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

Compromise on WP:REFPUNC?

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

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

Resolved

 – Noetica^Tea? 08:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

NOTE: The RFC remains open, but there is now a new section on the page:

Subpage structure for the Manual of Style: implementation.

Submissions are requested there also.

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

Noetica^Tea? 03:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Resources for this RFC

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

Summary of the case for subpages

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

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

Summary of the case against subpages

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

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

Votes for subpages

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

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

Votes against subpages

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

• Is it really any easier to manage or find text in subpages than it is the current way? Explain and I'll reconsider. Probably this all came out in the previous discussion, but I wasn't following it; someone needs to make a more convincing case before I would support such a disruptive change. Surely having a link back to the main page is easy to implement in the current scheme, without this change. OK, I'm semi-convinced that it might help, so I withdraw my vote against. Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• I sympathize with the proposal: I've been lost in MOS hell, stumbling around in a maze, annoyed and confused. Reform is sorely needed. But - speaking as a WP user - I expect important pages to have NavBoxes at the top, and I expect those NavBoxes to contain a comprehensive list of all related articles. A hierarchy can be clearly shown in the NavBox. We even have a format choice of either upper-right corner, or a full-width Navbox (such as at the top of WP:AN). The current MOS NavBox is (no offense to those who have worked on it) could be improved quite a bit. Shouldn't we work on improving the NavBox first and see if it can address the needs? And if it fails, then resort to subpages? Following a discussion (below) I've become convinced that the subpages may provide some searching benefits; plus the hierarchical organization is a natural way to organize data, so I'm withdrawing my Opposition. --Noleander (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Can see no practical benefit: surely vast majority of navigation is by links, searches and categories, not by guessing an address to type into address box. Probably little real harm in it, just seems pointless. Kevin McE (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
2. The Manual of Style, in spite of what I think of it in practise, is perfectly titled. It's compiled in the wiki-equivalent of an instruction manual, and is intended to increase internal stylistic consistency. But there is one page that does not fit under that umbrella. WP:ACCESS is primarily focussed on making sure we don't discriminate against the visually impaired; to treat, or give the impression that it should be treated as supplimentary stylistic guideline would be entirely wrong. Equally significantly, ACCESS itself being the trunk of a hierarchal structure makes a lot of sense: the trunk itself should be easy for a novice to understand, and where appropriate there should be more detailed how-to subpages, such as the data table tutorial. There are several other pages that could be consolidated into ACCESS subpages, if that's the direction of travel. If this does go ahead – and I certainly see the overall merit – ACCESS should be removed from the MoS, and revert to being a stand-alone guideline. —WFC— 16:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutral statements

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

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

Discussion and replies

[Editors, confine discussion to this subsection, please]

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

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

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

Is that list intended as an alternative to summarizing the case above? Doesn't work for me. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

For clarity, I am revising my (unindented) message of 19:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC).—Wavelength (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorta kinda, apparently; prefix:WP:Manual of Style/ seems to do it. If the Search box had a nearby Help link, one would not need to guess at Help:Searching or Help:Search to find the search help. This would seem an easy thing to add . . . It’s hard to say how much of an advantage this would be over prefix:WP:Manual of Style with the current setup, but it’s hard to see how it would make things harder—hierarchical namespaces seem to have proven more effective than linear namespaces in many applications. JeffConrad (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And I'm not saying it makes things harder; I just don't see how it makes things any easier. It's not different from a linear namespace if that's all the mechanism we have. Hierarchies are better when there are tools for navigating them. Where's the Finder? Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Finder??? Wikipedia is not a Mac . . . I’m not sure the hierarchical namespace would make things easier to find via search, but it could make things easier for those who maintain the files. One of the great features of Unix (which actually runs Macs) was the hierarchical file system, copied by most OSs that still survive. I could scarcely imagine trying to keep track of files on my computer with a linear namespace. I’ve avoided comment on this so far because I haven’t been following the discussion, and recognize that a little knowledge can be dangerous. JeffConrad (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

How searching would be improved with subpages

Let's suppose I want to find guidelines that mention hard spaces; so I set out to search with this string (just to pick one way, not the best!):

"hard space" OR " " OR "nonbreaking space" OR "non-breaking"

How do I get all the guidelines I'm after? Let's try four ways:

Results like this weigh heavily in favour of our proposed restructuring. If all of the Manual of Style were in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style or a subpage of that, a Google search would retrieve all the target guidelines. (I would also want all the present overgrowth of subpages moved aside, so that only actual style pages were subpages of WP:MOS.) At present, all the guidelines dealing with hard spaces can be found only by painstaking and error-prone composite searching. What's more, Google searches are far more powerful than internal Wikipedia searches in other ways, beyond what we can explore here.

So the proposed change would make development far easier; and we could customise far better search boxes for users wanting to consult the Manual than we can now. If that involves using Google, so be it. In any case, it's time we recognised the larger potential of Wikipedia's style guidelines. They are useful (and beginning to be used) offsite as well. Google already loves Wikipedia! Let's harness Google to be an even better resource for retrieving material on Wikipedia.

I may have missed something; and my searches might be inept! But in that case, searching currently requires considerable sophistication. Under the proposed change, it would not. All of the above applies (with changed details) to Manual of Style talkpages too. Subpages, properly regimented, would make it much easier to track down previous discussion, no matter what corner of what talkpage or archive it might have fallen into – without false positive hits.

Noetica^Tea? 10:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Were I doing such a search with Unix-like utilities, I would probably try something like

grep -lE "(hard space| |nonbreaking space|non-breaking)" Manual_of_Style/*

More complex approaches could be used for more complex directory hierarchies if the volume of data was sufficient to warrant the added complexity. Knowing nothing about the internals of the wiki search engine, I’m reluctant to suggest that this example is directly applicable, but it does seem reasonable.

Ultimately, it’s a matter of what is required to find the desired information. That several of us with considerable experience on Wikipedia have had to think about this suggests that it’s just too darn hard to find many things, including help and general policies as well as items in the MOS. If it’s challenging for veterans, imagine what it’s like for newbies. Reorganization of the MOS hierarchy may be only one part of a possible solution, but if it really would make a significant improvement, it’s something that can be done without much help from others (e.g., changes to mediaWiki). JeffConrad (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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

NavBox improvement

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

FYI: I've solicited comments at the template Talk page regarding the proposal to add more detail/depth to the MOS NavBox. --Noleander (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Good that you've joined the discussion, Noleander. I've explored your draft of an improved template. Just now I can't see how it conflicts with the RFC proposal here. Wouldn't these reforms work well together? The conversion to subpages is a partial solution, enabling efficient and rational searches. But so, I think, is what you put forward just a partial solution, addressing a different feature of a complex problem (with no improvement toward rationalising searches, per se). Is it just that you prefer consideration of one idea at a time, or is there some other reason for your present opposition? I'm inclined to support both initiatives. Noetica^Tea? 22:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps the two proposals (NavBox expansion & supages) would work well together. It may be that they are entirely orthogonal and complementary. To be candid: I'm a bit fuzzy on the search benefits that the subpage proposal provides (I read some of the search examples above, but I could not see the point the examples were making). Can you (or anyone) provide a very specific example of how the subpages would improve the search capability for a typical user? (a user that is not a black-belt in search syntax). After I get clarity, I may retract my "Oppose" !vote. --Noleander (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces.

—Wavelength (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've struck-out my Oppose !vote. My final comment is: If this is implemented, it should be widely publicized at the Village Pump, etc so that others could consider implementing it in other realms within WP (e.g. the naming conventions articles). Consistency is a good thing, and it's just not right for a couple of areas to use subpages (Reference desk & MOS) and others to not use it. --Noleander (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Subpages of project pages are already widely implemented (Wikipedia:Subpages) and widely known (http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Wikipedia:Subpages).

—Wavelength (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that link ... I see that now (for instance, specific RfC subgroups are subpages of the main RfC page, as in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography). But subpages are prohibited in article space, so they are a bit alien to many editors: it is a bit peculiar that they are prohibited in article space, but permitted in project space: but I can see the reasoning (the key distinction is that many articles belong in 2 or more hierarchies, but project pages often belong to just one). In any case, I like hierarchical organizations, and using subpages for MOS is sensible. --Noleander (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Navigation by address box

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

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

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

Can we have a new namespace? MOS:Chemistry for example. The Chemistry MOS has numerous sub-pages already, and it seems a mouthful to have WP:MOS/Chemistry/Compound classes [1], for example. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Comments on neutral statements

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

On Statement 1

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

On Statement 2

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

On Statement 3

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

On Statement 4

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

On Statement 5

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

On Statement 6

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

Procedural points

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

As proposer of this RFC I have refactored subsections for clarity and order. And I have moved material – putting some into well-labelled navboxes where this will keep things readable, especially for anyone coming new to the discussion. I have assumed that no one minds; and others can do the same, of course. Please raise any concerns in this subsection. Noetica^Tea? 23:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Noetica, if you still wish to convert the subsidiary pages of WP:MOS to subpage format, and if you do not see any problem involving subpages of talk pages, then please do proceed with the conversion at your convenience (possibly with the assistance of one or more helpers), because there seems to be no substantial objection from anyone at this time. If the proposal languishes without implementation, then this will have been another case of time and thought expended, perhaps wastefully. Let us declare consensus for this proposal.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

[I am revising my message of 19:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC).—Wavelength (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)]

Agreed, Noetica. I assume that you are unfamiliar on a previous proposal on this topic (Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 50#Move all Wikipedia: namespace pages in (disambiguation) format to /subpage format) which went the same way. I believe all points to the negative have been soundly addressed, and general opinions range from "great" to "no clear benefit", which is as good as you can get on EN. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 12:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

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

We have fairly clear guidance against refactoring without consent; I do not consent. This practice inhibits discussion, and prevents agreement on anything than simple accept/decline. If this practice continues, as here, I shall ask that Noetica be blocked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Our "fairly clear guidance" says "Relocation of material to different sections or pages where it is more appropriate", and in this case, the appropriate material for each section was labeled. You may debate those labels, but I can't imagine Noetica being blocked for his paragraph organization, and I can't imagine how suggesting a block can even be considered constructive. One would ordinarily leave alone material accompanied by a threat like "explain themselves to an admin", but such language is getting to be a habit. Art LaPella (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Separate namespace is a much better idea

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

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

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

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

I like the idea too, CC. I guess I'm not alone in being put off by the motivation offered for it by PMAnderson!

I see no drawbacks; but I had thought it would be difficult to get accepted. In some quarters the Manual is not well received. Some of the mud sticks, and unfair as that is, it is a reality we must contend with.

Now, given the huge support we see for the present RFC, we could simply close it now as resolved in favour of the proposal. We could suspend the separate Implementation discussion for now (see below), while someone starts a similar RFC testing the namespace proposal. If you want to do that, I would certainly want to assist. I DO propose a structured, orderly approach like the one I instituted for the present RFC. "Huge" it may be; but far easier to navigate than the usual, I submit. Noetica^Tea? 11:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, I also support the idea of creating a new namespace specifically for the MoS. However, that's for later on. In the meantime, we should do this proposal.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Subpage structure for the Manual of Style: implementation

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

Proposed stages

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

Stage 1: clear the way

Existing miscellaneous subpages of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style (hereafter called WP:MOS) to be relocated

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

• Many are simple redirects, like Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/(mathematics) which redirects to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style (mathematics).
• Some are vestiges of defunct discussions or initiatives: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/(biographies)/Survey_on_Style-Prefixed_Honorary_Titles/Ratification.
• Some have a vital role to play, and should be preserved in a suitable location: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register.
• At least one is a current draft of guidelines for consideration: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dash draft.

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

Discussion of Stage 1

[Editors, confine relevant discussion to this subsection please]

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

For clarity, this is the list of all pages beginning with "Wikipedia:Manual of Style". This includes current subpages and (proposed) future subpages. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Johnny, the matter may not be entirely straightforward. (See a related concern I have just added about exact naming, for Stage 2 below.) We need to think through how Wikipedia searching will work, using the prefix system. And also web-searching (such as with Google), which is only going to get more important, given Wikipedia's preeminence on the web. Did you mean exactly what you wrote: "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dash draft should be at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dashes"? Please amend for accuracy, or clarify.

Your list is handy. See also Links to 82 affected pages in the RFC above.

Noetica^Tea? 07:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

About Dashes, what I meant exactly was that it should be at the proposed title, whatever that ends up being in future. Worst case you could have "/Dashes (draft)", but I still think the exact proposed title is ideal. Are you questioning me about Dashes specifically, or about formatting of all MoS titles? BTW, in contrast to the link I posted above, this is all pages beginning with "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/". The ending "/" makes a big difference, and this is what we can base the pre-built searches off of. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

To minimise possible ructions with local editors, could the moves be preceded by a notice on the talk pages? Tony (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Stage 2: progressively move Manual of Style pages

Existing pages to be moved one by one, with full consultation, and checked for consistency in the process

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

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

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

Discussion of Stage 2

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

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

Deferring implementation

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

What are we waiting for?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have suggested that we wait a short time "until the state of WP:MOS and conditions on this talkpage are suitable". As I suggest above, that may mean:

1. WP:MOS (as hub of the new structure) is unprotected and conveniently editable.
2. Conditions on this talkpage are suitable: that is, it is not embroiled in perennial politics over the basics (what is a manual of style? should we have one?), and it is somehow relieved of personal animosity.

That's what I'm waiting for, and I will soon propose a schedule for moving things forward. What are you waiting for, and what are you proposing to do? ☺ Noetica^Tea? 23:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well... that's kinda what I wanted to know. If you feel that you're too embroiled in politics to be comfortable doing this, then someone else should step up. I'd be glad to do it myself, but I don't want to step on any toes in the process. Incidentally, the idea that we need to wait for unprotection of this page strikes me as being kinda silly, if only because this proposal really has nothing to do with changes to this page (but, maybe that's just my view).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ohms (V = IR), I have said that the page is embroiled in politics; I do not say that I am. My being portrayed that way, and indeed named as an arch-villain ripe for the pillory and a perpetual ban, has little to do with reality. I structured the RFC, and saw to it that the underlying consensus could emerge clearly, all without politics spoiling things, and I would like to continue now with implementation.

