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

Exception to restating the title

It has been suggested that there is a special case when the following WP:HEAD guideline may be ignored:

"Avoid restating or directly referring to the topic or to wording on a higher level in the hierarchy".

The particular exception is when the name higher in the heirarchy is a sub-component of a proper name. As an example, the star Sirius consists of two sub-components, "Sirius A" and "Sirius B". Hence these sections repeat the article name, yet represent separate entities. Would it be appropriate to list that exception on the MoS, as it occurs quite often in astronomy for example?—RJH (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What saves us here is that no one listens to us on this point :) I can't remember offhand a single case where someone didn't repeat something that they felt needed to be repeated because of WP:LEAD. Have any astronomers written a subheading called just "A"? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Does the guideline need to ease up, then? Tony (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried changing the headings to "Component A" and "Component B", but that received objections. I can see their point too in this case, and I could expect the same situation to happen with some consumer products, for example. I thought a simple exception phrase would work. Something like, "It may be appropriate to repeat the article name in a section heading when it is part of a longer proper name," or perhaps some tighter wording. As for nobody listening to this point, well... I do (after having the point raised during FAC). Thanks.—RJH (talk)

Your reviewer is reading much too strictly. Sirius B is not Sirius; whether Sirius A is is a difficult question. This is not the intent of the section; the intent is that the subject of the article should not be mentioned when it is just as easy not to: Early life v. His early life. I would recommend changing the phrase so as include some condition like that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you come up with wording that is a little more formal? Tony (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose one difficulty then is that the guideline is somewhat opaque, at least to me, and could be written more clearly. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that many people are ignoring the statement simply because they don't readily understand it. The example also didn't help at all. No offense intended, of course. =)—RJH (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

How about Headers are presumed to refer to the subject of the article. There are often two ways to state a header, as Early life or His early life; the one (Early life) which doesn't mention the subject explicitly will usually be shorter and equally clear; if so, use it.. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

←It has certain merit, but I'd prefer a shorter text. How about: "Since headers normally refer to the subject of the article, they should not mention that subject explicitly unless there is a clear reason to do so." Tony (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If RJH finds the present text less than clear, he will find that opaque. The only reason to tweak at all is to communicate better, which trumps brevity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

How about being cheap and taking a page off gender-neutral language's book? "Avoid explicitly referring to the subject or to wording in higher-level headings if this can be done with clarity and precision. For example, Early life is preferable to His early life, because the latter repeats the subject even though it clearly refers to it." Meaningless variations in the wording that will make the first sentence look less of a photocopy of the original are welcome. Waltham, The Duke of 19:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Section headers should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher level headers, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. For example, Early life is preferable to His early life, because the latter repeats the subject even though it clearly refers to it." Is that enough meaningless variation? (And yet it covers Sirius A: shorter and clearer than Component A.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• His Grace's version seems perfect. Tony (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, it's headings, not headers. They shouldn't be used interchangeably. Also, the initial reference ("Section headers should not...") is not necessary, given the context, but it wouldn't hurt either. Regarding your main change, I am really not sure. I think I'll leave others to comment on it. Waltham, The Duke of 09:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those appear to improve the guideline. However, the statement, "because the latter repeats the subject even though it clearly refers to it," seems somewhat ambiguous: it refers to it?—RJH (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Section headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher level headers, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. For example, Early life is preferable to His early life when His means the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems clearly written. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Allrighty then. Thanks to Tony's monthly updates, I came over to see why we lost key wording about not restating wording from a higher level in the hierarchy of headings. I see RJHall's dilemma, but unfortunately, the baby got thrown out with the bath water, and we entirely lost the important concept of not repeating wording in headings, in order to accomodate proper nouns. Can we fix it, please? RJHall was asking for an exception based on proper nouns, yet the entire meaning was discarded.

This text:

Avoid restating or directly referring to the topic or to wording on a higher level in the hierarchy (Early life, not His early life).

was changed to:

Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. For example, Early life is preferable to His early life when His means the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated.

Repeating words from higher sections is a very common issue in section headings (and the really bad examples of this that come up are far worse than a repeat of his, here's a sample), and the new version is diluted and not more clear. We need wordings that addresses RJHall's specific example of proper nouns, while returning the baby that got thrown out with the bath water. Can't you just exempt proper nouns? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Commas following years

In the (apparently largely overlooked) guideline entitled "How to copy-edit", it is suggested that "when not at the end of a sentence, constructions such as London, England, call for a comma after the second element". Example: "He was born in London, England, during the Great Fire." From what I have noticed, this is applied more often than not, but there is a certain inconsistency; as the Manual of Style makes no mention of such instances, the inconsistency is unlikely to cease.

