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

Is there consensus to end the long-standing role of the MoS?

I have reverted Mr Anderson's change again, since he has not gathered consensus for it here. It would be a fundamental change in the concept of MoS: to [expand the scope of the advice to follow the usage of "reliable" secondary sources in determining "many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names", to a point-blank, general statement to "observe the style adopt by external sources", in which case, I wonder why we need a MoS at all. If there is consensus to make the change, I will then move to delete the MoS, since it will be of no use.

Before such a transformation begins, we should determine whether there is consensus for giving carte-blanche to anyone who wants to override the Manual of Style simply by citing a single external authority or example.

Support Mr Anderson's proposal to give external sources general authority over the MoS in WP articles ("In general, observe the style adopted by high-quality sources when considering a stylistic question. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources on the subject of an article.")

Retain the long-standing wording ("Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources on the subject....")

1. Tony (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
3. SMasters (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This personal attack misstates the issues. This "long-standing wording" (adopted early last year) does, and was intended to, establish a general rule (with exceptions for good reason) that Wikipedia would use styles generally accepted in English; this has not been changed. No word of any version says that we should follow any "single source"; indeed, today's version says we should usually follow general usage - which Tony's verbosity does not.

• Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Can we please have diffs, so we can all see that is at issue. --Philcha (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Seems like this is an overreaction. Both statements are making the same point - that if there's something that our MOS doesn't answer specifically you turn to the sources - with the latter being more clear about it. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• I would go for the second version. A bit stronger and more in line with the WP:NOR policy. It's shorter, and it doesn't presuppose which points of usage are covered for sure. (/me suspects that this is related WP:ENDASH and similar disputes, where it was argued that the punctuation in reliable sources doesn't have to be followed because we have our own stylistic guides) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Is there consensus to end the long-standing role of the MoS?" Answer: fuck no, and Tony gives exactly the reason why. We have our own manual of style, specific to our own needs. Sometimes we disagree with allowed styles, other times we impose one over all others, and sometimes we permit all of them. PMAnderson's version strips the MOS of it's power to discriminate against styles deemed undesired. Many MOSes would allow for YYYY-MM-DD in prose. Yet we don't want that. Many MOSes would likewise impose the Harvard style of citation. We allow all styles. Many MOSes tells you to use titlecase for sections. We choose sentence case. External sources provide good guidance most of the time, but which are different from our agreed-upon house style. But most damning of all, several reliable sources have shit-poor stylistic standards. Assume for instance, that all books on say... whale reproduction italicizes the English names of whale species blah blah blah, the blue whale is a .... Should we then start italicizing the English name of whales in the article on the reproduction of whales, and not italicize them otherwise, as most books don't italicize the English names of species? The answer is a resounding NO. In this case, books on whale reproduction can take a hike. PManderson's version tells you that no, if you can find a subset of books/blogs/columns/newspaper/journals/... with weird, sub-par, or otherwise-innapropriate-for-Wikipedia conventions, you can now Wikilawyer their horrible style into articles. So again: fuck no. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • To be completely fair, neither version specifically says the equivalent "WP's MOS takes priority over external sources." --MASEM (t) 15:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The first version says external sources can often provide a good guidance. The second says you must follow external sources. World of difference. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
      • "In general" != "must". And given that guidelines are meant to be descriptive, that follows allow that route. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • See the words Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, which are in all versions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Tempest in a tea-pot... Both versions are acceptable, as they say essentially the same thing. Both statements can be boiled down to: "When in doubt, follow the style used in reliable sources" (which I hope we would all agree with). That said... Is there consensus to end the long-standing role of the MoS? ... No, of course not. But that begs the question: Does PMA's edit "end the long-standing role the role of the MOS?" ... my answer: No it doesn't. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • And I have not intended to change anything about our guidance, merely to word it better; if Headbomb's comments above are intended to enshrine some other role for NOS, I will welcome his saying what it is below.
  • In line with this, since this relatively novel section is still wordy, I have ventured an even tighter text, in the perpetual hope that a new form of words will bring agreement:

    Wikipedia usually adopts the style generally found in high-quality sources on a given subject. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources. If the sources can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage, follow current English usage instead—and consult more sources.

  • If there is disagreement that Wikipedia usually does (and should) adopt such a style, let us have it explicitly - and without profanity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the long-standing role of the MoS?