No one has objected – or could reasonably object, I think – to progressively monitoring for consistency as pages are brought in as subpages of WP:MOS. But to achieve that, it will be necessary for editors to collaborate in making technical adjustments (at least) to WP:MOS and to the added pages. There is no rush; and we should get it right. That's why I suggest a delay while present large issues are sorted out. (I could point to a problem from inattention in last year's efforts to coordinate MOS pages; it has repercussions even now.)

If you favour a different approach, by all means get editors together, and get on with it! I have no ownership, of course.

Noetica^Tea? 04:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Comment Wikipedia's motto is "Be Bold" but not "Be reckless". I would recommend that those undertaking this proposal proceed slowly. Start with just a few pages and look carefully for problems. If no issues are seen, the process can be accelerated. I am concerned about categories mostly. I don't understand exactly how Mediawiki handles parents and children categories for subpages of pages. I hope that those wanting to start this move figure out exactly how Mediawiki does that. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Jason, I agree that caution and close scrutiny are needed; and also I suggest monitoring pages for consistency as part of the process (see earlier comments). I see that McLay1 has already moved some pages, including miscellaneous subpages of the sort that I thought we could look at removing altogether, or systematically relocating. And then McLay1 stopped, without reporting to this page. A pity. Still, that's Wikipedia! At least there is an unambiguous consensus, and it can be acted upon when editors are interested in addressing implementation more attentively. Just now there is too much other action, so I have not even posted the schedule that I promised. Later, when the weather is more agreeable. Noetica^Tea? 05:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Logical punctuation

I just learned today about the Wikipedia style convention for logical punctuation, per MOS:COMMA and MOS:LQ. Could someone please explain the logic behind this rule?

Why is the American-based Wikipedia using British punctuation rules? Not only does America have a significantly larger population size (which leads one to logically infer that it also has many more writing professionals), but the American style for commas and quotation marks is also endorsed by the Modern Language Association, the Associated Press, and I believe several other notable organizations (but I don't want to assume and be incorrect).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I see it, we've adopted an uncommon rule -- I had no idea that this comma philosophy even existed -- when I think it's safe to say that a large portion of our writers and editors are Americans who are going to follow the American style, and we're going to have rampant inconsistency as a result.

Perhaps my thoughts make me a close-minded American, but I just don't really see the logic behind it.--Jp07 (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said in response to your question on my talk page, logical punctuation has been part of the MOS since it was first put together in 2002.[2] There are other things in the MOS that follow American convention over the British, such as the strong preference for the double quotation mark rather than the single.

In terms of grammar and spelling, by widespread consensus, any of the major national variants of English are acceptable in articles. This has also been in the MOS since the beginning. There are obvious caveats to this (the spelling needs to be consistent within the article, common ground should be sought where possible, words that would be confusing in other dialects should be avoided, etc.) and it's worked fairly well for the last nine years.Cúchullain ^t/c 16:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not trying to question you at all, and I appreciate your help; I agree that it's best to follow the stylebook as long as that convention is a part of the stylebook, but I think it's also important to note that organizations bound by a stylebook (like the Associated Press) publish new versions. The AP publishes a new stylebook every year to make improvements and changes. I don't think tradition alone is a good reason to follow a rule.

I did review those articles, and I guess I sort of understand the desire to avoid changing an author's content, but can someone give me an example where it would be necessary or even beneficial to know that the author placed a comma or a period at the end of the quote? Do those ever add meaning? I can see it in poetic verse, maybe, but otherwise I can't think of a situation where that's important.

I think it requires a decision between whether it's more important to know where the author placed his punctuation -- I honestly don't think that's important -- or for Wikipedia to be consistent. I think it's going to be a battle to be consistent if we stick with logical punctuation.--Jp07 (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't try comparing the population of the US to the UK. Many countries in the Commonwealth have English as an official language and many of those use "British" usage rules. For example, India has a lot more people than the US and English is an official language there. Just thoughts. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. We already have agreement on this, at WP:ENGVAR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking for details because I'm not very familiar with this convention, as I've pointed out. As a career writer and editor, I believe that it's best to question the logic behind the conventions that we use, and we should use those conventions that best preserve clarity and consistency. I used to manage a publication, and when a consensus of editors came to the conclusion that a convention needed to be changed, it was, effective immediately.

I have pointed out my bias, and that is why I'm seeking outside input in this forum for discussion.--Jp07 (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Because this page was written by a small coterie of those who want to use it as a tool to make Everybody Do It MY Way.

Logical punctuation has a minor advantage for some readers who do not realize that ," and ." are compound signs in American punctuation - and who care about de minimis details; it has a significant disadvantage in that it is harder to do accurately, and impossible to proof-read.

It would be a great improvement to the encyclopedia to acknowledge that there are two systems, that they both have advantages, and that articles may use either consistently.

Pending agreement on this, we should at least mark that the present text is (as it has been every three months or so since its imposition) disputed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should look at it as a desire to impose control over other writers and editors. I suppose this "control" is a side effect of a stylebook, but that's not the end goal. The goal is to maintain consistency, which is the only way to achieve a professional product. And although inter-article consistency is definitely a must, best practice is really to maintain the same rules throughout the publication (i.e. all of Wikipedia). Whatever is decided, it really would be best to use it all the way throughout.

I think we're trying not to step on toes here, but there is such a thing as too much political correctness. When it interferes with the project's perceived professionalism, and hence its credibility (which is at stake), I think we need to get tough and get over our sensitivities.--Jp07 (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, power shouldn't be the goal; but for a small and turbulent minority, it is.

Nor does MOS achieve professionalism by universal consistency: it doesn't do that now. See WP:CONSISTENCY: we seek consistency within articles, as other publishers do within individual contributions to an anthology; but for some of the most notable differences in English (favor/favour; red, white and blue/red, white, and blue) our guidance is for inconsistency.

Our road to professionalism is accuracy, verifiability, neutrality, clarity; achieving uniformity on quotation marks does little for these, and is at best false advertising without them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Um... does anyone else see the inconsistency of talking about achieving a "professional" product when everyone involved in creating it is a volunteer? As long as "anyone can edit" (which is a core concept behind Wikipedia) it is unrealistic to kid ourselves about achieving a professional product. Our goal is (and should be) to achieve the best amateur product that we can. Blueboar (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a very significant difference between "professional" and "professional standard". Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Still, I don't think an article with major WP:NPOV/WP:OR/WP:V problems but a professional-looking style would be better than the same article with a crappy style. If anything, the latter is less likely to deceive readers. (This is why I don't usually copy-edit articles unless I have at least a vague idea of what they're talking about and know that what they say is at least vaguely plausible.) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 23:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And both styles here are professional - they're used by professional proofreaders. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I was commenting on what Blueboar and Malleus Fatuorum said on a general level, not on this issue in particular. (FWIW, I prefer “logical” quotation myself, but I think both should be allowed, and if the article I'm editing uses traditional American quotation consistently, I leave that alone.) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 00:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.

But does it also hold as a general point? We are rarely dealing with a controversy between professional style and crappy style; we are dealing with points on which there are several professional styles, and some self-appointed maven wants everybody to use only his choice. (Sometimes his choice appears to be something he's made up, but that's another question; even then it's often a rational but unattested invention.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that both styles are equally professional. The majority of writing professionals, however, look for and expect pervasive consistency in any product. I don't think we should relegate the principle of consistency when it comes from the writing industry.--Jp07 (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

We'vw already done so; on spelling, which is far more visible, we've actively rejected consistency; see WP:ENGVAR. On other points where there are two reasonable and wisely used alternatives, we've abandoned it. We're a collaboration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm an American, and I prefer logical punctuation... This isn't so much of a regional variation as it is a profession one, in my opinion. People in the sciences and engineering tend to use logical punctuation, whereas those in the humanities and the arts seem to prefer more traditional punctuation. Wikipedia has a fairly strong foundation in the tech world, so it really shouldn't be that surprising that we seem to prefer logical punctuation.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Then use it, and let others do otherwise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The American style guides were largely constrained by the Network effect, and couldn't change away from the illogical style. Wikipedia had a "clean" start, and could get away with adopting its own practices, obviously within reason. It would have been silly to decide that three quote marks was the right way to do quotations. However, given that it is the English Wikipedia, rather than the American Wikipedia, when confronted with a choice between one rule that made sense, and another rule that made absolutely no sense, and had nothing going for it other that "that's the way we've always done it", deliberately chose to go with the logical rule.

Works for me. If you are a professional writer not at Wikipedia, and want to continue using the illogical rule, go for it. I don't.--SPhilbrickT 02:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the comma rule name calling is really necessary. All I did was ask for a justification, and as far as I see it, I still haven't really got one. Give me a specific justification for this rule aside from Wikipedia tradition and the (seeming) desire to deviate from American writing industry tradition simply because it was the tradition.

Thing #1: Just because it's called logical punctuation doesn't necessarily make it more logical than any other rule. You can label anything in the world "logical," but to assume that the label makes it logical is a fallacy. In fact, I see "logical" punctuation as very illogical from a copy editing perspective because it's impossible to maintain consistency, it's (nearly) impossible to check correct usage, and readers are going to perceive errors (real or imagined).

Thing #2: Maybe this is just my perception, but I feel like we're fighting "the way we've always done it" because we can. Is that and should that be a goal of Wikipedia?

Thing #3: I would like to see more solid facts in this discussion. I don't have many; that's why I'm here.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory; given my background, I'm simply questioning a policy that I feel could be improved. Please consider my ideas.--Jp07 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is my understanding of why logical punctuation is superior (and has nothing to do with my nationality or the way I was taught in school): If the name of a song is in quotation marks (e.g. "Let It Be"), then in a list ("Let It Be", "Here Comes the Sun" and "Hey Jude") it makes more sense to put the comma outside the quotation marks because the comma is not part of the name of the song. In a quote: John Smith stated that "there are not enough bananas". makes more sense if the full stop is not part of the quoted material, otherwise you are altering the quote. Logical punctuation is clearer and cannot be misunderstood, unlike the other system. In my opinion, logical punctuation also looks better. I can't see any advantages to illogical punctuation, unless you personally think it is more aesthetically pleasing, which isn't really important. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to explain it. My initial point was about copy editing, though -- how would you like to try to copy edit logical punctuation? You would have to look up every single piece of quoted material to check for usage. That is so beyond practical that it's not even funny.

And aside from that "illogical punctuation" isn't illogical simply because the punctuation is inside of the quotation marks; commas don't come at the end of a complete string in English because that's inappropriate usage. And with your quote example, it's not really altering the content by putting a period inside because you can't pronounce the period symbol. It has no sound and no meaning. It is simply present in writing to establish and clarify syntax. There is no period in spoken language. By saying that it changed the quotation, we would have to think that he said "there are not enough bananas period." In which case, we would write that he said "there are not enough bananas PERIOD." The ." means "quote and sentence over; expect a new thought to come at you." It neither contributes to nor detracts anything from the content of the quoted material.

I think it would be best to stop arguing, however, which is most logical (because that could go on forever); we should rather argue which is most useful in practice. I think I have a valid, indisputable point on the copy editing.--Jp07 (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty of copy-editing is why the Chicago Manual of Style recommends against "logical" punctuation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. We could easily say that if someone writes John Smith stated that "there are not enough bananas". we would also need to check if there is part of the quote or not so it would be easier to just get rid of the quotation marks. However, that would be silly. Why bother checking whether the punctuation was part of the quote or not? Do it if you're putting the quote into the article, that's not hard, but why check if someone else was right? It doesn't really matter. Another distinction is made with logical punctuation in the case of a broken quote: "There are not enough bananas", stated John Smith, "We need to grow more". (I don't know if I followed all the MoS rules in that example but the point is about the punctuation). Putting the comma inside the quotation marks would imply that the comma separated the two statements in the original quote, which is incorrect. Another case is if a song contained a full stop: John Smith wrote the song "Full Stop.". Although that looks a little odd, I would say that is the correct way of writing it, since the first full stop is just part of the name, not the sentence punctuation. John Smith wrote the song "Full Stop.." looks a lot worse. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in U.S. English, if the period was part of the song, you wouldn't need the second period. The one inside the quotation marks does double-duty. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, this is painful, but at this point I say let's agree to disagree on logic. That's going to become a circular argument. Let's talk about practice exclusively. Which is more practical? See my comments on copy editing. Accuracy and consistency are important, so if we're going to go with a style, we need to do our best to follow it or we might as well have no style at all. And in the publishing world, it is an editor's job to check areas where errors commonly pop up, and this would definitely be one of those areas. Who wants to be in charge of checking quoted material?

I'm willing to estimate that about 50 percent of editors don't even know about this MOS rule, so they're not going to know that they need to maintain original punctuation when they pull the quote. Who wants to go back and check the quotes, particularly those pulled from protected databases and hard copy-only resources?--Jp07 (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, it really doesn't matter if the punctuation is slightly off with quotes. I'd rather have a logical system with some errors than an illogical system which is immune to errors because the system is to deliberately use what others would consider errors. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

JP07, you are right to think that this is strange. The bottom line is that WP:LQ is here solely because most of the contributors to this talk page just (WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:ILIKEIT) prefer it to American English punctuation. You're also right that many Wikipedians don't know about this rule. The fact that a disproportionate number of Wikipedians were programmers might also have something to do with it. There is exactly one time when British vs. American punctuation actually makes a non-aesthetic difference, and that's when dealing with raw data strings. (Type in "enter.doc/qr". etc.) WP:LQ has been challenged many times. Some of its supporters claim that it is, as the MoS says, less prone to ambiguity and subsequent errors, but no one has ever provided even one example of American English causing even one error on Wikipedia, ever. This isn't because American punctuation isn't used here. It is. There are even front page featured articles that have used American punctuation on their big day. I don't know if you know this, but almost every single American English style guide treats American punctuation as correct and LQ as incorrect in formal American English writing. If WP: MoS were held to the same standards as regular articles, those for reliable sources and no original research, then WP:LQ would have been changed long ago. I 100% support changing the Wikipedia punctuation policy to follow ENGVAR. Use British/LQ when it is correct to do so and, at the absolute least, allow correct American punctuation on articles that are on clearly American topics. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... thanks for the backup. I kind of gave up, though. I got tired of asking for justifications and getting the "logical"/"illogical" appellations and tradition. And I do think it is odd that the writing prescriptivism seems to be coming mostly from computer programmers, and from what I can tell (i.e. per user pages and comment content), those who do not have experience as professional writers. I don't quite understand that. I do completely understand why the period and comma placement is important in programming, as I have a programming background as well... but programming and writing are two totally different things. The human mind does not process syntactic symbols in the same way that a computer does. And yeah, that's about what I thought with the style guides. I'm most familiar with AP and MLA, so I didn't want to make any more assumptions, but I had never heard differently on comma/period placement until yesterday.

