there is any consensus is premature. A WikiProject would just add another place that needs to be coordinated with all these pages; coordination on the main MoS page is a worthy proposal. The wording might have gotten us off on the wrong foot. Tony, it appears you may need to apologize to Gguy, although I understand how it feels to have your good intentions attacked as they have been in this discussion, along with the denigration of good copyedit skills. Discussion should continue; if nothing else, it's bringing many issues to light. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Apologise for what? It was outrageous behaviour. Tony (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Any editors who comment here do so only as editors, not as representatives of any wikiproject. Indeed, this is the general Wikipedia manual of style, not a project-specific one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• OK, let's try to ignore the off-topic ad-hominem chatter and focus on the issue at hand. Under the proposal, yes, MOS would override MOSNUM; however, the opposite could be made true (e.g. MOSNUM overriding MOS) with the same effect. (Or we could correct one page to say the same thing as the other and forget about the entire argument...) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's right, and in the meantime, the right- and left-hands say different things. What is important is that one page be the default, until an inconsistency is harmonised by a change in MOS or a sub-page: I don't care which, but I think MOS is the logical one to be the default. So I can see that no one here is at all interested in harmonising the inconsistency I've pointed out here. That's a good illustration of why we need to have a default. It's extraordinary that no one cares about it. AD 1066, or 1066 AD. You're all happy with two MOS guidelines on this, are you? Tony (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is important for one to be the default. Where there's an inconsistency there's likely to be a dispute, and until consensus is reached to resolve that dispute there's no need to rule in favor of one method. In some cases there may be no consensus and we'll have to live with two or more systems coexisting. Thankfully I think most of our readers are flexible enough to comprehend both 1066 AD and AD 1066. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, our readers can comprehend articles that disregard all WP typeface conventions, that use American title case for article titles and section headings, that cite a source informally (e.g., "p. 29 of the Selfish Gene by Dawkins"), that use no boldface in the lead, and so on. Whether a WP article remains comprehensible is not the sole criterion of whether there should be an MoS guideline. If there is a guideline, there should be a guideline, not contradictory guidelines within the MoS. If editors on two (or more) MoS pages cannot reach consensus on some point, either the guideline is dropped or the guideline is amended consistently in all instances to reflect the usages that are acceptable on WP; in this instance, I expect that "the year of our Lord" would not be considered a suitable replacement for AD. Or is the proposal to discard the whole MoS? If the MoS is not to be discarded, how can self-contradiction be justified logically? The MoS is not an WP:ESSAY. I do believe it is reasonable to have consistency. I don't think that the present proposal is getting WP any closer to that goal, and that MoS consistency can be achieved through normal editing without a new guideline. That is why I think the proposal should be closed and we should all get back to doing something more productive. Finell (Talk) 06:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Tony: As you see, this L2 topic is almost entirely devoted to discussion over the Proposal, not about what the AD guideline should say. Therefore, it really should be moved to a subsection under the Proposal. A new topic should be started solely to address the AD inconsistency, without a title that suggests that it relates to the Proposal. Please do this if you agree. Or I may do this myself when I have the time for the sake of having the entire discussion of the Proposal in one place, a principle of good organization that is one of the bases of your Proposal. Finell (Talk)07:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• It looks as though Parnham counts himself as a saboteur of MOS and its sub-pages. He really doesn't mind at all if they're in conflict. It's extraordinary that such people are given any oxygen at all here. Tony (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I would certainly prefer conflict to your consistent efforts to railroad changes through without any broad consensus. The fact that your diktat prevails on this one talk page shouldn't permit you to control the appearance of every page on Wikipedia. If opposing your power trip is considered sabotage, then so be it Toby. Christopher Parham (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Boats and ships

The names of boats and ships should NOT be italicized. Agreed? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

They should be, they generally are on Wikipedia (and elsewhere), and this is one case where Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting), which says they should be, should be controlling over whatever is said here at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Another example of the need for coordination. This logically could be addressed in at least four different MOS pages: the main MoS, the text-formatting sub-MoS page, and the MilHist and Ship projects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I don't agree, and neither do most style manuals (I think — because I haven't checked them), but I will go along until the style is changed. Thanks for the link. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nygaard, allowing any little group of editors on an outlying sub-page to rule over what is here in the central MOS is just as bizarre as Parnham's statement above that it's just fine if our styleguides disagree with each other. Tony (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing at all bizarre about it. It is a longstanding rule of legal interpretation, for example: the specific controls over the general. Good grief, you don't think Wikipedia is the first place that has ever had conflicting rules, do you? This should apply primarily to a small group of articles which are identified as the "Main article" for a section of the main MoS page, or otherwise identified in some way. Gene Nygaard (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore,

• If you want to change the rules about capitalization (even if you spell it capitalisation), you most certainly ought to be discussing such changes, gaining consensus, and changing the rules accordingly on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) page. Changes in those rules should not, as a general rule, come from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style page. If such a discussion starts here, it should be moved to the appropriate page, leaving behind a note about the existence of that discussion and where it can be found.
• If you want to change the rules about dates, you most certainly ought to be discussing such changes, gaining consensus, and changing the rules accordingly on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) page. Changes in those rules should not, as a general rule, come from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style page.
• Etc.

People might look to the main MoS page for broad, general rules. When some other page is the main article for a topic, they logically expect that to be the place to find those rules more fleshed out, going into greater detail about specific examples and problems, and areas where there is no consensus and more than one style remains acceptable.

The core MoS pages to which this rule applies, and no others, should be named in the "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (something parenthetical)" format. These should also appear as a "Main article" for a setion of the top MoS page. The topic-specific rules (for which issues of style are only one component) should be in some other format, whether part of a WikiProject or otherwise. The MoS navigation tools should clearly reflect such a breakdown.

A part of the whole discussion has to be what exactly is within the scope of the Manual of Style in the first place. There are many things peripherally related to style which are more appropriately left to the determination of various other sections of Wikipedia space, such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Disambiguation and their subpages and the like. In case of conflict, it may well be the MoS whose rule should be thrown out. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Paragraphs

I suggest a new main section, between section 1 (Article titles...) and section 2 (Capital letters) as follows:

Paragraphs

Paragraphs are separated by a blank line, which is ordinarily entered by pushing the enter key twice. A line break, which is usually entered by pushing the enter key once, is not a sufficient separation for paragraphs.

I also intend to apply this rule to the MOS. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that a style issue? It sounds more like a technical wiki-markup issue. A single line break is equivalent to a space character; if you find one in an article you cannot assume that anyone intended a paragraph break. –Henning Makholm 01:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Enter key or Return key. Maybe pressing sted pushing? Or using? GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mashing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's both a sytle issue and a technical markup issue. The style issue is that when the text is rendered on the screen or page, paragraphs should be separated by a blank line. Other publications may have other styles, such as indented paragraphs, or both indentation and a blank line, so we should state what our style is. Pressing enter twice is the most common markup to achive this. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)