A more debatable suggestion is the follow-up: "Similarly, dates written in the American style demand a comma after the year unless the date falls at the end of the sentence." Example: "She was active between September 29, 1967, and February 10, 1992." (Off the top of my head; the one on the page is not good, because the "On this date" clause at the beginning of the sentence should be followed by a comma anyway.) This is not applied with any consistency, and I have the impression that American usage actually favours omitting the comma. Up to now, the almost ubiquitous auto-formatting made such usage impossible, and the discussion thereof unnecessary. Now, however, with the changing trends on the matter of date linking, I feel that we need to settle this issue as early as possible.

So, what is the honourable colleagues' opinion on both these questions, and on the potential inclusion in the Manual of a clause encouraging towards one on the other direction? The two appear somewhat distinct, but I think that, whichever way we go, we might benefit from some consistency. Waltham, The Duke of 15:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

His Grace raises an issue that needs to be addressed. I personally think that the article "How to copy-edit" should be silent on this issue rather than prescribing the insertion of what in many cases (particularly the US-formatted date) is unnecessary. My view is that there are quite enough functional commas in text without adding to them on the basis of this unnecessary formula. For that reason, I say to use the serial ("Oxford") comma only where it disambiguates, even if this means within-article inconsistency. I apply this to my own writing. The London example is less jarring, but I'd still not use it myself.

If MOS is to say anything about this issue, I think it should be in the vein of balancing any advantage against the potential for interruption to the reader's flow. I don't mind if MOS says nothing, though. Tony (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

CMOS, which is at least one American style, requires:

The ship sailed on October 6, 1999, for Southampton.

This seems idiomatic to me; I believe the underlying reason is that 1999 is parenthetical. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Parenthetical" makes sense in this case; the single comma appears to be separating two sentences... While it is not. Anyway, this is just getting interesting... What about other style guides? Anyone? Waltham, The Duke of 08:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If CMOS is running that "parenthetical" line, I think less of it still. I rather think the "6" is parenthetical: "October 1999" (that is, October 6 in that year). It's a silly hall of mirrors. Tony (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No they do not say so, although I believe Jesperson does. Is this an admission that Tony's attacks on CMOS are on a book he has not bothered to read?

The form without parenthesis is The ship sailed on October 6 for Southampton. But 6 can scarcely be parenthetical; The ship sailed on October for Southampton. is an idiom violation. (So is sailed on October 1999; one sails in a month.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It is "sailed in October". :)--andreasegde (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We should say that it sailed on the 6th of September, 1933, but I prefer to write that it sailed on 6 September 1933, which is easier, even though being a Brit. Americans writing September 6 1933 only do so (IMO) because it is easier to say. (Try saying "September the sixth, 1933", or "the sixth of September, 1933" without spitting over people or sounding like Sylvester the cat... :)--andreasegde (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My taste, for what it's worth, is for no commas after years in such examples, but for a comma after such things as London, England. I think it's because I'm so used to seeing dates written like that, my brain doesn't look for any other interpretation of the comma. I can understand, though, that American brains (which are constantly dealing with "Town, State" combinations) might treat the comma in London, England as similarly unambiguous.--Kotniski (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophes and Primes

Is there a recommendation to use single and double primes in order to label minutes and seconds (or other units) instead of using apostrophes and quotation marks? I can't find one, but I do think there should be one. ––Bender235 (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Straight quotation marks would give 28″; double primes give 28′′, and need a <nowiki> tag.I don't see much difference. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you don't need a <nowiki> tag in order to display double primes; just use its HTML entity ″ (or ′ for single prime).

And second, you might not see much difference, yet there is one. ß (German letter Eszett) and β (Greek letter Beta) might look alike as well, but still we take care not to confuse them. Just as hyphens (-) and en-dashes (–), or plus signs (+) and daggers (†). ––Bender235 (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get into dashes. I can see a difference between beta and eszett; I can't see one between the two forms here. Can anybody? If not, should we require unintuitive syntax for something that will make no difference to the reader? Cui bono? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you see difference between X (Latin letter X, that is) and Χ (Greek letter Chi)? Or S (Latin) and Ѕ (Cyrillic letter Dze)? Yet, there is a big difference for machines reading those letters, e.g. screen readers for blind (see WP:ACCESS). There's a big difference in pronunciation. Same thing with apostrophes/quotation marks and primes. A screen reader might read Jim is 6'1" and ran a mile in 3'21". as "Jim is six-one quote and ran a mile in three twenty one unquote." ––Bender235 (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The single character ″ as used in 28″ is, in fact, a double prime and not a "straight quotation mark". Also, you don't need nowiki tags or HTML entities; you can just enter them directly. Strad (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We should use the prime and double prime characters, for the same reason we use the degree sign and not a superscripted letter o, and we use the multiplication sign and not the letter x. We should aim for proper typography, not for ASCII art. --Itub (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add this recommendation to the Manual of Style as soon as we reached consensus here. ––Bender235 (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's not. Do we need to legislate? No; revising idiom wherever screen readers may misunderstand things is trying to bail out a spring using a sieve. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Where's the problem? There are recommendations for dozens of things, like using en-dashes (–) instead of hyphens (-), or em-dashes (—) instead of double-hyphens (--). Plus the general recommendation to use proper typography. ––Bender235 (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And most of those recommnendations are the original research of a handful who would like to bully other editors into following their prejudices. We need less of these, not more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the difference, and I favor the symbols that are actually on my keyboard. Call it lazy, I guess, but it's a lot easier and makes almost no difference. Nosleep (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which keyboard or which font you are using, but these look completely different to me. The four characters below are 1) single quote/apostrophe (the one actually in my keyboard, which is next to the semicolon in the US layout), 2) prime; 3) double quotes (again from my keyboard); 4) double prime.