I think this is a losing battle, though. Even if you win this one, there's WP:IAR. I think it's more important to take on the battle for consistency before taking on specific rules. It seems like non-writers typically don't find consistency valuable in their writing, but both expert writers and novices will notice a lack of consistency and will critique it. Strange.

Maybe it's just me, but I would think it would be wise for the predominantly programmer-run project to seek out the advice of writers...--Jp07 (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You would think IAR would apply, but nope. I actually got brought up on AN/I for using American punctuation in articles that already had it. If we can get enough people, though, we might be able to modify or replace WP:LQ with something more sensible. Maybe the pro-LQ crowd would accept just allowing American punctuation (as opposed to requiring it) on American-subject articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I've privately softened a little bit on this one over the years; but what I really can't abide by is "this," where the inclusion of the comma within the word-as-word or the quotation jars with its very obvious identity as part of the main sentence. Also, I'm concerned that within-article consistency really could be achieved if the guideline is looser. Tony (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Tony. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a reasonable person can change his opinions over time by continual observation of the situation to which they are relevant. However, I'd like to say that what people do and don't find jarring is in the eye of the beholder. If anything, the use of American style in words-as-words situations is even less likely to cause real confusion than with quotes from sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And we recommend presenting words-as-words in italics, which removes the problem; both systems recommend this, because italics have no visible closing marker. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that IAR would apply. Despite its name, it doesn't literally mean you can ignore any rule. I prefer to think of it as "yes, there's technically a rule that covers this, but when the rule was codified, they didn't really consider this situation, and had they considered it, they would have accepted that this situation is different. That might mean the general rule needs modification, or it might simply mean that this situation should be considered a one-off exception". However, when we have rules that squarely apply, and have been repeatedly discussed and consensus is that they do apply to this situation, you don't get to use IAR.--SPhilbrickT 16:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What I'm most concerned with is pervasive consistency. Most people who read Wikipedia will read more than one article. So if one article is consistent but there are multiple variants elsewhere, I see intra-article consistency as moot. But I appreciate your diplomacy.--Jp07 (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that inter-article consistency is not necessary or at least more trouble than it's worth on Wikipedia. To effect it, we'd have to go all the way, pick just one national variety of English and use it on every single article for punctuation, spelling and all other considerations. Choosing American English punctuation to the exclusion of British/LQ wouldn't solve our problem; it would just reverse it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... J-school might have made me a stickler for consistency.--Jp07 (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Always ignore the Manual of Style; everybody else does. But thanks for trying to fix it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to have inter-article consistency, but that would force us to say things like "The American flag is coloured red, white, and blue" or "The English flag is colored white and red". In a publication requiring editorial approval, that's possible and even preferable. On Wikipedia, it's untenable.

Regarding punctuation: I've never understood why anyone uses traditional American punctuation. I remember being in sixth grade and learning the rules for commas and periods in quotation marks, and I remember asking the teacher why in the world would we do that, it makes no sense! I've since realized that it has its own internal logic (as PMAnderson noted, comma-quote and period-quote are always read together even though they are two glyphs), but I still don't like it (I don't think you shouldn't put glyphs between quotation marks unless those glyphs can be attributed to the source you are quoting). My own preference is to leave punctuation outside quotation marks. This has the same copyediting advantages as traditional American punctuation while, in my opinion at least, being more accurate and prettier.

I agree with you that so-called "logical quotation" offers huge copyediting difficulties, and the name isn't very good. It might be possible to change to the system I mentioned above where punctuation is always outside the quotation marks, since that's already quite similar to what the MoS requires (and in fact you sometimes see people moving punctuation outside the quotation marks in the mistaken belief that it's an MoS requirement). But you seem to be advocating traditional American punctuation, and I don't think the politics of that will work: The non-Americans will protest, the Americans aren't nationalist and traditionalist enough to think that the way they were taught in school is necessarily better, and the result will likely be no consensus. You certainly won't change this rule by bringing it up here, where it's been talked to death. If you really want to change it, then you'd need to start an RfC on this topic here and advertise it very widely to pull in editors who aren't MoS regulars; and you'd have to do a very good job of convincing them. Ozob (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... I will actually receive an American license to teach English and journalism in August, and I am of the thought that some of the lacking nationalism in America has to do with the way that we teach the English language in schools. I have yet to decide whether more nationalism would be a good or a bad thing, but there seems to be a movement among language arts educators away from teaching grammar; they often explain this by saying that grammar instruction "doesn't improve writing skills." I would agree with this sentiment -- writing content will not improve with greater understanding of grammar rules, but perceived credibility among readers definitely gets a boost when you demonstrate a mastery of the English language, and sometimes grammar and punctuation are important for clarity (so I guess in those situations this knowledge would improve writing skills). An ability to follow grammar and punctuation rules is also necessary for anyone who is interested in pursuing a career in writing, and it also helps with a number of other careers where writing is used.

But I think we often characterize the English language as illogical and silly despite the fact that it really isn't, and this damages the relationship that Americans develop with their own tongue. True, it is a mutt of a tongue, and it is difficult for people of other languages to learn, but there is some logic behind every language rule. It would probably be a little more... unified if it wasn't for Roman, French, and Nordic invasions of England, but what can you do.--Jp07 (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and on the nationalism, it doesn't help that America still doesn't have a legally recognized official tongue. --Jp07 (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I have long thought that the movement away from teaching grammar was a terrible idea. I receive, on a regular basis, emails from people who ought to be able to write better but can't. It makes them look bad. I've often wondered why the movement away from grammar started. Do teachers not teach grammar because they genuinely believe that, say, not recognizing misplaced modifiers doesn't improve writing skills? (On the other hand, Norman Mailer got away with it in the infamous opening line of Harlot's Ghost.) Is it because grammar is objective and doesn't allow the favoritism games that provide some with such perverse pleasure? I wonder if it's now because they don't know anything about grammar themselves.

I agree that English isn't as illogical as it's made out to be. But I think that reputation is a symptom of the lack of English grammar instruction. English teachers will tell their students not to write in the passive voice, and they consider this a vitally important rule, but they can't give a precise description of what the passive voice is. If they could, they would realize at once how silly the rule is. I think more harm has been done to English grammar by reformers than by all the the invasions of England, because the reformers moved the emphasis away from how real people write and speak and placed it on trivialities like passive voice or which versus that. Now all anyone knows are these incorrect trivialities, and they can't write a single clear sentence.

I'm ranting again... Oh, well. Ozob (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

@Ozob: People use "aesthetic" punctuation because it's almost as easy as the system you outline and a large number of anglophones will understand it: all those who use it, and a large body of those who don't but have heard of it.

Ozob's punctuation would not be a bad system; it works oddly for quoting full paragraphs, where everything but the final period will be inside quotes; both existing systems tuck the closing period inside. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I would be behind an RFC, actually. There are several good reasons for removing the ban on American punctuation.

1. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources on American English actively prefer American punctuation for general writing—which is what encyclopedia articles are.

2. The idea that American punctuation causes misquotation, ambiguity or errors in subsequent editing is original research.

3. American punctuation is already used on Wikipedia, despite the ban, and has not been found to cause misquotation, ambiguity or errors in subsequent editing to any detectable extent. (Also original research, admitted.)

4. Taking 3 into account, the ban only serves to punish and insult writers trained to use American punctuation and to please people who (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) just don't like American punctuation or who (WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL) think that "this is where English is going," etc. If American English ever changes to the British/LQ style, we can just change the MoS then.

5. Using punctuation that is correct relative to its context would make Wikipedia look more professional and precise.

6. ENGVAR is already a proven policy and it is reasonable to believe that extending it to punctuation would work well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I, too, think an RfC would be a good idea because our discussion here seems to be a bit cyclical.--Jp07 (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I too would approve of extending ENGVAR to punctuation. I see no reason to mandate one punctuation style over another on a Wikipedia wide scale when both are valid and acceptable styles. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Though it’s not high on my list, I also would permit “aesthetic” punctuation here, and second Blueboar’s comment about ENGVAR; we could argue forever about which practice is better and get nowhere—AmE and BrE sometimes differ, and one is no better than the other. I would like ENGVAR to include a recommendation that the combination of grammar, spelling, and punctuation be at least plausible to one accustomed to the particular ENGVAR; in many cases, this would allow some flexibility (e.g., some British publishers such as OUP use unspaced em dashes, and the BBC web site uses “aesthetic” punctuation), but the combinations should not be such that a British reader of an article supposedly in BrE thinks “this is whacked”.

Incidentally, I certainly have not found US technical publications to favor “logical” punctuation here. I guess it just depends on one’s field and the particular publications. JeffConrad (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's funny to see its being called "aesthetic punctuation". It looks quite ugly to me but that's in the eye of the beholder. I would oppose a change to the guideline on this not just because I don't like it but because it changes the quote. JIMp _talk·cont 08:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Jimp, in all the times we've debated this issue, no one has yet provided even one example of American punctuation ever changing even one quotation on Wikipedia. (There have been a few "it changes the quote if you also remove half the words," though.) In American English, the closing periods and commas are understood as part of the quotation process, just as "centre" is understood as being pronounced "sen-ter" rather than "sen-treh" in British spelling. Can you show me a time when American punctuation changed a quotation on Wikipedia? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It changes the quote only in terms of punctuation. Jim said "I like frogs." No, he didn't, he said "I like frogs". It's a very minor point but because American punctuation makes no distinction between punctuation that existed in the original quote and punctuation that was added by the next writer, it makes it ambiguous and against the general principle of not changing quotes. Yes, in nearly all cases it won't change the meaning and it will be completely understandable but it's an unnecessary change to a quote nonetheless. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

But because the final period or comma is understood to be part of the quotation process and not part of the quoted content, it is not the quoted content that is changed. In all the times we've discussed this, no one has ever brought up even one instance of an actual problem, confusion or misquotation that could be attributed to the use of American punctuation. We shouldn't go banning things because of imaginary problems. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, when we speak of “American punctuation”, we should say North American punctuation, because Canadian practice follows that of the US. As for “the general principle” of not changing quotes, it’s application here is not a general principle in the US and Canada. JeffConrad (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've looked around a little and I've found one or two sources on Canadian English that preferred the British form. It seems that Canada can go either way, though I'd like to see a reputable print source on the subject. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The Canadian Style. For the most part Canadian punctuation is similar to that in the US, though there are a few things that seem unique to Canada. Spelling is somewhat of a hybrid, but looks mainly British to me. JeffConrad (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There are two types of quotation mark styles: traditional quoting and logical quoting. Neither one is "American rules" or "British rules". They are simply two different styles, both used in both places, it's just that one of them happens to be more common in America, and the other more common in Britain.

As far as why logical quoting should be used? There are any number of reasons:

1) Logical quoting has been used on Wikipedia since its inception.

2) Logical quoting is simply logical... it makes sense for quote marks to contain only that which is part of what is being quoted. It makes no sense to include in quotes punctuation that doesn't belong there.

3) Since the dawn of the computer age, especially with the arrival of command-prompt-based operating systems such as DOS, logical quoting has become accepted as common practice in America, and, although it wouldn't be entirely accurate to say that traditional quoting has quite fallen out of favour yet, it looks like it is set to in the very near future.

Reason #2 is really the only important, and the only necessary, reason to use logical quoting. It couldn't make more sense. If something belongs in the quote marks, put it there; if it doesn't, don't. If you actually did ride on something called a "bicycle,", then, by all means, include the comma with it. But I don't know what a "bicycle," is.-=( Alexis ^(talk)03:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC) )=-

The sources refer to them as "American" and "British." They might also have other names but yes, they really are American and British. Proponents of LQ might wish that I were making it up, but if I am, so are Chicago and these guys: [3] [4].

1) Just because a mistake is long-standing doesn't mean it shouldn't be corrected. I strongly suspect that the preference for British/LQ was present on early Wikipedia because its founders were disproportionately people with programming backgrounds as opposed to writing backgrounds.

2) In the absence of any actual effect, "This is more logical" is just another way of saying, "I personally prefer this more." It might be more logical to spell "caught" as "kot," but it's both wrong and sloppy. Using punctuation that is correct relative to its context makes Wikipedia look precise and professional.

3) Maybe it's become common practice among computer programmers but not in general-audience writing, and Wikipedia is a general-audience publication.