Having skimmed through several of the debates on this page, have to wonder if we have a consensus on this fundamental question. So let's see if we can reach one... what do people think the role of the MOS actually is? Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I get the impression that some people feel it is some form of a constitution that should be dogmatically followed. I personally feel that the MoS is a guideline, and while maybe a great place to look if in need, it is neither infallible, nor does it necessarily express true consensus on Wikipedia. Giving the MoS the status of a rule book opens the door to many other problems, including giving quasi-legislative powers to a select few, prominent editors. Disastrous, if such a definition for the MoS is sought.--Xession (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather than complain about how other people see the MOS, could we restrict our comments to what we think the role of the MOS actually is (or is supposed to be). Xession, you say the MOS is a guideline, and "a great place to look if in need". Please expand... What do you mean by that? Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If an editor is working on an aticle, and is unsure how to stylize a particular portion, or looking for information regarding how they could benefit an article in some way, the MoS is a great place to start. However, the guidelines should not be mandated, should an editor feel they have a better method than the guide provides.--Xession (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• It is a guideline - it is meant to be descriptive, providing some straight-up mechanical advice (punctuation, etc. ) but otherwise reducing but not eliminating the amount of variance in style between articles. It is clearly not aimed or used to promote one single style (otherwise, for example, we'd be able to fix ourselves on using american-vs-UK english, or american-vs-international date formats). --MASEM (t) 16:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• The Manual of Style is a guideline for writing encyclopedic English. If it demands something which is not English, that interferes the purpose of this English Wikipedia, which is to communicate with English-speakers. The test of whether something is English is whether the community of anglophones has adopted it; there is no English Academy to make decrees. No-one who supposes that this page has some other "long-standing role" has ever stated what it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• It is a guideline; it gives guidance on how to write English. It is not a policy, a set of rules that must be followed on every single article. This is an encyclopedia, it complies information of a wide variety of fields; when usage common to that field varies from the MoS, the terms and usages proper to that field should be followed. And it describes the English that exists, not the English yet to come. Most importantly, it should describe English as widely used, not just because some editors like it; some parts are currently minority usage (regardless of variety) that were preferred by editors at the time of drafting, but are uncommon in daily usage. oknazevad (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Guidelines and policies both have exceptions, according to WP:IAR and common sense (for instance, software malfunction isn't listed as a 3RR exception, but obviously it could be), although guidelines probably have more exceptions. But if we have no obligation to honor the MoS and guidelines amount to essays, then I don't understand why we waste our time here on the MoS at all. There are hundreds of books and websites about style, and almost nobody has read them all. If the MoS is no different, then why do we pay any attention to it? Art LaPella (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Because it's accessible. Most people don't have access to a single style guide; even fewer have access to a range of them. As Xession says above, it's a convenient place to look; even though I have access to CMOS most of the time, typing "WP:MOS" is a lot easier - and it covers Wikipedia-specific issues.
  • We have no obligation to honor MOS; we have an obligation to write English, because what matters is the encyclopedia which should be intelligible to readers of English. The reason to spend time is the same for every guideline: we save time we would otherwise spend repeating things we agree on - by putting them in a central location and linking. (Of course, that would require a MOS that said things we agree on, instead of things people WP:MADEUP.)
  • And, in the meanwhile, there is always keeping MOS from encouraging willful harm. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have been following this discussion with much interest. As a professional copy editor, I work with many different publications and media outlets. Earlier in my career, I freelanced, hopping from one publisher to the next, often on a project or short-term basis. Each house will have its own Style Manual, and it is the first thing that I will look at when I'm with a new outlet. If I was not able to adopt to individual house styles quickly, word would get around and I would not be in this career for long. I am not sure if people are confused with the term "Style guide". The word "guide" here is very misleading. It is not a guide at all, but a set of standards – a manual. That is why it is called the Manual of Style and not Style Guidelines or Suggested Style. For professionals, we would view this as a manual and would use it as our "bible", referring to if often to ensure consistency. You see, consistency is key when it comes to the overall feel and look of any publication. It is also a mark of the quality of any publication. I totally agree with Tony that if the MOS is merely a suggested style, then why bother having it at all? There is no point. Everyone can do what they want, and it will just look like chop suey. For Wikipedia, I believe that it should maintain its own house style. It is not just about guidance on language (I do agree that this part is guidance), but it is also much to do with styling, hence Manual of Style and not Manual of English. Why should we bother about all this? What if you are looking at a bunch of articles and cross referencing at the same time, for example, if you are going through all articles in a Featured list, or reading the Signpost in a single page. Following other house styles will mean many conflicting and inconsistent styling of the articles. Even within one article, there will be many references. Which style do you follow? One italicizes foreign terms and another doesn't. One bolds the names of people and uses a period for all abbreviations and another doesn't. Without a style manual, there will not be consistency. Some have argued that we are here to write an encyclopedia, and because there are a wide range topics, an MOS is not practical, workable, or even a waste of time. Firstly, I can tell you that I have worked with old-school encyclopedia publishers years ago, and every single one of them has a style manual. As I have said, this is imperative if one is to achieve consistency. Secondly, while it is used as a "bible" by professionals, there are times when we do have to deviate, but such deviation are few and far between, and affect a relatively small amount of articles. And finally, some of us are writers. Write, and someone else will come and do the copy editing and styling. But don't say that the MOS is a waste of time. If anything, it adds great value to the project. It says that we care about consistency, standards and quality. This is my personal opinion. A big part of me will die if the MOS goes, and my respect for the project will certainly go spiraling downhill. – SMasters (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should reimagine the MoS as a list of changes that anyone should be allowed to make at any time without being required to discuss them on talk pages first. We should accept that not all Wikipedia contributors who are qualified to provide information will be able to do so in high-quality English. We should accept that other Wikipedians will go around and correct the English of such contributions. The MoS should be a list of instructions for those editors.