' ′ " ″

Now, if you use the curly quotes instead (which are not on my keyboard), they look more similar to the prime and double prime, but are still not identical. --Itub (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are the curly quotes next to the primes for comparison:

’ ′ ” ″

--Itub (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they look 100% the same to me (not in this edit window, no, but in the article they look identical). Nosleep (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Marks as Firefox displays them under Vista. Click for legend.

The image shows the symbols as Firefox 2.0.0.16 (Windows Vista) displays them. I increased the text size in Firefox (CTRL + once or twice) to make the shapes visible. The image page has a legend. Fg2 (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey folks - you'd think someone would have come up with this before, but have a look at {{[[Template:''|'']]}}. Problem solved? (sadly this can't be done for single prime.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• That should be useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Numbers as figures or words

Anderson's attempts to impose his own ideas on this section, and his usual smoke-bomb, the posting of a dispute tag, are evident both here and at MOSNUM. We need to talk through the issues and harmonise the texts at both pages, which have been out of kilter for a while.

Please participate at MOSNUM talk. Tony (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony is welcome, here or there, to explain why we should have two different sets of details on this matter. For my part, I would prefer Jimp's recommendation at #Comparable quantities above, of a summary here and details on MOSNUM, but having the same recommendations is a start. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have temporarily reverted my own reversion of P. M. Anderson's reversion of Tony's reversion of Anderson's insertion of the full set of guidelines from MOSNUM here. I hesitantly agree that it is preferable to display two matching sets than have our guidelines clash. However, I hope for a speedy resolution of the matter, which will bring this page back to a more acceptable state of usability. I find the entire situation particularly awkward and unstable; any sign of a lack of progress with the discussions will make me reconsider my position. I shall, of course, participate in the discussion at MOSNUM and try to help in any way I can. Waltham, The Duke of 22:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have spent a day off-wiki. I am agreeable to either a short summary or a medium summary; I can tolerate the present situation, since His Grace's revert, of almost identical texts; if I were Jimbo, I would prefer not to try identical texts because it's hard to maintain. This is why I've inserted all three.

I await third voices at MOSNUM; I am restoring His Grace's solution of identical texts until such discussion takes place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Anderson used His Grace's comment as some kind of excuse to re-impose his own concoction here. This was an unreasonable assumption from His Grace's posting, and re-introduces vague, patronising, faulty and poorly categorised text. I've reverted to the long-standing text, including the nine/10 boundary for spelling out and using numerals (this appears to be what Anderson is jumping up and down about, but we should discuss it by way of proposed texts here first, point by point, not by huge changes made suddenly and unilaterally on the page itself. Tony (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that the text from MOSNUM does include the 9/ten boundary. Tony's incoherent and solitary reversion to a text which differs (as it always has) from MOSNUM is unacceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not quite following this, but it seems logical that MOS should contain either identical text to the relevant section of MOSNUM, or nothing but a link to the MOSNUM section, or (most consistently with the rest of MOS) a summary of the MOSNUM section. Having two "alternative" texts seems quite untenable. Maybe we should temporarily reduce the section here to one sentence and a link to MOSNUM, and then work on the wording over at MOSNUM; then when that's done, work on a shortened form of that wording for here. --Kotniski (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be perfectly satisfied with this suggestion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Komsomolskaya-Koltsevaya

Komsomolskaya-Koltsevaya

This article apparently uses left-aligned images. I was wondering if such layout is allowed? --BorgQueen (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We recommend alternating them, unless there is good reason to do otherwise; but the presence of an extremely large right-aligned nav template would make simple alternation clumsy. It may be worth reconsidering the template, but until that is done, the present layout is allowed, although not happily. Another useful fix would be to spread out the images more, so that they were throughout the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done some work on this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Metre: International spellings vs American