I would be extremely surprised if you or any of our readers didn't know what a "bicycle," however it was punctuated, is. The real logical way to write is the way that will be understood and appreciated by one's readers. British and American styles are about the same with respect to being understood, and people tend to appreciate the style with which they are more familiar. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

According to Darkfrog24 "just because a mistake is long-standing doesn't mean it shouldn't be corrected", but it is not a mistake for a publication like Wikipedia to have its own manual of style which chooses among reasonable alternatives. So there is no mistake. Even if the conjecture that the founders were Americans with programming backgrounds who defied the style used by American professional writers is true, so what? It was their publication and they adopted a reasonable style. No consensus has formed to change the choice. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't like the serial comma, where either way can be considered correct so long as the piece is consistent—and, if you'll notice, the MoS permits both these forms; it doesn't ban one or the other for arbitrary reasons. Almost every single source on American English says that placing periods and commas inside closing quotation marks is correct and placing them outside is incorrect. To use a type of punctuation that is incorrect relative to its context, and to require others to do so, is not reasonable. It's a mistake. That's actually the most polite of many words for what it is. Using British/LQ in articles that are supposed to be in American English is like spelling "caught" k-o-t. Yes, it's logical. Yes, it can look cool or trendy in the eyes of certain beholders. It's also wrong. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new wording to the lead

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

• No one’s talkin’ much; mostly waiting for the page to be unlocked (again) and once that occurs—like a U.N. helicopter dropping sacks of food on Haitian village after a natural disaster—there will be a crazy-crap scramble to “get while the getting’s good” and the edit history will read something like this:

1. User:TCO
2. User:Pmanderson
3. User:Pmanderson
4. User:Pmanderson
5. User:Noetica
6. User:Pmanderson
7. User:Pmanderson
8. User:Shakescene
9. User:Noetica

{locked (again)} by Casliber

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

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

Oh, protect it until Noetica, Tony1, and Dicklyon get bored, and find some other hobby to bully people in. It doesn't have to be me responding to a complaint; it can be anybody. Has anybody else besides the three of them gotten a word into this non-consensus non-English fraud for years? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The truth is more interesting, and more complicated: [5], [6]. You seem to have set Noetica off recently. But when "the mob" is all arguing with you, and you're the common outlier in these arguments, it's hard to see why you blame them for everything. Or why you lump me in there, just because I take the side of respecting the MOS. So what is "this non-consensus non-English fraud" that you refer to? Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, I find myself agreeing with you periodically on issues and haven’t been shy to weigh in with you. With things locked down on MOS, I’m looking forward to seeing progress made with a real consensus from hereon. I figure it will take two to three weeks for the denizens that frequent this joint to receive an epiphany about how slick things work when people actually discuss issues and arrive at a civil consensus rather than run around in the prison exercise yard doing Turkish butt stabbings on the others. Greg L (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think you'll find a single edit I've ventured to make to the chief pages of the Manual of Style (MoS, dates & numbers, formatting, access, etc.) themselves, for a number of reasons, such as unfamiliarity with their contents, lack of BOLDness and disliking telling other people what to do. (I may have reverted some obvious external vandalism, as I would for any page.) That of course hasn't stopped me from offering a comment on the talk pages from time to time. ;-) —— Shakescene (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

What is a "Turkish butt stabbing"? Sounds interesting. Tony (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• In Turkey, the law is (or at least was) that charges of attempted murder can not be made if an attacker stabbed his victim below the waist. So to get revenge in Turkish prisons, it was popular to run up from behind your victim with a knife or shank and stab them in the buttocks. Here on MOS, if some wikipedian’s theology isn’t straight with regard to the proper position of a period relative to a close-quote, then here—apparently—one accuses (∆ edit here) four other editors of bullying and butt‑stabs them with the suggestion that they be topio-banned [sic].

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

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

It isn't the one sole guy grumbling in the corner who is causing the problem here... others are starting to complain about the rowdy behavior and noise emanating from particular tavern. Its having an impact on the neighborhood. Sure, the regulars are having a great time, and think that this is the best tavern in the entire city... but the neighbors are mightily pissed off, and are starting to complain. That lone guy in the corner is trying to tell you to quite down before someone calls in the cops and shuts the place down. You might want to listen. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You just proved why the admins were wise to have locked down MOS; everyone’s talking and no one is listening. There is too much animosity and zilch for consensus building. After MOS got locked down, things fell so silent here, Tony asked I can't make head or tail of what's going on. Can someone point to where it's up to?. The answer is that now that MOS is locked so no editwarring can occur (the ol’ “MY way or the highway”-way of doing things), everyone is just lost and life has no further purpose if they actually gotta talk and do consensus building. Without editwarring, WT:MOS is now like Paris the morning after Princess Diana died: you could hear a pin drop outside. Consensus building?? OMG, not THAT. Yeah… that. Greg L (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

And you do rather well at building consensus. You don't, unlike three editors I don't need to name, begin by dismissing all opposition as "lack of respect", or rather reverence, for this page, with all its flaws. It draws continual opposition from non-regulars (there's some on this page); I would like to consider the reasons; some people don;t. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Well, let me clarify.

I do not advocate that only American be used (with the standard exception of articles on strongly American subjects). I never have.

I generally believe that any well-established and reasonably common usage should be permitted (this includes the majority Commonwealth usages); I do not believe I have argued for anything else. Sometimes one usage has stronger arguments for it than others; the reasonable way to deal with this is to present both sets of arguments, and let anybody who consults this page see which is more persuasive.

This page, therefore, is opposed by three currents of opinion:

• Those who would genuinely like it to impose Americanisms.
• Those who would like it to admit that there are several valid solutions to most of these questions.
• And (since the solutions on this page are often non-standard as Commonwealth English, too) those who would like it to impose or permit Commonwealth English.

It is frozen, normally, because of revert-warring by a handful of editors, who want "strength" (that is, power), while claiming to be consensus - there is no evidence that they are consensus even on this talk page; protection is preferable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm… Quoting you, PMA: …there is no evidence that they are consensus even on this talk page. I’m not going to get embroiled in a debate on whether water under the bridge enjoyed a proper consensus or not. But I’ve seen your sort of language before and it has always come from an exceedingly tendentious hold‑out editor who was overruled by a clear supermajority of other editors and who resorted to wikilawyering as to why he should get his way notwithstanding. That sort of attitude will fly like a wet noodle during the lockdown. When an admin perceives a consensus exists for a change—even if you tendentiously and vociferously object—the change will be made.

I see a new world order on MOS. It’s coming. I predict that having admins act like kindergarden teachers to enforce order will result in an appearance that everyone “got religion” on consensus building and MOS will eventually be unlocked again. I predict two things after it is unlocked:

1. Some editors will go back to the old ways: denying that a consensus exists and insisting—via strategic use of {IDONTLIKEIT} tags—on more and protracted discussion when others feel the issues are settled (protractum discussus ad infinitum).
2. Behavior described by #1, above, will be addressed with extreme prejudice so that MOS can once again function like it is part of the regular universe.

As with elsewhere on Wikipedia, a normal, common-sense, Wikipedia-style consensus talks; tendentiousness walks. M’kay? Greg L (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

While I would certainly say that PMA has been the one in the wrong this past week and a half, there absolutely are times when the majority is wrong and the one person "denying consensus" is right. WP:IDONTLIKEIT gets called in because there are things in the MoS that are only here because they're trendy. WP:Consensus isn't supposed to be a poll; it's supposed to be weighted by what reliable sources say. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Quoting you, Darkfrog: there absolutely are times when the majority is wrong and the one person "denying consensus" is right. That doesn’t matter. It’s time you jettison that attitude. With rare exception (a smaller consensus trying to override a wider one, or a consensus that violates Wikipedia’s Five Pillars) Wikipedia goes with the consensus. Period. If you don’t believe me, brush up on Wikipedia:Consensus. It touches upon Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on and doesn’t have a caveat there for when that lone editor is highly confident that they are right and the others are wrong. You may feel the majority is wrong, but progress grinds to a halt whenever a minority editor digs in his or her heels and insists that his views are The One And Only Truth©™®. That attitude underlies why some editors are tendentious. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative writing environment, there will often be times when one has to accept that the rest are just heading the wrong way.

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

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

Wikipedia is also supposed to care about reliable sources. When the majority of talk page contributors say X but the sources say Y, then the contributors who say Y are right and those who hold personal preferences and pet peeves above WP:RS are wrong. How are such cases supposed to be corrected if no one points them out, brings extra sources to light, and digs in his or her heels as you put it until the matter is put right? I fully agree that these things must be done politely rather than by edit warring or by calling for editors who disagree to be topic-banned, and that usually takes time, but if Wikipedia is going to be worth a darn, they must be done.

But let's say you're right and I should brush up on WP:Consensus... "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." What PMA has done this past week and change is more a matter of WP:CIVIL than WP:CONSENSUS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I’ll buy that angle to a certain extent. But I think it is pretty clear that the need to lock down MOS sprang from a variety of factors. And among these factors is PMA’s observation that “the majority is wrong” (as paraphrased and egged-on by you), which is wholly incompatible with Wikipedia and its collaborative writing environment when accompanied by the attitude of “wrong means I won’t respect the consensus and will argue about it until the heat death of the universe.” We can’t have any more of that. The continual locking down of a WP page is indicative of intractable interpersonal issues that the admins are at a loss to deal with. I can pretty much guarantee you that if lock downs persist, there is going to be scrutiny to see if some admin-administered atomic wedgies solves anything. Greg L (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have not been egging PMA's bad behavior. You know that perfectly well. The bottom line is that a good deal of what PMA is saying is right: there is a group of editors on this talk page who shout down changes that they don't like. Only the way PMA is expressing this is wrong. I haven't been telling PMA to go around shouting at people or revert war or make personal attacks. And when the majority is wrong, people should dig in until the heat death of the universe as you put it; they must simply do so politely. Otherwise, the page will never be improved. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What majority? Consider this poll; 18-18, and (for a change) including some voices from outside our usual stalemate. Half of the opposes oppose as too strong, half as too weak; much of the support is perfunctory or grudging. That's three more or less equal parties right there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I haven't been here in days, but I just now came back and read this section, and I have to say that I agree with everything that GreyL has said here. Everything. Well said! (and I'm still chuckling at most of it!)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh. FWIW, I agree with most of what PMA has said here. The bull-headedness of a handful of editors who feel a sense of ownership of all matters stylistic has made reasonable discussion next to impossible. older ≠ wiser 22:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Where do we agree?

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

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

1. The Manual of Style is a guideline meant to offer advice to editors about stylistic issues.
   • 'Agree per {{styleguideline}}; I have tweaked the wording, but the question at hand is not "Is this ready to be written in?"; rather, "Do we agree on the substance?" Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
   • Agree (as original author of the statement) Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
2. It occasionally recommends one style usage over others, but these recommendations should be seen as indicating a preference and not as a requirement.
   • Agree per WP:POL. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
   • Agree Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Style usage in specific articles, and on particular points (such as the spelling of a specific proper name) may differ from the preferences indicated in this guideline and are governed by a consensus of editors at the article level.
   • Agree as practice, per WP:CONSENSUS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
   • Agree Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
4. Decisions on style are based upon considering both the recommendations of this page and common usage in reliable English language sources.
   • Agree. This is what is actually done; if we ceased to do it, we would no longer be discussing English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
   • Agree Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Greg, I agree with most of what you just said. The problem is that while we may understand that the MOS pages are intended to be "suggestions" and "advice as to best practice", there are editors out there who don't get that... there are editors who think the MOS is a set of rules that must be followed and enforced. The statements that I wrote (and PMA listed above) were intended to clarify and correct this misunderstanding. I think adding something like these statements to the policy would help make our intent clearer to readers. Blueboar (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

But those were totally lopsided statements, previously rejected, based on experience with what PMA is trying to do with them. If we change anything, it needs to be very clear that these suggestions are serious guidelines, and that when editors work to implement them, there would need to be a very good reason to push in a different direction. Dicklyon (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, PMA takes his four points from a suggestion I made in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposed new wording (above)... and while there were not many comments about it, the few comments that were made were mostly positive. I'm not sure where you get the idea that it was "previously rejected". Blueboar (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I interpreted Headbomb's "Way too watered down" as speaking for most MOS supporters. Dicklyon (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see ... I don't think that is a valid assumption. We should allow others to speak for themselves and not assume that one person speaks for everyone. Blueboar (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I second Headbomb. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2011 (UT)

Tnen that is the point on which we disagree, and on which most of Wikipedia disagrees with you. Please stop "enforcing"; this conversation should make clear that there is no consensus to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you remind me how you found a consensus against enforcing uncontroversial provisions, like uncapitalizing "summer" in most situations? I thought the objection was to edit warring over such minutia, not to correcting them once which seldom gets any complaints. Art LaPella (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Valid point. If you recommend that, more power to you; but do you need the mystic eminence of a Manual of Style for something so uncontroversial? Does anybody read, or use, the actually consensus points on this page?Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I was taught in school to uncapitalize "summer", but I wasn't taught to put dashes in ranges for instance, which you have endorsed. So I need the mystic eminence to distinguish that advice from the advice of many other self-appointed experts throughout Wikipedia. Few people read or use the Manual of Style, but in the context of "enforcing", the enforcer is ordinarily aware of many (but far from all!) controversial and uncontroversial points in the Manual of Style. Art LaPella (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I endorse dashing ranges because it appears to be well-sourced, and as a gesture of compromise. How much good that does you can see around you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, all I know is that I took a long hiatus from Wikipedia because of the snark factor. I think I've just come to accept that that's the way it is, and it's just going to stay that way because of the way the project is structured. I've made a few suggestions since I've returned -- not just on MOS; I'm not targeting anyone specific -- and they're frequently greeted with sarcasm, irritability, and an intense desire to follow the status quo. I also see that many other editors are frequently treated this way. So I think I'm going to retire from making suggestions, but if anyone would like feedback for an RfC, feel free to let me know.--Jp07 (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I would be disappointed indeed to see you, JP07, stay away from WT:MOS because of “snark factor.” If I have anything to do with it, a properly-arrived-at consensus will (once again) rule. Editors can “snark” up to a point, but if a general consensus can reasonably and clearly be discerned, and if that consensus view—for wikipedians experienced in this tradecraft—doesn’t induce shock & awe for violating now-established bedrock principals of technical writing now exercised on Wikipedia, then any and all tendentious and disruptive editors will be trampled under the hooves of progress like Messala in the chariot race in Ben Hur. Greg L (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a snark is, and I don't have a chariot, but I have been known to revert with dismissive summary when an unsuspecting newbie messes us something against the advice of the MOS. I understand that I shouldn't do that, and I know others have done it, too. But these little behavior issues are not a reason to say just go ahead and ignore the MOS if you don't like it. We already know most editors ignore it; let's just focus on what advice to give, and also try to be nicer about how we encouraging following it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If we restricted ourself to advice, and did not demand WP:FRINGE positions, it wouldn't be ignored anywhere near so much. Civility would help, but it is not the fundamental issue; this page does not persuade when consulted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

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

In other words, you agree with the statements above; you don't want this guideline to assert them, because I'm EEEevvvill. That makes as much sense as anything said in this debate. Since the question was what we agree upon, that was actually helpful.

