Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Airborne84 (talk | contribs) at 15:18, 29 September 2010 (→BCE/BC: bold). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:MOS/R

WikiProject iconManual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
Note icon
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate.
Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Note icon
For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

edit
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

RfC on Consensus

Given WP:CONLIMITED, to what extent and under what circumstances can individual WikiProjects and users customize article appearance with individual styles that deviate from site-wide style guidelines? Interested contributors are invited to participate there. --Moonriddengirl (talk)

Is the use of "#" in links (e.g. Wikipedia:Accessibility#Color) fully sanctioned and agreed? To me it looks a bit ugly and non-human-friendly. Would it not be better to recommend linking as, say, Wikipedia:Accessibility – Color? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.78.237 (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "#" is part of HTML, not Wikipedia; I'm sure that it would be technically possible, but not easy, for Wikipedia to adopt some other style. That said, I agree that it's not very pretty. I just don't have a practical solution. Ozob (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I am not talking about changing Wikipedia syntax, I am talking about changing the presentation. The example I gave, Wikipedia:Accessibility – Color, affords the "practical solution" that you refer to. 81.159.78.237 (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To me this seems like a maintenance nightmare—editors would be expected know both the # notation and the — notation, and every time they needed to link to an article subsection, they'd be expected to make a piped link as you did above. So while it is technically possible to do what you suggest, I still do not believe that it is practical. Somewhat easier for editors is for the Wikipedia software to attempt to automatically convert #s to —s, but this would require a lot of work by the Wikipedia developers; again I do not think this is practical. As I said above, your suggestion is more aesthetic; but I'm still not convinced it's practical. Ozob (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In articles, I would pipe "Article#Section" to "Article: Section". Ucucha 01:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colons are used in some titles, for example, "Africa: The Serengeti". "Article: Section" might appear to be an article title.
Wavelength (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Ozob: I think you are vastly overestimating the difficulties. Piped links are a trivial matter that most editors would learn on day one of their Wikipedia experience. 81.159.78.237 (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I entered "flax" into the search box and pressed "Search". The eleventh result was Linen (section Flax fiber).
—Wavelength (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should avoid presenting the X#Y syntax to the reader wherever possible. It can be done quite easily with piped links; the exact method used depends on the context. For example: "...see the Color section of the Accessibility guideline."--Kotniski (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is, of course, aware that the MoS itself uses the X#Y syntax extensively? 86.135.26.33 (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe looks a little worse to us because we are very aware of it. The average user may perceive it as just another blue link.
Having said that, the advantage of using the # is that it does draw editors attention to the "precarious" nature of the link which would otherwise not be apparent. Might get a forked article out of it sometime. Otherwise editors would assume everything just fine. Student7 (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also support a more aesthetically pleasing method than the use of #. Consider the long-term future of Wikiepdia. In 10 years, we want Wikipedia to be a better reference source than anything out there. It should not only be complete and as accurate as possible, but polished. The use of the # should be addressed at some point. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to get our language straight, it's called a "fragment identifier," and all it does is indicate that the URL is linking to a subordinate resource within some document, usually this is just a section, but it could mean other things. The number sign makes sense, although it's a little strange in Wikipedia (section number is cut), the phrase "see Ebola#Classification" is read "see Ebola section number one Classification." Most documents I've read use a similar notation, but instead of a number sign it's the section sign "§", as in "While 28 U.S.C. § 1253 authorize..." In my opinion and as Kotniski said, the pipe will also work.

However, I do not believe using a dash or colon will work. It might be "aesthetic" to some, but the colon could indicate a title ("Maximum Ride: The Angel Experiment"), and a dash has a whole host of unrelated meanings. I believe that if we are going to move away from the number sign, it should at least be supported by some manual of style rather than something that we find pleasing that was discussed here. -- CaC 155.99.230.187 (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to replace number signs by anything, then I think the section sign is the right character. But I am still not convinced that there is an easy way of doing so, and I still believe that it is more trouble than it's worth. Perhaps someone here will choose to improve the Wikipedia software so that the use of the section symbol is automatic. I would support that. Ozob (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it can be done directly in wikitext using piped links, like Wikipedia:Accessibility§Color, and that, of course could easily be hidden a template, like {{Sectlink|Article|Section}}. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the number sign is fine. Readers will become familiar with the syntax overtime, making the number sign common place and the section sign unnecessary (of course, there will also be readers who are unfamiliar with both). Anyways a template wouldn't be hard to make, just create this page with the following code:
{{#if: {{{article|}}}{{{1|}}} |<!--
     