As for whether the MoS should be treated as a guideline or as hard rules, well, if the MoS were not full of people's personal preferences set up as rules, then I'd prefer a strict interpretation. However, because it includes revisionist "this is how English should be" ideas, then I find it does not have sufficient credibility to be treated that way.

As for consistency, it has long been established that the unit of consistency is the article, not all of Wikipedia. I personally feel that that is a great way to think of a project of this kind: we don't need consistency throughout the whole project and requiring it in all cases would stifle and insult contributors who come from different English schools. That is something else that we should accept. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr Anderson is currently engaged in his war of attrition not only here, but here as well, where he is garnering people who just write "Support" or "Support" what you say, or Support Mexico–America but not Mexican–American. This is a rag-tag, disorganised corner in which he is challenging the status of MoS as the coherent stylistic guideline for the project, focusing on an issue in which he has failed to gain consensus here again and again. He has presented what looks like a skewed argument that somehow neglects the MoS guideline that dashes stand not only for "to", but for "versus"."Is this War a range from Mexican to American?", he asks editors there. No, it's Mexicans "versus" Americans. If he succeeds, I can see that all binary war expressions, x–y graph, blood–brain barrier, and many other well-established usages, will potentially become edit-war zones as he pleases. This is why we have a MoS in the first place: to stop this kind of instability. I wish he would cease and desist. Tony (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Tony... please stop your personal attacks against PMA. I started this thread, not PMA, and my question was inspired by a lot more than the specific debate you are talking about. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. But I think we are coming to the meat of the matter, and it may require another subsection to discuss it. On the immediate substance: I do not oppose well-established usages; I support them - I oppose Mexican–American War because the dash doesn't appear to be anybody's usage; and therefore Tony's proposed etymology is, however plausible, mistaken. Blood–brain barrier, with a dash, does appear to be common usage - and if so, I support it; but, like Michelson–Morley effect, it is a compound noun used attributively (the difference between that and, say, Austria-Hungary may justify a final phrasing of ENDASH using noun compounds often). The rational solution in general would be to explain custom as well as we can, not to invent a new one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Tony may not be the most politically correct bout this, but he is nonetheless right. PMAnderson is waging a war of attrition on the MOS. And I'm as annoyed as Tony on this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It takes two (or more) to tango. This is exactly the same type of situation that was created during the date delinking mess before it got to Arbcom, sides entrenching themselves without working collaboratively on a solution. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If "it's Mexicans "versus" Americans" were the way wars are named, a war involving Spain (or Finland, or Iceland) would be called "Spaniard–Whatever War" (or "Finn–Whatever War", or "Whatever–Icelander War"). That's not how wars are typically called, is it. 137.43.105.17 (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

For example, Spanish-American War (which also uses a hyphen everywhere but Wikipedia). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with PMAnderson here. I have a composition book that wonderfully lays out the differences and hyphenating is certainly the most appropriate choice. Tony's vigilance on this matter seems both petty and non-collaborative. The entire purpose of this discussion area is to discuss these types of matters, rather than pronouncing people as wrong-doers, war mongers, or illegitimate, as Tony would seem to prefer. I will post further reasoning for my position on the aforementioned article.--Xession (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to call my position "absurd", the least you could do is inform me of it. Powers ^T 13:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WTF are you people smoking!?!?!? The MoS is the closest thing WP has to "Holy Scripture™" - please stop screwing around with it. Roger (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• In a way, I agree with Darkfrog that the MOS should be a list of changes that anyone should be allowed to make at any time without being required to discuss them on talk pages first -- however, that would involve drastically pruning the current MOS, most of which would be better off as Essays that individual editors or groups could adopt declaiming "the way I wish everybody wrote". older ≠ wiser 18:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That is more or less what other guidelines are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• I could not disagree with you more Roger. Declaring the MoS a "holy scripture" implies that no debate on the matter is allowed; the content can never change. This would set an absolutely terrible precedent for the guide. Your position on the matter, would completely invalidate this entire discussion page and most of the related archives. Such a dogmatic approach suggests that Wikipedia may be better off being developed entirely by bots. Wikipedia as I see it, is collection of people that have come to compose a database of human knowledge, not mandate rules on how to do so. --Xession (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy Scripture?!?