When dealing with articles that have a global scope, is the term metre or meter (AE) preferred for article name titles? For example 40 meters, 80 meters? I note the SI spelling is "metre". =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this falls within the usual "national varieties of English" rules at WP:ENGVAR. Brief summary: If there's a strong connection between the subject matter and one culture, use that culture's spelling; otherwise, use the spelling from the earliest non-stub version that makes a clear choice. --Trovatore (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That may lead to inconsistency. Should spellings listed by official regulatory/advisory bodies be given a priority: ISO, SI, IUPAC etc? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it may; see WP:ENGVAR. Official spellings do not take priority until they become general usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR is limited in scope. It does not consider a case such as this. In this case, metre is not only the SI spelling listed in ISO 1000:1992, but also has widespread and common usage. So, for a location-independent article, should the titles be moved to 40 metres and 80 metres? See this: [1] under "Units of measurement" after the table. =Nichalp «Talk»=

No, they should not. You wanna start the war of 1812 all over again? People are not entirely rational on this topic (not, by the way, that I think deferring to international standards bodies necessarily is rational; their choices are as arbitrary as anyone else's). In any case, the existing guidelines are the best way that has been found to keep emotions in check. This falls well into the scope of WP:ENGVAR.--Trovatore (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The spelling "metre" is unheard of in America (at least, I've never seen it in American writing, including American scientific journals), so using that spelling in an article which otherwise uses American spelling is inconsistent. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the original question said article titles, I would think metre would be the preferred spelling unless the article clearly had an American subject. The obvious comparison here is Aluminium. The examples you gave all have global scope (even 2 meters is an international band). The issue would then become, for those examples, rewriting the article for consistency and putting it into UK/Commonwealth English, since other American spellings (e.g., summarized) are used in them - or even before that, gaining consensus to move the article, since it would be opposed strongly, as Trovatore notes above. —C.Fred (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no justification whatsoever for such a move. The Chemistry Wikiproject has decided to follow IUPAC's lead on aluminum/aluminium, and that's OK for chemistry articles -- they're the experts and I won't fight them on that. For all other articles mentioning the metal, WP:ENGVAR is in full effect. --Trovatore (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless the Amateur Radio Wikiproject decides to take up the case of the examples given above. —C.Fred (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the chemistry case is sort of a fait accompli; there's unfortunatly not much to be done about it now. I would oppose any new such intervention. --Trovatore (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Once we decided on aluminium (and caesium, which is odder to an American), we did not move them; similarly, articles established with meter should not be moved, unless they have particular associations with metre-using countries (radio waves don't). That's the effect of ENGVAR on titles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Also, we now have 80 meters for the frequency, and 100 metres for the sprint. This is a useful, if accidental, differentiation; let's keep it, rather than risking conflicts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• And in this specific case, it does come back, indirectly, to ENGVAR: the US term is 2 meters, but the UK equivalent term is 144 MHz! So 2 meters, 40 meters, 80 meters, in those usages, are American usages, and 2 metres and the like would be inappropriate. By contrast, 100 metres is a track/athletics event competed internationally, so the -re spelling makes sense. And for anything new, I suppose it all depends on the context of the article when it is created. —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The earliest recorded use of the word metre in English was in 1797, although metric units should really be known as SI units. The SI stands for Système Internationale because the system was invented by the French. It can be called the MKS system (for metre/kilometre/second). This is why the British spell metre and litre in the French way. --andreasegde (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of your last assertion. Centre, theatre, meagre, ochre and sabre are not part of the SI.—RJH (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You realize that all those words are of French origins right? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 05:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What this all points out is that we need two different wikis for the two different languages that are American English and British English. If Norwegian gets two wikis, why doesn't English? Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, we'd need at least two Spanish wikis (Spain and the Americas), a Quebecois wiki, FSM-knows-how-many Chinese wikis, etc... Most people have absolutely no problem with it because getting hot and bothered over spelling when there is no barrier to comprehension is a waste of time. SDY (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling is merely the most obvious difference between the two main English languages. The most extreme difference is the completely opposite meanings that the verb "table" has in American English and British English. By the way we already have at least seven wikis for living Chinese languages (eight if you count Classical Chinese as semi-living) and IIRC, the main Chinese wiki has the ability for users to choose between simplified and traditional Chinese characters. I fail to see why the languages of American English and British English should be forced to share one single wiki without any means for localization of content. Various minor German, Italian, and Spanish dialects have their own wikis. For the Yugoslav language, we get four different wikis (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbo-Croatian) purely because of political hostility, despite the fact that the varieties are as all mutually inteligible as the national varieties of English are. I am not about to apologize for being proud of my national language, one used by hundreds of millions, and yet forced for no reason to be crammed together with other dialects, when such a cramming together is not forced upon other languages. Why are English varieties being discriminated against? Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