     -->{{#if: {{{section|}}}{{{2|}}} |<!--
          -->[[{{{1|}}}{{{article|}}}#{{{2|}}}{{{section|}}}|{{{1|}}}{{{article|}}}§{{{2|}}}{{{section|}}}]]<!--
     -->|}}<!--
     
     -->| <span class="error">Error: Missing {{Link section|'''''article'''''|'''''section'''''}}, see [[Template:Sectlink|<span style="color:#00f">documentation</span>]] for help.</span><!--
     -->}}<!--
--><noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
</noinclude>
I've included an error message in above that'll remind the user for a missing article or a section name. {{Sectlink}} sound like an appropriate name, although I believe we should also redirect {{Link section}} there since it's (in my opinion) clearer. As for implementing it into the Wikimedia software, I think that would be best, but that's a proposal for WP:VPT. -- CaC 155.99.231.8 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have certainly seen the section symbol (§) used with section numbers, but I do not remember ever having seen it used with section names. Can anyone provide external support for such use, through either a guideline or an example?
—Wavelength (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is new to me also. However if we are going to pick a character to denote sections than the section symbol is probably the one to use.
One aspect that has not yet been discussed is that the section symbol is non-ASCII. There may consequently be accessibility issues for users on certain platforms and for users using devices such as screen readers. Ozob (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article Section sign has information about typing the character. Also, it is included in the default set of characters below the edit window. That set is indicated by "Insert" in the drop-down menu.
—Wavelength (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen anything like "§Color" either. To me, it looks just as strange and non-human-friendly as a hash sign. More so, in fact, because I am at least used to the use of # in URLs. 86.186.35.93 (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Someone asked me to run a bot to replace for example "[[architect|architects]]" with "[[architect]]s". So I asked the task approval in order to add this replacement to FrescoBot collection of wikilink fixes: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FrescoBot 7. Comments are welcome. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 17:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category names with hyphens misused after "ly"

WP:HYPHEN, subsection 3, point 4, says "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb ... unless part of a larger compound". From the Category namespace of the Index (WP:QI), I opened every page from 1 to 9 and from A to Z and beyond, searching for the character string "ly-", and I found the following categories where the hyphen should be omitted.

The 22 categories and 41 subcategories total 63 categories. Also, I found the following category whose use of the hyphen might be correct, but I am not certain.

(Incidentally, the two-word expression clean up is a verb phrase, whereas the noun adjunct cleanup is one word.)
Is there a technically efficient means by which the incorrectly placed hyphens can be removed from the category pages and from the article pages within them?
—Wavelength (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found Help:Category#Moving and redirecting category pages (permanent link here).
—Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at WP:CFD for directions on requesting that these categories be renamed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BCE/BC

I disagree with the policy of allowing the Current Era system to be used. Here's why:

  • "Common Era" is entirely arbitrary-- without a historic basis, why is the year 0CE picked?
  • History: If we are going to use 0 A.D./C.E. as the date, then why not recognize the reason why this date has been historically used?
  • Consistency: Although many might not pick up on this sort of thing, it is not encyclopedic to use both systems without a logical guideline for when they are appropriate
  • Simplicity: It is confusing to use both dating systems
  • Double Standards: Nobody objects when a new article or section is created which uses one system or the other, yet everyone objects when the system is changed. Why does the first editor to get there get the right to irreversibly decide which system is used based entirely on his personal preference
  • Bias: The BCE/CE system was specifically designed to censor the historical basis of the years in Christ's birth--why continue the tradition of religious suppression?