Then we have Dicklyon, and possibly Headbomb, who disagree, on unstated grounds. They may indeed represent a vast majority of those who support the present text; it does seem to be supported by about three people. (We have a label for pages like that; we call them {{essay}}s.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I called you EEEevvvill?!? What the hell is wrong with you? There’s something about your style that creates a vortex surrounding you but it’s hard to put my finger on it. I could not possibly have been clearer about what I think about your little micro-RfC, above. Your cute little summary about what I supposedly believe (In other words, you agree with the statements above) will not bait me to further engage you. No wonder people get swept up in your wikidrama. Now…

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

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

There is no consensus on most of this page; there are a half-dozen editors who drive away all opposition to their views; they have most recently driven away Jp07. If calling propositions "wholly redundant and unnecessary given that Wikipedia could not be clearer" on something is disagreement, you have mastered the art of making words mean what you want them to mean; most people regard tautologies as truths. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Greg has a point. We should write and edit the MoS with the understanding that it will be interpreted as hard-and-fast rules by most Wikipedia editors. That means that when there is something that is a suggestion, that must be explicitly stated. That, I think, was the purpose of the disputed passage.

PMA, did you ask Jp07 why he/she left? (And DID he leave? It's a nice weekend; might've just gone fishing.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This post seems clear enough that he is giving up this talk page, and perhaps others, and ceasing to pay attention to it, unless he is told an RfC on logical quotation is under way. I do not know whether he is leaving Wikipedia; I claimed only that he was driven away from this page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

He said his comments were "frequently greeted with sarcasm, irritability, and an intense desire to follow the status quo." But I don't see that happening here by your usual suspects, so who are you accusing when you say "there are a half-dozen editors who drive away all opposition to their views; they have most recently driven away Jp07"? Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone with "an intense desire to follow the status quo". From Jp07's point of view, after reviewing his recent contributions, I think I'm the most likely suspect, not half a dozen editors. Art LaPella (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Close, Darkfrog24, but not exact. I am saying that we don’t need to posture with a mini-RfC shot across the bow about a principal that is already clear as glass as to how guidelines are not officially binding. It says as much all over Wikipedia, including right at the top of MOS. So to start off a mini-RfC to drive home that point in half a dozen different ways smacks of posturing and pouting when it is so utterly unnecessary. What you did hit, right on target as regards my point, is that many readers interpret the guidelines as hard-and-fast rules. That’s fine; just as many editors couldn’t care less about what MOS says and will do their own thing.

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

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

Oh, sorry about that. I disagree with you on the part about the "suggestion/guideline" status of the MoS being "clear as glass." I feel that saying so straight out is merited. As for following reliable sources, I am right with you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Darkfrog24: Well, clear enough without saying “It’s all just suggestions you ought to ignore.” It reads The Manual of Style (often abbreviated MoS or MOS) is a style guide for Wikipedia articles that encourages editors to follow consistent usage and formatting. This main page contains basic principles. Nice and succinct. That seems like the ideal tone to strike in the lede. Further saddling it with It occasionally recommends one style usage over others, but these recommendations should be seen as indicating a preference and not as a requirement looks like poor form. I suggest everyone just make sure what is written here is good advise so we can all be satisfied with the existing caveat. As I mentioned before, arguing about the lede at this juncture is akin to arguing about the shape of a negotiating table: counterproductive. Greg L (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's another point we may agree on. Worth citing above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Alt attribute

Hi all

The last bulleted sentence in the images section reads:

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

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

I believe it should probably read more like:

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

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

This is quote an important question, anybody not too busy on dashes, hyphens and commas to comment? Chaosdruid (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I got it before, but if you want to write it clearer go ahead.TCO (reviews needed) 14:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not want to write it any more clearly than I have already suggested, I just want someone to change it to "Images should have the alt attribute |alt= added to the image parameters." as it seems like no-one is objecting. They can even add "to prevent speech reader from reading out the file name." if they want

As we are not admins we cannot very well do it ourselves now, can we? If I could have, I already would have :¬) 19:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A whole article vs an article full of holes

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

Empty sections

Pet peeve #1

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

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

Subtopic stubs

Pet peeve #2

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

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

Meaningless intros

Pet peeve #3

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

For peeves #1 and #2, as you said, its a new subject and the editors working on it are on fire. I think we should give this at least two weeks before we upgrade its threat status from peeve to problem.

For peeve #3, you are absolutely right. Dropping into each article's talk page and leaving an explanation and a link to WP:LEAD should do the trick. Want a hand? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Dash guidelines: toward a conclusion

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

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

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

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

Noetica^Tea? 04:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let's do something. Art LaPella (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, too. I had made a suggestion or two for where to go from Kotniski's good start (see my comments and his at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion#A_draft). I think he has incorporated many of the suggestions from the lengthy discussion, but there is further we can go to simplify and clarify the structure. If I recall correctly, there was considerable support for more and better examples, broad enough to clarify the range of uses described for the en dash, and fewer and simpler "cases" or "rules". If you're willing, go for it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not consensus. It ignores strong disagreement on the issues at hand, as usual. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson, obviously some people disagree - if there had not been disagreement, this case wouldn't have been placed before the arbitration committee. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That appeal was started and populated by those who disagree with the present text; which is why I dispute restating the present text, and claiming it to be consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with this

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

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

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

Dashes: a new draft

Having considered the voting and the long discussion (see some details above), I offer a new draft for consideration at this central forum for MOS, now that business appears almost complete at the dedicated subpages. Noetica^Tea? 03:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested procedure

1. It is essential that our concluding discussion be kept orderly, focused, and respectful. With this in mind I am suggesting a framework. I urge editors to use this framework, or alternatively to propose rational variations of it. I urge all editors to work to keep the discussion easy to follow, and to refactor if that will help.
2. I request that no changes be made to the draft during discussion of it. Please instead propose new versions for parts of it, with localised discussion. Again, it will be easy for the process to disintegrate if we are not vigilant to stay on track.
3. I propose that we rule out certain distractions especially, and that editors join in removing such distractions to a special subsection I have set up to receive them:

   • personal attacks or innuendos

   • threats, or expressions of intent to take admin or ArbCom action against any editor

   • political statements and manifestos

   • unnecessary reference to past conflicts

   • insistence that the Manual of Style be something other than just that (its status is definitely not our present topic)

   • reflections on the role of MOS generally within Wikipedia

   • other obvious irrelevancies or contention

4. I suggest that there be no voting at this stage; let's see how things take shape.
5. If any editor wants to propose a rewritten whole draft, please bear in mind the consequences. Discussion should have one overall focus at a time, and we can all end up confused and directionless. Therefore: Just as I gave 24 hours' notice before posting a whole draft, please give similar notice of any further whole draft.
6. The single question we face is this: What dash guidelines will best reflect the clear results of the voting?

Notes on the draft

1. The draft does not reflect my own preferences as its proposer; it will not satisfy any individual's preferences fully, nor should it aim to.
2. As a practical necessity, I have assumed that consensus means clear majority assent.
3. Some preferences in the voting are for more than one recommendation (for en dash or hyphen, in a given situation). This is heeded where it is a majority preference; but if the majority accepts a guideline simply as given, that simple endorsement has been respected as best reflecting consensus.
4. Some matters have been set aside (partly or wholly) as better treated in general sections of WP:MOS, since they apply beyond the guidelines we deal with here. They include:

   • the desirability of recasting (needs a new section of its own)

   • the fact that exceptions are sometimes in order (already thoroughly covered)

   • use of hard spaces (already covered in WP:MOS, but it may need adjusting)

5. The draft is much longer than the existing section. It has to be, since this, along with hyphens, is one of the most difficult areas in modern punctuation. Editors will suggest ways to shorten it; but the voting has shown how easily brevity leads to entirely wrong interpretations. We need to guard also against intentional misconstrual.
6. Cases like a pro-establishment–anti-intellectual alliance are not treated with their own special principle. I found that they were covered by another more basic guideline that is included. This requires discussion. Can anyone think of a case that warrants, in the MOS context, a separate provision for such cases?
7. As an aside, we need to revisit the colors used in the {xt} and {!xt} templates (for readers unable to distinguish red and green). Meanwhile, I have preceded all red examples (of what not to do) with an asterisk:

   *−10–10; −10 to 10

The draft itself (click on the "show" link in the green bar)

Discussion of the draft

[Please: orderly, not interrupting, clearly signed]

At first reading, this looks pretty good. I still think we need to mention the use of the en dash (or em dash??) as a separator when it's neither in a sentence nor in a list, as in the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 case we discussed – this seems to come up from time to time, in article titles at least, and people usually seem to opt for a spaced en dash (or some alternative other than a horizontal line) when the matter is considered.--Kotniski (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Kotniski. And thanks for breaking the ice with your draft, which influences the one I offer here. I agree that more work needs to be does on the point you mention. Luckily, it is self-contained and probably not a major cause of difficulty. Why not propose a neat modification to cover it? Noetica^Tea? 06:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Noetica, I've looked only cursorily through your draft, and I must say that it's impressive. (Kotniski's was impressive too, but I believe this more recent draft takes the ball and runs with his improvements.) I was slightly concerned at the length of Noetica's draft, and we need to scrutinise it for "trimming opportunities"; but then, putting myself in WP editors' shoes, I learn something from every example, and examples are the key to conveying professional-standard typography. When this is tweaked, the final version might well be worth printing out and distributing to my clients. I'm most interested in the opinions of other editors. Thank you indeed, Noetica. Tony (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good, but a few comments:

• The order of the recommended/not recommended practice in the examples should match that in the text that precedes it, rather than the opposite, as in

  Use words, not en dashes, if negative values are involved. An en dash might be confusing.

  *−10–10; −10 to 10

• Spacing of range dashes where one or more elements contains a space: either spaced or unspaced use should be allowed. The polling seems to indicate considerable support for allowing both, and the support for closed-up usage in US, Canadian, and British style guides (APA, CMOS, MWM. TCS, OSM, and NHR; the last two do mention that many British publishers space the en dash) is overwhelming. Like CMOS, I would usually prefer to or through for a complete date, but I certainly see no problem with Christmas Day–New Year's Eve when we can use New York–Chicago flight—there’s little ambiguity with either.
• Under (2), it might help to explain why Franco-British rivalry takes a hyphen rather than an en dash—perhaps something to the effect of “the order of Franco and British cannot be reversed”, or “Franco is a prefix than cannot stand alone”, or “Franco is not lexically independent”. The last would be my last choice, because although its meaning may be obvious to most of us here, it may not be to others, and searching for the meaning is no simple task.
• Under (3), I would add one example in which the first component contains a space (e.g., Chuck Berry–style lyrics, New Zealand–style clothing, golf ball–sized brain.
• The usage within items in a list (which I’m still not convinced is a distinct case) should not lend itself to be read as precluding alternatives, of which the unspaced em dash is the most obvious, but not the only possibility. If a style has been established for a specific class of articles (e.g., Days of the year), that style should be followed. For articles on discography, the format is not nearly so uniform, so any reasonable alternative should be acceptable. I don’t think we should give alternatives any more than a brief mention, and even then, it should only serve to indicate that there are alternatives. JeffConrad (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff. On each of your points in order:

• I understand about keeping a uniform order of presentation. The trouble is this. It's good to keep the order wrong–right, consistently in the examples (as I have done). But the explanation may be shorter and easier to follow in the reverse order. I don't see a difficulty in the case you exhibit above: the examples almost stand alone to make the point. Anyway, sure: such a refinement can be flagged for incorporation.
• On the spacing of range dashes, the task is to interpret the voting and associated discussion, not to return yet again to the style guides. We have moved on from that, and must stay moved on if we want to make genuine progress and reach a conclusion. On the specific point you raise, though, about Christmas Day—New Year's Eve being justified by analogy with New York—Chicago flight, note that the sense of the dash differs. In one it shows a range, in the other it shows a relationship between two elements. Given that difference in meaning, it is well that the dash should at least behave differently with respect to spacing. That is at least as arguable. In the end, I believe the position I have incorporated reflects the clear majority in the voting.
• For the prefix element "Franco", I agree entirely that things should be made explicit for it. I did that, then trimmed it out in pursuit of less wording. It can easily be put back, if people want that.
• You write: "I would add one example in which the first component contains a space (e.g., Chuck Berry—style lyrics, ...". But that was not put to a vote, so we have no evidence of consensus for it. These differ considerably from prefix cases, and they are treated differently by various style guides (for what that's worth).
• I have little to say about dashes in those lists. For me it's pretty arbitrary, and a much easier thing to sort out than the other principles. Let others have their say: but let it be efficient and conclusive dialogue.

Noetica^Tea? 09:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• I tend to prefer “right/wrong”, but don’t have strong feelings, and would not even insist that the order be consistent overall if variations would make the individual points more clearly. But I would urge consistency between the text and any specific examples; either order would probably work, as long as the order of the example matches that of the text that describes it.
• On spacing of range dashes, it obviously depends on how one interprets the voting. Though there seems to be more support for spacing, I obviously do not interpret the voting as clearly precluding closed-up use, as is supported by the overwhelming preponderance of widely respected style guides. I once again urge correct use of the singular and plural: you clearly speak for yourself and a fair number of others, but you definitely do not speak for everyone here, as the use of we would seem to imply. I am quite honestly baffled by “We have moved on from that”; if this is to say that we care not about widely accepted practice, it is almost as if we have extracted a position from a region in which the “sunny 16 rule” is inapplicable, and the position accordingly is little more than WP:ILIKEIT. I agree that there may be a difference in the sense of the two examples, but the difference is slight, and in any event, the mere existence of a difference does not in itself justify differential treatment. The issue is rather, I think, one of whether the closed-up usage leads to ambiguity—and it does not. As I previously indicated in my comment on the voting, we have essentially an issue of operator precedence, in the order of hyphen, space, and en dash. If we accept this, there is no ambiguity; if we do not, much of the overall rationale for using en dashes is weakened. Lest I be thought a pusillanimous pussyfooter, I can assure you that I will oppose a draft that proscribes the closed-up use.
• As for golf ball–sized brain, I agree that we did not vote on the specific example, but we did previously vote on the more general case of compounds that contain hyphens or spaces, and, by implication, that golf ball–sized brain would be preferable to golf ball-sized brain, even if the endorsement of the former was tepid at best. JeffConrad (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeff, on the order of "right" and "wrong" examples and all that: no big deal. I suggest we defer adjusting such things, till weightier matters are dispatched.