People exercise their right to spend their leisure time as they please, and not enough people have decided they want to see two versions of Wikipedia, one written in American English, and the other in British English, to make the effort to set it up and create duplicate versions of all the articles. Deciding how to use one's leisure time is a valid and respectable form of discrimination. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should celebrate that most of us can ignore such pathetic and petty differences in order to collaborate on this project. Spelling, in the end, does not matter so long as the message is clear. If it really bothers you that much, you could create a "Queen's English" version to answer the American-only Conservapedia. SDY (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Gerry, you are correct about that people do have a right to decide how they use their leisure time. However, under the current policy, because there is no ISO 639 code for any of the national English varieties, no such proposal can be accepted. For now, I am willing to wait what will hopefully be just a few short months until the ISO 639-6 alpha4 codes get released so that I can make a formal proposal for an American English Wikipedia under the current guidelines for doing so. If the proposal is rejected then I shall spend my leisure time elsewhere until such time as either it is adopted or some mechanism to support English varieties is added to the English Wikipedia. I strongly doubt that if given the opportunity, that there would not be at least as many users as of the Simple English Wikipedia. As for duplication of all articles, who says that would be a good idea or even necessary? For one thing, new national English variant Wikipedias could be case sensitive in article names, unlike the current mashed English language Wikipedias. Furthermore I suspect, but am not certain, that it would possible to do as is currently done here for the Image: space and the commons: wiki, and have any mainspace articles not on a national variety of a language to show the "master" document on en:. Yes, localization will involve some drawbacks for editors, but I'm not aware of any major multilingual internet project, except Wikipedia, that uses a hodge-podge of Englishes. Either they choose one variety if they expect that it will be the overwhelmingly predominant usage of their intended readers, or they support multiple Englishes. The end user community that Wikipedia should be serving is the much larger community of readers, not the smaller community of editors. Ease of editing should always take a subservient role to ease of using. (As for SDY's suggestion, of Conservapedia, while my preferences about language may seem to some "pathetic and petty", I'm most certainly neither right-wing nor Creationist.) Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I just bring up the parallel because of the intolerance for anything but the WP:TRUTH of how things are spelled. One of that project's main points is that it always uses American spellings. I think we can have enough respect for our readers to realize that most of them will not be bothered by having the spelling be something other than exactly what they expect. It's a grey zone. Or perhaps a gray one. SDY (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should have enough respect for our readers to not think that because something that would better cater to their needs would inconvenience editors it must be inherently bad. While providing support for national varieties, in whatever manner it is rolled out, is likely to mean more work for editors (or at least those of the WikiGnome variety) it definitely would better serve the readers. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, the Chinese languages are mutually unintelligible, and the German dialects are "hardly understandable to someone who knows only standard German". This is not at all similar to these English dialects. If the Yugoslavian "languages" are mutually understandable and were created because of politically animosity that made the project unworkable, that also is not at all similar to the situation on the English-language Wikipedia. As for "table", these two related meanings are used in a specific context and stem from the same basic meaning; if such differences in a few individual words are cause for separate Wikipedias, then we will need many more than two Wikipedias to properly represent the various dialects of English. I propose we need at least eight English Wikipedias, so that English will not be discriminated against by having fewer Wikipedias than Chinese. —Centrx→talk • 03:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as there is a viable community of editors, why shouldn't there be a Wikipedia for each variety of English? Or at least some manner of dealing with English varoeties. While somewhat inconvenient for editors, it could be handled via appropriately coded templates and CSS in the skins to handle most cases seamlessly for readers. Something like {{engvar|cheque|US=check}} or {{engvar|check|UK=cheque}}, or redundantly, {{engvar|cheque|US=check|UK=cheque}}, with appropriate template coding could easily handle the two main varieties. Additional varieties could be supported with additional parameters that if not present would cause one of the two main ones chosen to be selected. Assuming the absence of a Canadian parameter would cause a user who wanted Canadian English to see the British English spelling, one could for example use {{engvar|tire|UK=tyre|CA=tire}} to get the appropriate spelling for Canadian English. Systematic differences could be handled with parameterless templates so that one could get the correct spelling of "colo(u)r" with hon{{engvar -o(u)r}} while leaving the template to figure things out for the less commonly known varieties instead of individual editors.

Possibly a more elegant solution than templates that would require changes to the MediaWiki software could be made, but I'm doubtful that such a change would be without side-effects, and it would need someone to code it. So what exactly would this kludge of a solution need?

1. One additional line to the CSS file for each skin so that by default the variety specific Englishes don't get shown (.engvar-us , .engvar-uk {display:none} (with one additional selector for each English variety supported)
2. A few templates, as mentioned above, that would admittedly need to use some complicated template syntax, but not anymore complicated that what some commonly used templates are already using.
3. And if this ever got past the experiment stage, a user preference so that instead of users having to edit their personal skin CSS files, a radio box could handle it.

If we wished to get really fancy, using domain name/IP sniffing to have this also work for many readers who don't have an account, though I suspect that would require some hefty changes to the MediaWiki software.