As you see above, this means that a few lucky editors get to decide which is used. Given the disproportionate atheist and secularist population on the encyclopedia, this gives a statistical disadvantage to Christians, who make up the majority of the audience. I think only the traditional, established BC/AD dating system should be used.--Axiomtalk 00:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of this article by the red triangle, is a search box. If you haven't already done so (you didn't mention it if you had), please enter "BCE" into that search box and click "Search Archives". You will be linked to many, many previous debates on this subject. That doesn't mean you can't bring it up for the hundredth time; it's just that you haven't recognized previous debate. Art LaPella (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I searched and, as you said, found about 800 discussions of this issue. There seemed to be two standard types:
  • A bunch of "multicultural"ists declared that AD was western-centered and was somehow offensive to them, and spent pages and pages expounding on the topic without convincing quite enough people

or

  • A handful of people argue that CE/BCE is a sign of anti-christian bias, and are very rapidly booed down by a chorus of opponents.

In neither did anyone address the great randomness that characterizes the policy. Will someone please address why the person who inserts the date has more control than any subsequent editors? And nobody can conclusively explain why using a blatantly anti-Christian, politically correct system can be used without violating or twisting NPOV.Axiomtalk 01:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could write an equally spirited post to decry the atrocious injustice that allows Wikipedians to use a blatantly anti-non-Christian system that describes any year since 1 CE as the year of some alleged "Lord". I won't do it, but please understand that BCE is widely used in outside sources, and it's never Wikipedians' job to decide that some style system is morally wrong. Ucucha 01:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "randomness" that allows the first editor to control a style, is also used for other Manual of Style issues, such as whether to use British English. It is described at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Stability of articles, which references a footnote, which in turn references full-blown Wikipedia:arbitration cases on this same CE/BCE issue. The thought is that if CE/BCE isn't one's main issue, then one wants such repetitive arguments settled rather than continually re-arguing them; hence the rule of leaving the existing style alone. Art LaPella (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding randomness, you might want to read Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 117#WP:COMMONALITY. That was a very closely related discussion; it concerned the correct choice of spellings, similarly to how this one concerns the correct choice of datings. In particular, there was a long discussion of WP:RETAIN that is immediately applicable to this discussion. Ozob (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And as for claims about suppression and bias, a number of books by Christian theologians use the BCE/CE convention. If our policy on this upsets you so much that you are going to make arguments like this, you may be happier somewhere else, eg Conservapedia. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modern Biblical scholarship has concluded that Jesus was born 3 B.C. Oops. Noloop (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this gives a statistical disadvantage to Christians, who make up the majority of the audience
Can you support that? Do Christians make up the majority of the audience? People speak English all over the world. It's one of the official languages of India, for example. I'm not saying it's not true. However, I'd be interested in seeing the statistics. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that within a country religion doesn't correlate with use of Wikipedia, looking at this, and trusting United States#Religion, United Kingdom#Religion and Canada#Demographics, I find out that Christians in the US, the UK and Canada alone make up about 51.8% of the readers. (But I don't think that's a good reason to ban CE and BCE.) A. di M. (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Self-identification tells a different story. There are several possible reasons for this discrepancy; one is that your assumption is wrong, another that (for whatever reason) Christians tend not to self-identify on Wikipedia. Ucucha 23:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually confusing "audience" with "editors" here; perhaps editors are less likely to be Christian than readers. Ucucha 23:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess all three things are probably true: maybe Christians are slightly less likely than non-Christians to read Wikipedia, but much less likely to edit it, and the ones who do edit it are less likely to categorize themselves as such. A. di M. (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pie chart linked above says that only 5,973 Wikipedians identify their religion. Special:Statistics says that in the last 30 days, 133,689 Wikipedians were active. We have data on less than one in twenty Wikipedians, and the data we do have is a biased (in the jargon statistical sense, mind you!) and non-random sample. I don't feel confident in drawing any conclusion about Wikipedians as a whole from the available data. We would need a truly random sample to get good statistics out. Ozob (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Nonetheless, our audience is largely Jewish and Christian and our writers are (probably) disproportionately secular. We need to offset this by eliminating the potential for bias, and a good place to start is by recognizing the historical roots of western dates. The CE/BCE system is a laughable politically correct denial of our heritage and is far more indicative of bias that reaffirming that heritage by using the BC/AD system that most of our western english speaking READERS are accustomed to.--Axiomtalk 01:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Millions of Bible students believe that Jesus became the Christ, the Messiah, not when he was born, but when he was anointed with holy spirit at the time of his baptism at the age of about 30 years. [1] See also Prophecy of Seventy Weeks.
—Wavelength (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And regardless of that issue, his birth is usually given as 2 to 7 BC anyway. I'm not sure why Axiom emphasized "Jewish", because Jews have their own reason to object to "Anno Domini". Art LaPella (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, C.E. is a little lame considering that we're using the exact same start year for almost the exact same reason, but it has been common practice long enough to be considered standard. It correctly and recognizably communicates the information of what year the writer is talking about, and, within correct English, we should give writers their freedom. The first-major-contributor rule isn't perfect, but establishing these things on a first-come-first-served basis is usually the best of our available options.
The British vs. American/Australian/Canadian English example is a good one. However, we also have a rule, WP:ENGVAR, that says that if people can demonstrate than an article has strong cultural ties to one variant of English (American Civil War, Australian Navy, etc. etc.) then that article can be switched to that variety even if the first major contributor used a different one. If you can come up with a similar logical rationale for C.E. vs. A.D., then please propose it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For excellent overview of the terms, their origins, and their modern meanings, I commend to editors both:

Segan, S. (May 2006). "Uncertainties and misconcepts about calendars". Publications of the Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade. 80: 233–44. Bibcode:2006POBeo..80..233S. and Blumenfeld, Warren J. (2006). "Christian Privilege and the Promotion of "Secular" and Not-So "Secular" Mainline Christianity in Public Schooling and in the Larger Society". Equity & Excellence in Education. 39 (3): 195–210. doi:10.1080/10665680600788024.

In the context of wp, it is a clearly unjust thing to adopt a rule which would require in some fashion of any editors who do not believe their Lord was born 2010 years ago to assert the reverse by calling this "the year of our Lord 2010". An abbreviation to A.D. would not in any way change that injustice to those editors. Effectively then, such a rule would impose the Christian believer's wp:POV while excluding others. In contrast, Diocletian's "Christian Era", or the more modern usage "Common Era" permit balanced discussion even though they still implicitly acknowledge the primacy of Christian representation systems. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse, very very few people actually think anno Domini when writing AD. As someone once aptly said, AD is Christian in roughly the way that "Wednesday" pays homage to Odin. --Trovatore (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(To be clear here, I am not supporting a global change to AD/BC. I am supporting the current system, which does call for using AD/BC in articles in which it is the established form.) --Trovatore (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, there is no year zero in the Gregorian calendar, which we use.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no reason to change the current system for one or 2 or 200,000 christian editors to feel better about the dating system. One of the 5 pillars of this project is NPOV, to decide for religious reasons to fix a specific date style system is against this qualification and violates the spirit of the project. If the user wants to edit within a conservative christian system, they should go back to Conservapedia. Heiro 18:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dating system we use was originally intended to refer to the birth of Christ, even if it was many years off. AD recognizes this. CE is simply a PC attempt to replace the historical reference with a meaningless phrase without establishing a new date. CE is as rooted in Christian heritage as AD, but it denies the connection. At least AD makes it clear the dating system we use and why. I am unaware of this "Conservapedia" you have repeatedly referenced in a derogatory way, but I recall that insults are not encouraged. --Axiomtalk 23:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This project is not here for you or anyone else to profess their faith, do homage to your diety or show the connection of western or any other culture to a specific diety. As for Conservapedia, I dont believe my comment was disparaging, I merely suggested you might be more comfortable editing there. Heiro 23:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Trovatore that it is unlikely that most editors think "year of the Lord" when writing A.D. Yes, A.D./B.C. does have its origins in Christian tradition, but it is not for Wikipedia to go around righting the real or presumed injustices of the English language. We should allow editors to chose from among these correct forms without bias.
Conservapedia is a website that's like Wikipedia but written for and by people who think that Wikipedia is too liberal. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, ok, not Conservapedia, CreationWiki, heres you Axiom. The blog he mentions on his user page here at WP, mentions that this is his user acct there, as well as chronicling some of his experiences here at Wikipedia arguing with WP editors about the benefits of creation science. Heiro 03:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most insightful comments I ever heard on AD vs. CE came from a Jewish person. He pointed out that CE is patronizing because it tacitly assumes that we all have Christ in common. He preferred the Jewish calendar, but failing that he used AD, because at least its Christianity is obvious instead of hidden. Regardless, Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Reliable sources use both AD and CE, so we do too. Ozob (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a lesson at wp:COMMONALITY. Rather than choose A.D. or C.E., in most cases we would do as well with "...in the year 1066." We would still need either B.C. or B.C.E., but these are significantly less offensive than A.D. LeadSongDog come howl! 01:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OnlineStylebooks.com mentions 19 style guides with guidelines regarding the abbreviations under discussion.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, The Christian Writer’s Manual of Style discusses them on page 10, where the question is not which ones to use, but whether to use full stops (periods) small capitals.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[I am correcting my comment.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)][reply]