On your remarks concerning the spacing of range dashes: For the third time, please desist from critique of my use of "we", which I have explained elsewhere. Stay with content, not its expression (on whose analysis we disagree). It seems that you refer to this statement of mine: "... the task is to interpret the voting and associated discussion, not to return yet again to the style guides. We have moved on from that, and must stay moved on if we want to make genuine progress and reach a conclusion." If you think our [sic] present task is different, please raise that matter in the subsection below: #Discussion of procedure. Meanwhile, a close quantitative and qualitative analysis of the voting and comments on the point at issue would be relevant and valuable. I hope you will undertake that, and report it here. Finally on this, you say: "I can assure you that I will oppose a draft that proscribes the closed-up use." Please note that if we all take such stands even before such shared examination of voting, and also elevate clearly minority positions to sub-guideline status, we will end up with unmanageable complexity. The guidelines will be unworkable: they will fail to guide. With that in mind, I have suppressed my own strong disagreement with ex–prime minister, though dissent from that in the voting would support my acting on that disagreement here. We must all be careful not to fall victim to WP:ILIKEIT. Everyone must compromise; that's how it is, with manuals of style.

On forms like golf ball–sized brain, if you thought the community should consider those, the time to raise it was six weeks ago when the points for voting were settled. We have moved on! :) Noetica^Tea? 22:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The points for voting were "settled" overnight without discussion from a list intended for a different purpose. They omitted much; this is one point that was omitted. As for we, Noetica does not speak for anyone but xemself; unless this is a case in which Mark Twain is correct. ;} Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don’t necessarily object to we; I use it here myself, but not in the sense of purporting to speak for Wikipedia when that is not necessarily the case. You feel that we have “moved on” from widely recognized sources, but clearly not everyone agrees (though I would certainly not go so far as to say that you speak only for yourself). You’ve also offered a definition of “consensus” that differs markedly from WP:CONSENSUS. I don’t necessarily see a “clear majority”, and it’s never been been strictly a matter of numbers, anyway—we seem to be missing the “quality of arguments”. If practice supported by the preponderance of quality guides is to be blown off, especially without any real reason for doing so, what then constitutes “quality of arguments”?

If you’ve followed my comments, I’ve generally been very supportive of what’s been proposed, but I now find myself almost to the point of clearly recognizing that the MOS is a guideline, and using my own judgment for recommendations are little more than dogged insistence on WP:ILIKEIT, especially when they represent minority practice. I assure you that I shall not be writing golf ball-sized brain (though I concede the opportunity to do so may never arise). JeffConrad (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

My comments:

• I like Kotniski's draft more. (This one is a bit too wordy.) :-)
• I'd always use {{xt}} and {{!xt}} in ways that it is obvious from the surrounding texts which are the right examples and which the wrong ones, even without relying on the colour or on symbols such as asterisks, as in “right, not wrong”, or “avoid wrong; prefer right”. But then, I once proposed for {xt} to have a tick and underlining and {!xt} to have a cross and strike-through, but it was opposed as too much clutter. A darker red and a paler, more bluish green (e.g. maroon and teal) would be easier to tell apart for colour-blind people, but for readers with non-standard display gammas the former might be too dark (harder to tell from regular black text) or the latter too pale (harder to read against the background).
• IMO, image filenames are even less relevant than recasting or hard spaces or exception would be (for these reasons).
• As I already said elsewhere, I'd suggest the advisability of recasting the phrase using different examples than the ones where a dash is suggested. I'd use examples like the current ones for the dash (with such über-familiar noun phrases as prime minister or World War II), and then after “... is possible and better” show seriously abstruse examples in red followed by a suggested rephrasing in green.

― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 11:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 11:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Examples of what you have in mind for the last point would be helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A di M:

• I like Kotniski's draft too; and Kotniski likes the present draft (too). On wordiness, please specify which words you would remove from the present draft. In introducing it, I predicted that editors would make such suggestions. But again: we have seen how brevity is misread in this most complex of punctuation topics; and we must preempt abuse of MOS guidelines that would capitalise on lacunae.
• On the practical red–green issue, it may be best to deal with that another time. I like your comments. Meanwhile, we have a simple solution with "*" to get us through the present business.
• On image filenames and the like, thank you for attending to this matter of general provisions versus local provisions. I'm not convinced yet on this one; I had thought that hyphens and dashes in filenames was a pretty confined issue. I wonder what others think?
• On recasting, I strongly suggest that we stick with rewordings of the actual examples given; but I also strongly favour using less familiar examples to start with. I did not include those for this point, because I wanted editors to recognise the examples – for continuity with earlier versions of the guideline, for this discussion. Let's alter them later, sure.

Noetica^Tea? 23:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Answering the points in order: 1. I'm not sure exactly what words are the culprit, but I'm under the impression that Kotniski's version manages to say pretty much the same things more concisely and no less clearly (though a couple extra examples might be added); 2. I still think that not would be a lot clearer than an asterisk, though it works better if right examples are before wrong ones (“foo, not bar” vs “not bar, but foo”); 3. I think whatever argument for or against the avoidance of dashes in file names would apply to pretty much all other hard-to-type characters; anyway, I think it's pointless as most files are hosted on Commons so the uploader might have never even heard of en.wiki's MOS; 4. if we say that rewording is sometimes (but not always) better, I think we ought to include both examples of when it's better than when it isn't. As for the former, I recall someone asking on this talk page how to punctuate some very complicated technical term itself including a several-word technical term as a modifier, and someone else (IIRC either you or Tony) suggested a recasting. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 14:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Noetica, it looks like a good step, very clear and logical, lots of on-point examples. A few comments:

I am a little bothered by the statement "These can be quite similar to uses of the hyphen; or less often, the slash." The "quite similar" doesn't quite capture the right relationship. As one commenter pointed out in the voting or discussion, "interpretation is needed" in deciding whether some of the described roles are applicable in a particular case. Your examples make it clear that to decide which punctuation is needed in something like "blue–green", one has to consider the role, which requires interpretation; the process is not mechanical, because it signals the writer's intent; and that's why it's useful. Anyway, "quite similar" seems to sweep that point away. It would seem important to point out that the en dash roles differ from the roles of a hyphen; maybe something like "These are analogous to uses of the hyphen, which binds more strongly than the dash; or the slash, which separates alternatives."

Another point: I still think the item "4. To separate items in certain lists" is not a separate role, but just another case of using spaced en dash as a dash; same idea in Kotniski's point.

I'm surprised the "ex–prime minister" item causes trouble, but on review I see that several people had various problems with it. I note that it's taken directly from this guide by a Canadian, along with the "anti-xxx–pro-xxx" example, which would certainly not be OK with a hyphen, but for other reasons as you note; it's similarly expressed in lots of other guides, though often as an option for improving clarity "when needed." And this Adobe (American) book suggests "pre–World War II", and states that the hyphen is "incorrect" in that context; and on "post–World War II" and "San Francisco–based," we have the word of Chicago; many more books say similarly. So is this one more optional than most? If some editor changes "ex–prime minister" back to the hyphen version, should we complain and fix it back? I still think we should, since if an editor finds it useful to use punctuation to signal the structure more clearly, we ought to let them. In that sense, I don't see the point of trying to make this one more optional than most, as some are suggesting. On the other hand, I don't have strong feelings about it, and would be willing to go with adjustments if there's a consensus to do so.

I would support the idea of removing mention of filenames, since it is not a style issue, just a source issue.

On the spaced vs. closed-up en dashes, I'm happy to see that there's less of the spacing suggestion than before, and I agree that it should stay in the case of the date phrases with spaces in them, as it appears in every WP bio article. It's a step in a good direction (away from "too British for some"), and stops short of going too far; it's exactly as I would have interpreted the discussion.

Generally, I think you addressed most of the disagreements – even the "facepalm" one. It would be hard to address the issues of the two guys who disagreed with most of the en dash roles, and still call it a consensus result. A few more may show up now, like the one who complains that he can't tell a hyphen from an en dash in a typewriter font, so it doesn't matter what you use; but I agree it's time to try to adjust the dash section as constructively as we can given all the constructive feedback that has come out. Thanks again for this draft, building on Kotniski's. Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

North American and British practice differ on spacing, and on use in spaced compounds—NHR states that there is no satisfactory way of dealing with “ex-Prime Minister”, and notes (but does endorse or reject) the US practice (which would be “ex–Prime Minister”). The recasting seems preferable for a nominal (as shown), and I don’t really have a problem with “former Prime Minister Gordon Brown”, though I might just as likely write “former–Prime Minister Gordon Brown”. Though I have a bit of an issue with “San Francisco-based company”, the caps do help (if not as much as in “ex-Prime Minister Brown”). I probably can also sort out “pre-World War II technologies”; here, I think the major issue is how many words an open compound can contain before it becomes unmanageable (and where, if at all, might we want a nonbreaking space. I think it’s a bigger issue without the caps, as in “pseudo-page transition” or “golf ball-sized brain”. With the latter, I can sort out what’s meant, but not without a double take; because the former is nor written in English anyway, it takes several double takes (but perhaps this would be true for any concept with which a reader is unfamiliar). In short, I think the dash vs. hyphen a fairly big deal when there are no caps.

TCS does not seem to address the issue of open compounds, though they suggest an entirely different approach in some cases (e.g., red colour-filter [at 2.02(b)], apparently with the assumption that colour filter is a noun phrase).

I agree that it′s sometimes a matter of eye rather than rote; for example, I would probably write high school student, even though I’m unaware of a closed-up form of “school student” such as there is with “schoolteacher”. It may also be worth noting that some guides (e.g., APA and CMOS) do not use hyphens or dashes with ethnic identifiers (e.g., African American Student rather than African-American student. But this is an issue for WP:HYPHEN rather than here; I assume that we would prefer African–American relations regardless of how the ethnic association is handled. JeffConrad (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I've heard that using dashes in compounds which would normally use hyphens when one of the words has a space is uncommon in BrE. If that's the case, the fact that it “signal[s] the structure more clearly” isn't enough to deprecate hyphens in this situation throughout en.wiki. For example, spelling the method of payment as ‹cheque› is clearer because it signals that you don't mean any of the other meanings of check, but you don't want to recommend that in articles written in AmE. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 11:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It finds support in OSM (at 5.10.9), though the support is tepid at best. OSM does not endorse the hyphen as an alternative. As is discussed under What consensus means, the Fowler brothers saw the problem with using hyphen as early as the beginning of the 19th century (and had no solution by 1931, either).

One approach would be to permit either usage, possibly encouraging consistent use of either North American or British practice, though this could be tricky because some practices may be chiefly (but not exclusively) North American, and others may be chiefly (but not exclusively) British.

I can’t say whether the fact that one construction may indicate the structure more clearly is sufficient to deprecate an alternative construction, but it seems to me that the point of en dashes in nearly all cases is to more clearly indicate what is meant than would a hyphen. So if it doesn’t matter here, it arguably doesn’t matter anywhere. JeffConrad (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Though Noetica and I seem to differ fairly strongly on what has been concluded with regard to spacing of range dashes, it should be clear that this is the only point in the draft on which we really differ. Though I’m not sure we really differ on the task that remains, we do appear to differ a bit on how this is to be done. I begin by looking at WP:CONSENSUS:

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The argument “I just don't like it”, and its counterpart “I just like it”, usually carry no weight whatsoever.

I don’t mean to dwell too much on the IDONTLIKEITs, but do maintain that given this framework, what RSs have to say is very much relevant in determining what may have been concluded. I agree that more people seem to prefer spacing; whether it’s a “clear majority” is more subjective, but there certainly is some significant opposition. Accordingly, I again turn to the quality issue, and suggest that given the great number of RSs that support closed-up usage, it does not seem reasonable to proscribe that practice. I do not recall a single source being cited as the basis for requiring the spaced usage, though Butcher may have been mentioned earlier in the discussion. I think it helpful to review what she has to say on the subject:

En rules meaning ‘to’ and ‘and’ are usually unspaced: theocratic–military, chapters 11–9, 101–10. However, spaced en rules may be used between groups of numbers and words to avoid implying a closer relationship between the words or numbers next to the en rule than between each of these and the rest of its group:

6.6–8	but	6.6–7.8
September–January		18 September–19 January
1215–1260		c. 1215–c. 1260

But these spaced en rules should be used cautiously, especially if there are also parenthetical dashes, as the reader may not be able to tell one from the other; and it may be better to substitute ‘to’ in such cases.

Under “Parenthetical dashes”, she continues, “Spaced en rules are now most often used”, so it apparently is assumed that the parenthetical dash is indistinguishable from the spaced range dash.

Though I probably have more British style guides than the average Brit, I’m certainly not as familiar with them as I amd with the American guides. But of all the guides with which I am familiar, Butcher seems one of the most favorable to spacing range dashes. And the recommendation is far less than what’s current or proposed here. In particular, I simply do not see why a problem would arise with “Christmas Day–New Year’s Eve” when there is not a problem with “New York–Chicago flight”. In both examples, the dashes in both examples seem to me to be in the sense of to. And isn’t the association addressed by using the en dash rather than a hyphen? If not, much of the rationale for using en dashes elsewhere would seem to break down.