Such a solution would be very easy for readers, not as easy for editors. Making it easier for editors would either require changes to the MediaWiki code (not likely to ever happen as any editor-friendly code-based solution likely would be at least as much of a resource hog as such rejected facilities as a built-in spell checker) or to have separate Wikis (perhaps just separate namespaces) as that would require no templates to be used at all. Such a solution has the problem of synchronizing the content of the various English language wikis. However, as long as the main English Wiki continued to function, that problem would be no worse than synchronizing between the different languages. Indeed, it should be easier, as most editors would be capable of "translating" between English varieties.

I'll admit there is no obvious easy solution to the problem of English varieties. If there were, it would likely have been adopted already. But if we wish Wikipedia to be judged as professionally competent, especially for the offline versions, Wikipedia needs to deal with the elephant of English varieties in some manner and stop pretending that it isn't in the room. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, I've heard a bunch of criticisms of Wikipedia from outside the project. People say that it's not reliable because of the fact that a lot of editors don't know what they're talking about; they say that people push their pet theories; they talk about vandalism. All of these things are, of course, true, though we have ways of dealing with them that are much more effective than one might have predicted. But one thing I never recall leveled as a criticism of Wikipedia's "professionalism" is a lack of dialectal uniformity across articles.

So basically I think you've got a solution in search of a problem. Dialectal nonuniformity across articles is not an "elephant". It's a triviality. Any attempt to address it carries serious costs, and they aren't worth it, not by orders of magnitude. --Trovatore (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, there is definitely a problem, so I'm not searching for one. Just because you think that the cost of solving it is higher than the cost of not solving it, does not mean that there is not a problem. Nor does the fact that you think the problem is trivial mean that all people think it is trivial. And while I agree that it certainly is a lesser problem than reliability, POV, and vandalism, that doesn't mean that it is not one, and it certainly doesn't mean that it cannot be addressed until those problems are dealt with. So, while I can respect someone holding the opinion that this problem is not worth the cost of solving it, I have zero respect for someone who says that it is not a problem. It certainly is a greater problem for offline usages, such as Wikipedia 1.0, as the offline world has higher expectations of consistency of style, but if a system were put in place to address that specific need, there would be little extra cost in allowing its use to be expanded to the Greater Pedia. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You have zero respect for me then. Like a recent discussion on the village pump about football articles, this seems to be an example of one editor with a pet peeve that thinks the encyclopedia will be dismissed as unprofessional if it isn't fixed. The hobgoblin of little minds, indeed. SDY (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Even outright spelling errors would not warrant solutions as drastic and heavy-handed as you have proposed. Templates would drastically clutter articles and discourage casual users from editing; readers are editors. Even if we accept that the dialects be a problem, your solutions are grossly disproportionate. This issue has been discussed before, and these proposals have been discussed before and rejected. —Centrx→talk • 18:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, outright spelling errors are far simpler to handle -- just edit them. :) While I understand why a template based solution may strike people as heavy handed for people who view American English, British English, and the other national Englishes as only dialects and not as distinct languages, what would be drastic or heavy handed about having Wikipedias in American English and other national English languages in addition to the current one that uses an undifferentiated English? Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be just wasteful. Why divide expert talent, already rare enough, between separate projects, for such a non-problem? But I suppose I wouldn't have much objection to the mere existence of such projects, because I don't think experts would really waste their time with them. My prediction is that they would basically fail; they would be backwaters like the Simple English wikipedia, another project with no good rationale. --Trovatore (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

While I have no desire to edit simple:, I'd say that it does have a good rationale. The only knock I have against it is that I think it would have been slightly better to have focused on either children or on ESL readers and not on both. Based on the stats, it appears to be healthier than the Wikis of several major languages, including, strangely enough, Hindi. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Title of articles

""Years of birth and death should not be used in a page title to distinguish between people of the same name." What should be done with James Barry? What is the proper way to distinguish the various Irish MPs? Thanks, Enigma ^message 00:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting -- don't know how else you would disambiguate these. This might be a time to ignore all rules. On the other hand, the articles are just barely stubs -- what did these long-ago MPs do that makes them notable enough for articles? --Trovatore (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with regards to that as well. I originally brought this up with User:Xenocidic, because I view the entire set of articles (created by the same user) as somewhat problematic, and that isn't limited just to the titles. Brought it here at Xeno's suggestion. One hurdle at a time, I guess. Enigma ^message 02:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to use it as an argument, but I have seen lots of articles with birth, death, or both years in the title. The guidelines should be either updated or more strictly enforced; this inconsistency is as problematic as any. Waltham, The Duke of 23:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest using titles like James Barry (Irish MP, 1659–1717). That is, "Irish MP" is the primary disambiguation, but since there's still more than one, and we can't easily distinguish them otherwise, we'll just have to fall back on birth/death years (unless someone can think of something better). Oh, and create a redirect from James Barry (Irish MP) back to James Barry (since there's probably no need for a full-blown secondary disambiguation page). And also some redirects per WP:MOSDASH. It's not that much work, just three moves, four redirects and one edit to the dab page itself. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take care of it unless there are any objections. Enigma ^message 01:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Enigma ^message 04:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Too late maybe, but consider James Bary (Irish MP, Rathcormack), etc...? SDY (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Scrolling in articles

It doesn't make sense to me that this text is buried in WP:CITE, when references are only one example. Doesn't it belong here?