There is no need to change anything or use euphemistic language, our current system allows for either BCE/CE or BC/AD, depending on what the original major contributor of the article fixes it as. No one is forced to use anything. But, one is not allowed to go and change over to the other system on an already established stable article without the consent and discussion of other editors. The user who posted this wants the current system done away with, and everyone else forced to follow HIS religious convictions in using BC/AD. Making policy and guideline decisions based on the religious POV of a subset of editors is antithetical to this project. The system we have now works fine, with the only complaints being from the religious right bemoaning how we are denying god. If you want god, go to church, the rest of us are here to create an encyclopedia. Heiro
I think you are misunderstanding one of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. God is not just in church; God is everywhere, including Wikipedia. Axiom will not check his faith at the door, as you seem to want him to, because he will not be Christian sometimes and non-Christian other times. He will be a Christian always because God is there always. In America, where his blog says he lives, he is entitled to do that: He is guaranteed not just freedom of worship but freedom of religion, and his religion pervades his life. Mock it if you will, but his behavior reflects a consistent philosophical viewpoint, much more consistent than the sometime-secularism you are suggesting. Asking him to stop because his views are grounded in religion is asking him to be a hypocrite here and deny himself. It is tantamount to holding an atheist POV and demanding that he hold one too, and that is just as antithetical to Wikipedia's principles as a Christian POV.
Wikipedia policy avoids religious and anti-religious POVs entirely by requiring citations to reliable sources. That is what we need to base this discussion on, not on a discussion of the perceived merits of other editors' religions. (That goes for you too, Axiom.) I suggest we stop the present discussion and try again. Neutrally, this time. Ozob (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not misunderstanding anything, the OP seeks to impose his philosophical viewpoint on the rest of the project. That is POV to the extreme. If he feels hypocritical editing here because he must work within the rules of our community, thats his problem, not ours. In the US, he certainly does have freedom to practice his religion, but Wikipedia isnt the U.S., it isnt a christian institution, isnt a forum for promoting ones beliefs and it is not a battleground for ideological debate. I am not suggesting or advocating he change to an atheistic belief system, I'm advocating the current policy not be changed to reflect his religious whims. If the OP feels better in a system such as they have at CreationWiki[2] maybe they should spend more time there than here. Heiro 14:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be like all the Brits suddenly re-enforcing a GMT standard rather that UTC. There's no real need for it. --Topperfalkon (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend close. This has been discussed ad nauseum. There seems to be a clear consensus. Axiom, if you would like to start an RfC and get a formal vote, you can certainly do so. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to remind editors of the statement above by Dougweller, that "a number of books by Christian theologians use the BCE/CE convention." With that statement in mind, I ask Axiom to specify (preferably with Bible references) which "Christian" laws or principles are violated by the use of that convention.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is non-breaking space useful in Taxobox?

Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Is non-breaking space useful in Taxobox?. Follow the link. --Snek01 (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=387738073"