A possible compromise would be to include wording similar to that above, perhaps adjusting the sense of the dashes to match whatever may be agreed to. Clearly it’s impossible to arrive at formulaic guidance on when association implied by the en dash might misleading, and the same is probably true for any possible confusion between range dashes and parenthetical dashes. Practically, the choice would be a matter of personal choice—British practice aside from OUP is apparently to prefer the spacing, while North American practice is usually to prefer closed-up usage. The case for spacing is probably strongest with full dates and with instances similar to the last example above. Even so, NA seem to prefer closed-up usage. The most common instance of full dates is arguably in obituaries, and unfortunately, they aren’t always much help. If my local newspapers are any guide, the copy editing is invariably done by the deceased. JeffConrad (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Though my main issue here is with Christmas Day–New Year’s Eve (it’s really not different from New York–London flight, and calling a range of dates is stretching things to the limit), I overlooked another: 28 mm–17 m. The en dash could initially be confused with a minus sign. There really is no ambiguity, just as there isn’t with closed-up dashes in most date forms (at least for North Americans), but the reader may need a double take to see what’s really meant. The implication of minus is far less with closed-up usage, but since there seems to be reasonable consensus against closed-up usage when both ends of a range of dates, times, or similar contain spaces, closed-up usage probably is not an option. It would be better to write 18 mm to 17 mm. This is consistent with CSE6:

When expressing a range of numbers, use the word “to” or “through” to connect the numbers. Alternatively, an en dash, which means “to”, may be used but only between 2 numbers that are not interrupted by words, mathematic operators, or symbols to avoid confusion with the minus symbol.

This is stated somewhat better in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Writer’s Guide (which cites CSE). Perhaps Ms. Palin could in turn cite it in her debate with President Obama when mixing units in a range (“3 moose to 4 caribou”).

This usage really wasn’t put to a vote (and got little discussion there aside from A. di M.’s comment), which is perhaps why the potential confusion wasn’t noticed. Incidentally, I would replace Obama–Palin debate with something else, because it quite likely will not happen, and consequently might confuse some readers. I’d return to Lincoln–Douglas debates, the stature of which Nixon–Kennedy debates cannot come close to matching. There is no potential confusion with a style if the plural is used. JeffConrad (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Dunno, a sane person would typically write that as −(17 m − 28 mm) if that's what they mean. Also, in most cases it will be completely obvious from the context that you're looking at a range of positive numbers (so long as you don't use en dashes and minus signs in the same phrase, as in the red examples currently in the MOS). ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

What consensus means

Consensus does not mean "a clear majority"; if we ran by majority vote, we would say so. Please see WP:CONSENSUS for how we do run; we do not use the proper meaning of consensus as "unanimous consent", which frequently causes difficulties over international treaties, whem a handful of states decline to join an overwhelming majority. (For more on this, see Law of the Sea Treaty, and others.)

Even on Wikipedia, "[t]he goal of a consensus discussion is to reach an agreement about page content, one which may not satisfy anyone completely but which all editors involved recognize as a reasonable exposition of the topic."

This is not a reasonable exposition; a third of us object to requiring ex–prime minister, ranging from those like me that would permit it, to those who would recommend against it. There is also strong sentiment against the anti-conscription–pro-conscription debate; the weakly supported (but unopposed) recommendation of stronger language to avoid all such forms is omitted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I keep harping on the idea of phrasing things as "preferences". When there is disagreement among Wikipedians over a style issue ... (and a third objecting is definitely a "disagreement") we should not impose the majority view... instead we should present the options, indicate that all are "allowed"... however, we can then note that one style is preferred (to put this another way... a "preference" can be determined by a majority vote, a "rule" needs clear and solid consensus). Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to do a draft? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no... I have never pretended to fully understand the specifics of the endash vs emdash vs a hyphen debates (hell, I am still not sure I completely understand what the difference between them is). Because of this, I am not really focused on what the MOS should say, but rather on how the MOS should say it.

I have been trying to find ways to break the "my way or the highway" deadlocks that those of you who do understand the nuances of dashes and hyphens keep getting into. Looking at the AfD, it is clear (even without fully understanding what is being discussed) that, on some points, almost everyone agreed. I think that consensus would justify presenting these items in terms of being accepted "rules"... conceptually telling readers: "this is how it should be done". However, it is also clear that on other points there was significant disagreement. I think that lack of consensus indicates presenting these points in terms of "preference"... conceptually telling the reader: "here are the options... all are allowed, but we prefer X". Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do in 24 hours. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The claimed majority is not merely not consesuus, but false. The discussion or ex–prime minister is at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting#In_compounds_whose_elements_themselves_contain_hyphens_or_spaces; section 5b. At most 10 support requiring the dash, and of those Jeff, Tony, Kotniski, and MacWhiz are doubtful; 14 (including Ozob) would make it optional or deprecate it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my position on the use in compounds: as Fowler notes (TKE, under HYPHEN)

It is good English usage to place a noun or other non-adjectival part of speech before a noun, printing it as a separate word, and to regard it as serving the purpose of an adjective by virtue of its position . . .

He then proceeds to review the problems that arise with compound modifiers (mentioning his whimsical Anglo-SouthAmericans that he realizes is doomed before even being proposed). I think the en dash is a much better solution, but it can only correct so much of a mess—there is some practical limit to the number of these non-adjectival parts of speech that can reasonably be employed. But like consensus, I don’t think it’s strictly a numbers game. I would prefer recasting quasi-legislative–quasi-judicial to quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial, partly because of its length, but also because nothing is lost in recasting—in fact, I think quite the opposite obtains.

With the anti-conscription–pro-conscription debate, the choice is not so obvious, and as it stands may well be the least of evils. An option might be volunteerism—conscription debate, but this is somewhat less clear because the nouns are different (I had to think about the meaning for a moment). I think the main reason for my tepid support is that it’s less easy for me to quickly distinguish en dashes from hyphens than to distinguish en dashes from spaces. But perhaps this is just a personal quirk.

As for the prescriptivism–descriptivism debate, it should be clear that I lean toward the former (especially for en dashes), but recognize that when well-established alternatives exist (especially when they reflect ENGVAR or its equivalent), I might allow any of them, possibly preferring one, if that alternative would normally reduce ambiguity. Like Blueboar, I might prescribe (or at least strongly recommend an approach if it’s one on which we clearly agree (e.g., parenthetical dashes and en dashes in ranges of numbers), especially when that practice finds nearly universal acceptance outside of WP. One always must be careful about claims of universality, of course; some guides (SP 811) deprecate range dashes for numbers in technical contexts, and some organizations (ASTM) proscribe them. In some cases (unspaced em dashes vs. spaced en dashes), an expressed preference would clearly not find any traction, and probably should not. And finding a justification other than WP:ILIKEIT would be almost impossible. One thing I certainly would not do without a mighty good reason is proscribe a common practice (e.g., closed-up use of range dashes) that finds broad support in the guides—it is difficult for me to see doing so as other than utterly capricious. The more such provisions we include, the more likely are editors to ignore the MOS (assuming they don’t already). JeffConrad (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me of TKE, although I would ascribe it to both Fowlers. The section is available on line, and it is more concise that MEU in saying that there are only three forms of composition (closed up; spaced; hyphenated) and that the only call for a fourth is Anglo-South-Americans, where there is are different levels of composition. They recommend, as we should, Warsaw and Brest-Litovsk railway line instead of playing with hierarchy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that 1908 Fowler's "King's English" predates any guides that I am aware of that talk about en dash usage. And it recommends things like "Covert-Garden-Market salesman" that modern guides eschew; the insertion of hyphens into compounds used as adjectives is deprecated when the compounds are proper names (not "Golden-Gate Bridge", but just "Golden Gate Bridge"). Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Fowlers call a hyphen a regrettable necessity; more were necessary in 1908 than are now (and more seem to have been necessary in Oxford than in San Francisco, even then); a compounding dash is equally regrettable and much less necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have the 3rd ed. (1931), which ponders Anglo-SouthAmericans—progress of sorts, I suppose. Though it was completed after F.W.’s death, much of the content obviously derives from his efforts. As many have correctly observed, the Fowlers were fighting some battles that have long since been resolved. But it remains a valuable work, even one makes it only through the five principles that being Chapter 1. Unfortunately, even in the 3rd ed., TKE is of no help on en dashes—I mentioned it simply to show that the Fowlers were well aware of the problem. That we′re still having difficulty finding consensus on some issues suggests that even with dashes, the problem remains vexing.

As regards Warsaw and Brest-Litovski railway line: for a reference to the railway, this works. But a Warsaw and Brest-Litovski trip works less well, and clearly, Warsaw-Brest-Litovski trip does not work at all. What the Fowlers did not propose was Warsaw–Brest-Litovski trip, which seems to me to do the job. I concede that this usage wasn’t as enthusiastically embraced as some of the others, and it’s not the prettiest construction, but what are the alternatives? I suppose we could resolve it the way a mathematician would resolve default operator by using parentheses, as I have done in a few examples—namely Warsaw-(Brest-Litovski) trip. I somehow don’t see this getting very far. JeffConrad (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The proper rewriting of Warsaw–Brest-Litovsk trip is trip from Warsaw to Brest-Litovsk, which offers no problem.

As a minor detail, the press report the Fowlers are criticizing seems to have confused the name of the latter city with its adjective; if we use this example, we should amend it.

But this presents another reason not to use such compounds where they can be avoided; they are inherently vague. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If one is willing to forgo the adjectival usage, then of course this rewrite works. And it may be just as good. But were it unquestionably the “proper” rewrite, the Fowlers would probably not have bothered trying to deal with the adjectival form.

I guess the vagueness is in the eye of the beholder—I see no ambiguity in the form with the en dash, though I agree with many who though recasting may often be better. But in some contexts, recasting may not be practical, so it’s nice to have a way of handling the adjectival form. JeffConrad (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The dash in Warsaw–Brest-Litovsk can mean several things, depending on context; the Fowlers dealt with a case where it did mean and; they recommended (as the surviving Fowler continued to recommend) abandoning the effort to pack it into a single adjective. Where's the profit in it?

But the fact that the dash can mean almost anything means it is inherently vague. Sometimes the ambiguity is settled by context; sometimes it isn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's something that's just occurred to me. For prescriptivism vs. descriptivism, if prescriptive points must be supported by reputable sources, such as style guides, then descriptive points must be supported by sources of similar reliability, such as sociolinguistic studies. (Come to think of it, many of the style guides cited as prescriptive have passages that describe actual use, so perhaps they'd be usable for both.) Personal observations of "what people do" should be dismissed as OR unless also so supported.

And Noetica is a dude. He says so on his talk page or at least he did when I made a two-second pronoun check three years ago. It's not the most relevant of issues, but can we stop asking about it now? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I would happily defer to "sociolinguistic studies" if that means a controlled experiment to determine whether typical readers, not just punctuation mavens, understand material more quickly when dash rule number 89-4C-6 (f) is followed. But only if such studies exist. Art LaPella (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Darkfrog, I largely agree. I clearly lean toward style guides, more out of practicality than ideology. It’s usually a fairly deterministic process to find (and perhaps cite) what Guide A recommends. There is of course the problem that Guide B may recommend something different, but at least is also fairly straightforward to find the differences and decide to prefer one or just allow both if A and B are widely respected. We can always argue whether a given guide is “widely respected”, but most of the guides provide help by listing most of the other major guides in bibliographies. Now perhaps this is all just a vast conspiracy, but the guides listed by the other guides seem to correspond well to measures such as ASR (Amazon sales rank). Perhaps this is a sort of descriptive prescriptivism.

The alternative is far less straightforward. As Art indicated, a study relevant to a particular issue would need to exist, be discovered, discussed, possibly interpreted as to how well it relates to the issue at hand and as to what it actually concludes, as opposed to differing WP:ILIKEITs. This seems to me a tall order, and arriving at a conclusion could make the discussion on dashes seem brief and trivial by comparison.

That’s why I look to the guides—though this may not be a perfect solution, it seems simpler, faster, and less subjective than the alternative. JeffConrad (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So do I; most guides do not recommend most of this, and the exceptions have low ASR. [signing comment by PMAnderson JeffConrad (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)]

I guess we’d need to focus on specifics, but between APA and CMOS, most seem to be covered. And in the UK, NHR has reasonably high ASR. JeffConrad (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Procedural subsection

¿There is still only halting progress because there’s complaining about what “consensus” means? The need to dwell on this point on Wikipedia is typically borne out of a minority side’s disputing that a consensus exists. Believe me—I know. I was exposed to a metric butt-load of Iranian-centrifuged, weapons-grade bullonium with complaints about how “There is no consenus!!!” over date de-linking and deprecating routine use of the IEC computer prefixes like “kibibytes”. In the end, the hold-outs lost because fighting against the consensus view is futile. What we need is the following:

1. All parties stipulate that Wikipedia:Consensus discloses all that is known and needs to be known about the subject.
2. Establish a clear consensus.
3. Find an uninvolved, respected admin who has huevos.
4. Have said admin rule on the consensus (win, lose, no consensus for the change).
5. Decisively deal with the holdout who has been giving you grief.

Greg L (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing about consensus though is that it doesn't actually require anyone to "rule" on anything, "huevos" or not. Regardless... there is a well trod path through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, what there is of it, which does utilize "finding an 'uninvolved' admin with 'huevos'" in order to adjudicate a ruling. I guess that it's just a pet peeve of mine that people refer to that (mistakenly) as "consensus", but... meh.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The sign of having achieved consensus is that you don't need an admin, nor huevos; nobody objects. That's what WP:CONSENSUS says; who objects to it?