Scrolling lists, for example of references, should never be used because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such lists will display properly in all web browsers.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen it used anywhere else besides references (it probably exists for some long lists and such though). If someone saw a scrolling list of references then the first thing they would do is check the policy on citations, so WP:CITE. Gary King (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

They are also showing up in articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The closest thing I am aware of are panorama pictures in city articles and tallest-buildings-in-x lists. Would you care to cater an example? I am quite curious to see what you are referring to. Waltham, The Duke of 00:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No responses, so I'll try again. Does anyone disagree that the text, currently located at WP:CITE, but pertaining to all portions of the article:

Scrolling lists, for example of references, should never be used because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such lists will display properly in all web browsers.

belongs here at MOS rather than buried at cite, since it's a global issue? Scrolling lists are creeping into articles, and they don't mirror, print, et al. An example (since corrected) was at Washington,_D._C.#Demographics (see the version before it was corrected here. The old version doesn't show a scroll bar on my laptop, but did on my other computer, not sure what that's about, but the nominator solved it by converting to a vertical template.) At any rate, I am increasingly seeing scroll bars in the text of articles, there have been many others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that these shouldn't be used in articles, and that if they are being used, then the quote belongs here rather than at WP:CITE. Hesperian 04:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Page name in references

Do we make an exact copy of the page name we are citing in a ref, or do we follow the MOS? For instance, if a page used for referencing is titled "PLAGIARIZM ON THE INTERNET -- HOW STUDENTS ARE PASSING EXAMS", do we type it in capital letters, or change it to lower case? And if it's the latter, do we use initial capital letters for all words that are not coordinating conjunctions, prepositions and articles, correct the double-hyphen and correct the spelling error, or leave it exactly as it is? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I would feel free to change the capitalization, since it is common for publishers to change it themselves; the capitalization of the book spine, half-title page, and title page of a book do not always match. I'd hesitate to correct spelling errors, but if the publisher repeats the title several times, I'd use the most nearly correct version. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I recall reading somewhere that it's policy, or if not, then at least strongly suggested that uppercase titles should be changed to capitalizing only the first letter of each word. Gary King (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#All caps: "Avoid writing in all capitals". More specifically, "Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to title case: Replace 'WAR BEGINS TODAY' with 'War Begins Today'. This is what The New York Times does when transcribing its historical collection." However, "write acronyms and initialisms in all capitals". Waltham, The Duke of 00:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I knew I'd read something like that a while a go, I just couldn't remember where. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Quotes and WP:POINT

I've hit this very unexpected bump here, and I need some advice on how best to deal with this before changing anything (assumimg we determine that anything needs to be changed).

At the moment I have Iowa class battleship up at FAR, in part becuase the last time the article was there was in 2005/2006, and as was expected things have changes at FAC since then. When I rebuilt the article back in march 07 I added a section discussing the class' reactivation potential, including two rquote from people on the opposite end of the debate. I now have word that the qutes are a little big for the rquote template, and ought to be transfered to blockquotes, but my concern is that by switching Rquote for blockquote I may end up bumping against both WP:NPOV and to a greater degree WP:POINT; block quote extends quotes across the whole page and can not be shortened to fit into the context of the materail like rquote. I am concerned that adding block quotes to the article may invite edit warring here over the issue. It is in light of the concerns that I am asking for a ruling from those who frequent this page for a more proffessional opinion on the issue before reformatting the quotes. I am also open to alternatives to both rquote and blockquote, if anyone would like to suggest something else. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the two quotes work nicely as they are.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, they look nice like you arranged them (with rquote) and changing them to block quotes would not be an improvement. Haukur (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Rquote says: "For longer pull quotes of 50 words or more (in a similar style), use Cquote." What a silly little rule - even the example in the template documentation has 69 words. Haukur (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable as a rule of thumb; I've rephrased. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That was an improvement. I think 75 words would be better but that might be overly precise and thus even more likely to be taken too literally by a pedant down the road. Haukur (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

50 or 100 words? I took out the or fewer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. But you've certainly already improved it; the point that the desirable length depends on the length of the rest of the paragraph is also a good one. Haukur (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

MoS bot

Bots that correct MoS issues often come up at WP:BRFA and denied every time. A single bot to correct all errors that can be done safely has been suggested. It would only edit when three or more MoS issues are found (unless it is major) to reduce small edits. I'm willing to do the coding if it has supports. BJ^Talk 20:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate extreme caution on this. Much of what MOS says is controversial; much of what isn't controversial has unstated exceptions (for example, there is no consensus to apply most of these rules inside direct quotations); some of the little which is fully stated and consensus still requires intelligence to deal with correctly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is possible, but it'll have to start small. There are some MoS issues are so superficial that it can only be realistically implemented with a bot. For example, a bot could: convert two hyphens ( -- ) into an em dash ( — ), utilizing en dashes ( – ) for empty table cells, non-breaking spaces for numbers and their units ( either   or utilizing the template {{nowrap}} ; e.g. 17 kg ), and so on. Be sure to check if there is not a bot that already preforms this task. You have my support. ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That is the plan, simple changes only. All bots that have tried to get approval for making only one change have been denied in the past for being wasteful edits. BJ^Talk 05:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommend against using the nowarp template: it's inflexible. The non-breaking space should be used only between number and symbol (not fully spelt-out units). Be careful that we don't end up with spaced em dashes and unspaced en dashes for interrupters—people might lazily write double hyphens without knowing exactly what they should be. Please be aware that Anderson has been conducting a fervent campaign to weaken the status of MoS for more than a year. That he hasn't succeeded is due only to the efforts of people who realise the necessity of a unifying stylistic force in the project. I'd ignore his mantra. Tony (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The changes that a bot should make will be decided later if the overall idea is seen as a good idea. BJ^Talk 13:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Tony, can you manage to have a discussion without a personal attack? As for the status of MOS: it's a guideline; a handful of pedants have sought to use it, without much success, to impose their personal prejudices. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• But the bot should not put in a non-breaking space where spaces will not break: a paragraph beginning "With 3 mm wire," should not have one. Can a bot do this? I doubt it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• A bot could take that into account. (Personally I think the benefits of adding these nbsp's are not worth the effort and the less readable code it produces.) Haukur (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Be careful with replacing -- with em dashes. Many computer programming languages use -- as an operator. --Itub (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor query

Is the placement of the closing quotation mark proper: Seeking to bring Africans into the established political processes, and hoping they would shun the recently formed African National Congress (ANC) parties, Welensky hit out at what he saw as the poor Colonial Office practice of making the situation "[consist] of two opposed policies, black rule and white rule. They naturally prefer to aim for black rule and hope they will experience this, which they regard as the apotheosis of Colonial Office policy". --Efe (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Placing punctuation outside of quotations, especially for snipped quotes, is perfectly acceptable. Proper, even. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"It was announced that"

The phrase "It was announced that" is rapidly becoming my greatest bête noir on Wikipedia. Typical instances might be

"On 31 July 2008 it was announced that Fred Bloggs had signed for Melchester Rovers FC."

Either it was announced by a reliable source, in which case we simply state it as a fact, giving the appropriate citation, or it came from a dubious source, in which case it has no place in an encyclopaedic project. It is the fact of something happening, not the announcement of that fact, that comprises encyclopaedic content. Occasionally, the circulation of a rumour is worth reporting, but if the phrase is widespread, it ceases to serve as a warning that the press may have been muck-spreading, and simply diminishes the apparent confidence of an encyclopaedia in its facts. Am I right? If so, is there any way that this can be raised to the status of part of the MoS, so that we can free ourselves of this feeling of being uncertain and denying responsibility for what is posted on so many statements? Kevin McE (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is hardly unique to Wikipedia - it's endemic to the sports press. The problem is that the specific date of signing is not necessarily known; only the date that said signing is announced. Without public access to the contract, there's no way to know precisely. The alternative is simply stripping the exact date off, but that leaves the statement looking mushy and half-researched. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also object to it as passive voice, but that's the easy way. SDY (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There may be ways to make it less blatant. For example, "the announcement on 31 July 2008 that Bloggs had signed for Melchester Rovers FC marked the end of his ten-year association with Casterbridge United". Barnabypage (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes the exact source of the announcement is difficult to find, because the statement is taken directly from a secondary source and the primary source is not publically available (e.g., you might find a news article saying "In a private interview on 31 July 2008, Bloggs announced his retirement [but we're only publishing this 3 days later]." I suppose that wouldn't be much of an announcement though. Dcoetzee 17:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor archiving notes

Archive 101 recently wrapped up, so I've added links to the section headings in the archive. Text searching the main archive page is a good way to find past discussions. Also, I archived the top section, which wasn't archiving on its own for some reason. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, please don't put links or templates into headings here at WT:MOS. As you can see on the archive page, each section heading becomes a link for easy reference, and embedded links or templates screw this up. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Groan. "MiszaBot II (Talk | contribs) m (57,639 bytes) (Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 10d) to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 101, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 100, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 102". Updating counter so that archiving goes to 102. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Bolding

User:Bkonrad (AKA older != wiser) is making the case here that our guidance on bolding should be changed so that bolding is also used to indicate redirects to subheadings. Bkonrad has concerns about what they call the "FAC cabal", so to avoid the appear of cabal-ism, I've taken the discussion to WP:VPP#Bolding; please weigh in there. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)