Shouldn't this thread be under Procedure, the next section down? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Note, I said thread, not section; I have made it a subsection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of procedure

[What to do next; when to do it]

I know probably no-one will like it, but here's my idea:

• From Day 1 to Day 7, whoever can be bothered to shall review all recent discussion about this topic, write a draft in their own userspace reflecting the consensus as well as they can, review and comment other people's drafts, and tweak their own draft addressing other people's comments.
• By the end of Day 7, I guess there will be a few such drafts (probably less than half a dozen); the drafts shall be locked down, and a new subpage shall be created where as many people as possible (through WT:MOS, WP:VP, WP:CENT, WP:RFC/STYLE, WT:WPMOS, maybe WT:GOCE, WT:TYP, WT:LANG, Talk:Dash, and possibly a watchlist-notice) shall be asked to review the drafts and sort them in order of preference, from Day 8 to Day 14.
• At the end of Day 14, the ‘ballot’ page shall be locked down and the preferences evaluated according to the Schulze method or similar. The ‘winning’ draft shall then be copied and pasted, verbatim, replacing the entire current Section 8.9 “Dashes” of WP:MOS.
• After that, tweaks to the guideline can be discussed and implemented through the normal WP:EDITREQ mechanism for protected pages.

(Of course, the better a drafter is at reflecting the community consensus, the more likely their draft is to win.)

― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 16:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The Schulze method is contrary to our stated goals: to select the policy which as many people as possible can tolerate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been reviewing Noetica's draft, with respect to how well it incorporates fixes to all the disagreements that came up in the extensive discussions; I intend to recommend a few tweaks, but I think things would get out of control if I tried to make my own competing version; I don't think you'd find many editors with the patience to dig into differences and rank them at this point. But if someone thinks it is far enough off-base that they want to do a whole new one, I guess we'll look at that, too. As Noetica suggests, some notice of such an intention would help us keep our work in order. Sounds like there's some sentiment for a more "watered down" version from a few editors. Dicklyon (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Only a few editors have commented on any draft.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring remains unacceptable; if Noetica repeats it, he or she (I don't know whicn) may explain that action elsewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed discussion (see preliminaries, above)

We now have an edit war over whether "What consensus means" should have === or ====. Would === = be an acceptable compromise? Another hot issue is Noetica's gender. See the top of his user talk page. And break your eggs on the big end only! Art LaPella (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

<chuckle> Fine; I was taught that gender should not matter; but Noetica was fiercely inovolved with the gneder-specific language movement. So rather than guess, I was non-specific.

What I object to, however, is having my comment refactorsd. That's obnoxious, and we have politcy against it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You presumably meant to say that only some comments should be refactored according to WP:TALKO (whether this is one of those times is an issue that you and Noetica can surely debate for weeks.) Art LaPella (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I have never had a productive debate with Noetica (a neuter plural where I come from); I'd take him to ANI first. He does not have my consent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I did mis-guess Noetica's gender; this may (or may not) have to do with the fact that in my native language nouns such as matematica are feminine singulars. (But then, where I am from Andrea and Nicola are men's names, so I shouldn't use that as an excuse.) :-) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 14:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

WTF, nearly two days and neither of you guys has commented on whether it makes sense to call a girl Andrea given its etymology... :-) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Dash confusion

Resolved

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

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

Thanks.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

em or en dash for fluorine-fluorine bond?

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

En dash, obviously. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, en dash. And when it's a repeated word (like "protein–protein"), it's somehow less likely to be confusing. I'd have thought much easier to read as symbols, too: C–H bond. The musicians use en dashes for chords (C–E–G). Tony (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Headbomb.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It'd be nice for it to be the same length as the = for the double bond and the ≡ for the triple bond... Test:

Hyphen	En dash	Em dash	Minus sign
C-C C=C C≡C	C–C C=C C≡C	C—C C=C C≡C	C−C C=C C≡C

On my system, the hyphen is way too short, the en dash a little too short, the em dash too long, and the minus sign just right; YMMV depending on your font, I suppose. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 13:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

It's not "our" minus sign; it's up to whoever designed the font that your browser is using; they're not all sensible. Dicklyon (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Alignment of images in lead

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

I have no good idea how that got in the MOS and I hate the rule-pushers, who don't look at how an article really serves a reader, but try to dictate some wiki-uniformity when they don't have the work ethic or brains to really try to layout content and think of readers in the abstract. All that said, I think the image works just ducky on the right side. I think the looking in or out of the page aspect is way over-rated in terms of how it really hits a reader and you should think more of the overall layout (where would you want the pic if you had no idea which way the fellow was looking). That said, if someone is pushing you to stick an infobox in that glorious article...I have your back. Also, there are a shitload of very important (even "vital") articles that can use real work and should be the attention of interlopers...rather than trying to barge in and start arguments on things where there is very evident care and effort going on already.TCO (reviews needed) 13:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Am curious how you find the diff where text changed. I have a little something that is bugging me wrt pushing of (extra) wikilinks in captions which makes no sense given we want clean unformatted prose and that within the rest of the article, we don't require repetition of wlinks.TCO (reviews needed) 13:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I linked to it from the discussion in question (which does not feature "interlopers" trying to force rules down people's throats as so casually implied above; most parties involved have been involved in this particular discussion for two years). Odd that you would claim to have "no good idea how that got in the MOS" when you were directly involved in the last thread discussing the matter before it was changed, TCO. FYI Mike, there have been at least two discussions since that change which reference it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

English Wikpedia in common English language !

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

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

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

Thank you for your contribution.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? I'm honestly surprised by this: in my experience, most people who have English as a second language seem to type in American English, or something closer to that than to British English (or maybe it's just that I'm less likely to recognise users of "the Queen's English" as non-native speakers). Unfortunately some confusion is inevitable, but since English Wikipedia is based in America and read all over the world, I don't think consensus for one variety of English throughout the encyclopaedia is likely. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually taking Hong Kong as example, even though we're taught British English in school, our English teachers specifically state that both British and American Englishes are acceptable, including mixed usage within one sentence, albeit unencouraged. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the original poster is right—american is ruining the language. For what it′s worth, the SOED doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with most of the words cited. But perhaps we’ve just managed to corrupt OUP. JeffConrad (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad piece, for "an ex-American resident", whatever that was intended to mean. Dicklyon (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

People think the Americans are ruining the language? Most English speakers these days live in India. Have you seen what THEY are doing to it? Rumiton (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There aren't very many first-language English speakers in India. Most of them learned it in school. That doesn't count as much, as a general rule, though there are exceptions. --Trovatore (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious. "The Americans imported English wholesale,"? Really? That's an... interesting take on history. lol
The attempted point about baseball phraseology making it's way to England is...overwrought, as well. Brits play Cricket after all, so things like "bases" and "strikes" are hardly foreign concepts. Oh well.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You're on a bit of a sticky wicket there, Ω, perhaps you're thinking of rounders? . . dave souza, talk 13:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

hehe, I was wondering if someone would bring that up as I was typing that sentence. Yea, to be completely accurate Baseball's direct ancestor is probably rounders, but... the lore generally says Cricket. <shrug>
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There's also the basic lack of research. Anyone who has actually used AOL in the UK in the last, what, fifteen years has been treated to "you have eeee-mail" in the plummy tones of Joanna Lumley. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Why did the resident change his citizenship? Or did he mean “ex–American resident”? Or “former American resident”? JeffConrad (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Henry Louis Mencken documented the history of this rhetoric, from John Witherspoon, onward, in 1948; one would have expected it to die out by now. The American colonists spoke English when they arrived; they still do - as the Australians do. In many cases the American idiom is older, and the British have changed their language; the fuel the British now call "petrol" was originally called "gasoline" and the OED quotes the Pall Mall Gazette and the Duchess of Sutherland as using it; petrol is a French loan word. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. But lots of Americans (the majority, I think) are not of English ancestry; in particular, a sizeable fraction of them is of Irish ancestry, and the Irish pretty much did import English from England. :-) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite. Half of Webster's "innovations" were digging up archaic spellings that had gone out of use in the UK. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

While I find the original poster's assertion that American English is less valid than British English is inaccurate and a bit insulting, if Wikipedia were to suddenly require only one variety of English throughout (perhaps cosmic rays destroy the part of the human brain capable of dealing with inter-article inconsistency, I'm just sayin') I would vote for British. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how British media deal with American quote. Will they change the A.E. to B.E. of the original context? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the specific example by the OP of color, I think even non-native speakers are likely to be familiar with it, being used in all kinds of technical contexts (e.g. HTML and CSS). ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, until a few years ago, the most common ancestry in the U.S. was German, and it was since before the Revolutionary War. I think 23% of us had some German ancestry as of 1990. Germany has probably since been surpassed by Mexico. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Translation

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

And/or, etc.

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

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

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

[Addendum: I amended my misuse of the term appositive above. --Jackftwist (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)]

Good comments, Jack. Now, "wild dogs" and "dingoes" are sometimes taken as equivalent, sometimes not. I take your point: with commas, the sentence might most naturally be taken to mean that dingoes are wild dogs. But this cannot be guaranteed, and there are respectable cases in which the commas would serve merely to distance the genuine alternative scenario from the main assertion. Wild dogsDingoes might have been mentioned as a distinct class, and here be mentioned again as possible inhabitants of the stretch of land; the writer thinks it less likely, and marks it as a secondary hypothesis between commas. You see? Sometimes context will diminish the problem, other times context will worsen it. The reader is the expert on when to get confused! Writers can be relied on not to predict such misreadings; so alternatives more immune to misreading are proposed. Noetica^Tea? 00:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn’t “wild dogs (dingoes), inhabit this stretch of land” resolve the ambiguity?

As nearly as I can tell, “and/or” is now almost universally deprecated, even by lawyers who sometimes use it. It certainly finds no support in Garner’s Modern Legal Usage, which recommends “this, the other, or both”—as do many others. JeffConrad (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeff, of course "wild dogs (dingoes) inhabit this stretch of land" (omitting your comma!) would resolve the ambiguity in one direction. That's exactly what the current guideline proposes.

(I have amended my text above; I don't think my inadvertence affects this present point directly.)

Noetica^Tea? 02:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Don’t OUP use the serial comma even when there is no series ;-)? I was just sayin’ . . . my response was more at the deprecation, which goes back at least to MEUF. Fowler seemed to reluctantly tolerate it in legal documents; were he alive today, I’m sure he would not.

Another alternative when there are more than two items: “x, y, z, or combination thereof.” JeffConrad (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Again Jeff, a glance at the current guideline shows that this sort of thing is covered: "Instead of x, y, and/or z, use an appropriate alternative, such as one or more of x, y, and z; some or all of x, y, and z." Personally I find those preferable to "combination thereof", which gets a nod from the wording "such as", anyway. If you think differently, take it further. Myself, I'm happy with the guideline as it stands, except that I would make this change: "With two possibilities, at least the intention ismay be clear; ...". That's more accurate. In fact "and/or" normally does cover the intention (on the default assumption of an inclusive reading for "or"), but with noisome breadth and redundancy. In practice, "and" or "or" alone will usually express the intention better.

Noetica^Tea? 03:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"and/or" means "and or or", which is equivalent to "or" in Boolean logic, which is one of the first things one learns when learning computer programming, which seems thousands of times simpler than the rest of the megabyte-plus unreadable Manual of Style. "X, Y, or both" strikes me as harder to understand than "X and/or Y" when X and Y are 20 words each. But apparently style manuals are united that "and/or" is too complicated. So whatever ... Art LaPella (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Art, the meaning depends on the audience. If we are to believe Garner (a lawyer), the courts have interpreted “and/or” to mean “one or the other or both”, which is essentially the same as the MOS. A quick perusal suggests that the phrase isn’t quite as deprecated as I had thought, but it finds no support in S&W, MEUF, GMAU, CMOS, and only the most tepid support in TCS; Fowler and Garner are especially hard in rejecting it; MWEU, a more descriptive guide, is more tolerant. MWEU and A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage caution that courts have made varying interpretations, and the latter cites two appellate cases in which each of three judges on the panel arrived at different interpretations.

We’re all creatures of habit, and my preference for rewording probably stems from that. JeffConrad (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

8-O I'm gonna take a look at that... What else could and/or possibly be taken to mean? ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Noetica, I was just mentioning a possible additional alternative from Form and Style for ASTM Standards that I’ve used for years (this time, I actually looked at the MOS before commenting . . .); I think the current wording for more than two is fine, and we probably don′t need any more suggestions. JeffConrad (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

In sum, we seem to agree that there is no big problem with the guideline for "and/or". Art, yes: of course the explicit "or", if it is read as a default inclusive "or", covers the case of "and". The implicit "or", suggested by the "/", is more interesting. People say "and/or" rather than simply "or" not because of the strict meaning, but rather because of the implicature involved. In other words, the implicit "or" is metalinguistic. The speaker is unsure whether saying "and" or saying "or" would be optimal in the circumstances, and therefore hedges. One plausible paraphrase for some particular utterance of "A and/or B", in which the implicature is forced down into the strict meaning (and keeping the explicit "or" inclusive):

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

I leave as an exercise the question whether that metalinguistic "or" is best understood as exclusive or inclusive.

As a harder question, what is the paraphrase of a similar utterance of "A and/or B", in which the explicit "or" is taken as exclusive?

Noetica^Tea? 10:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Obligatory Language Log link: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=52 (as well as the one it links to, and the one that one in turn links to). ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I started to compose an answer, but A. di M.'s link covers it. Art LaPella (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not very fond of wild dogs (dingoes) inhabit this stretch of land–I'd prefer wild dogs, also known as dingoes, inhabit. (In some contexts, the former might be taken to mean that wild dogs are a subset of dingoes: cf. a beam of muons (unstable elementary particles) is produced which doesn't mean that all unstable elementary particles are muons.) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Further thoughts and/or musings

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

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

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

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

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

'et al.'

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

Is somebody disputing that et al. ought to be italicized, or complaining that it has not been?

In the latter case, one solution is simple: don't use the {{citation}} template; it's a crutch to supply italics and punctuation for those who don't know what's needed or how to make italics. I used to use them until I realized that doing my own formating was easier and faster as well as more flexible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The opinions I found are mixed on italicizing "et al." [7] [8] And of course your own formatting isn't easier or faster if everyone has to look up things like "et al." on their own. Art LaPella (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not use italics for:

• foreign phrases and abbreviations common in English (i.e., phrases found as main entries in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 2005). — Publication Manual of the American Phycological Assocition, 6th edition

et al. in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit protection

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