The MoS is the closest thing WP has to "Holy Scripture™"

Thank you, Dodger 67, for expressing frankly what much of the profanity around here seems to imply Is there consensus on this view?

I doubt it:

• NPOV, V, and OR are much closer to Holy Scripture - and the wish to maintain these exactly as written is much weaker.
• This is contrary to clear policy: Wikipedia is not governed by statute law, much less Revelation.
• Has anybody ever attempted to have MOS say any such thing? I doubt it; that is not consensus among Wikipedians as a whole, and efforts to make it say so would have made it {{historic}} long ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• None of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines come close to being Holy Scripture... even NPOV, V and OR have to take second place to community consensus (ie if there is consensus to change them, we do so). And the MOS is no where near that level. Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Out in the articles, the MoS is treated as hard-and-fast rules, what Roger calls "Holy Scripture." Whether or not that should be the official status of the MoS is an entirely separate question. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If you mean exceptions to MoS guidelines are unknown out in the articles, of course they are unknown; the MoS itself is virtually unknown. Demands that everyone "should" know the exceptions won't help in the slightest. Or did you mean only that we should be aware that exceptions exist? Yes we should, although we might not take an individual editor's word for such an exception in a specific case.

We need to overcome the myth that editors busily consult the MoS before writing each sentence, especially since there is no consensus for making rules consistent and easier to find. Good grief, even MoS regulars are often unaware of their own rules. I believe the most important purpose of the MoS is instructions for bot operators. It doesn't matter how perfect our grammar is on this page, if millions of articles go unaffected by that knowledge. Art LaPella (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean 1. Robert isn't nuts for calling the MoS "Holy Scripture" and 2. if someone can be punished for not following the MoS, then it is being treated as a set of hard-and-fast rules, regardless of whether it would be better to treat the MoS as a set of recommendations. I am not under the impression that most editors consult the MoS regularly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No, unfortunately he isn't nuts; he is, however, trusting religiously in the infallibility of a document which cannot capture the complexity of English (no matter how good it becomes) and which is presently not very good. Any admin who inflicts punishment for not following the MOS should be desysopped; I hope what you are remembering are cases of revert-warring, which has been punished even when the edit in question is the best alternative. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow! If I thought folks would take my comment so literally I probably would not have posted. Most commentators are "under-valuing" the modifier phrase I used: "closest thing to". It's obviously not "that" close - the "thou shalt not change a single iota of this eternal truth" aspect of "Holy Scripture" is obviously not applicable.

Unfortunately your tongue-in-cheek comment is actually literally how some regulars at Wikipedia apply the rules. As the words of God, not to be departed from regardless of what common sense tells us. Worse, the overwhelming complexity of the instructions, guides, FAQ's and addenda (like this one) purporting to govern "good" writing (a logical impossibility, otherwise all good writing would be formulaic), "appropriate" and "inappropriate" use of style, and the microscopic minutiae of possibly irrelevant preferences make it almost certain that the MoS will be consulted less and less as it becomes more and more inaccessible.

Debate is good, but the bewildering avalanche of sometimes simply rancorous differences of opinion here is entirely destructive. It approaches in metaphor the chaos of the French Revolution, where some zealots used a period of anarchy to attempt re-inventing all social rules from the ground up as an expression of rebellion against any kind of pre-existing order. We know how that ended.

The reality for us, here, now, is that the English language already has a complex set of rules, further subdivided by national snobbery; there simply is no such thing as American English, Canadian English, International English, British English, etc. It's the same language with a growing range of variants and exceptions.

What the MoS could realistically aspire to is guidance on referencing, neutrality, objectivity, and consistency. Heading towards an entirely new version of "Wikipedia English" is ultimately self-destructive, arrogant and unrealizable, no matter how passionate its advocates become. Right now a bit of consolidation wouldn't go astray; you simply shouldn't have to dig through a dozen layers of links to read all the various instructions on the same topic (if you want to waste some time, look for punctuation rules and track down all the mentions of apostrophes in possessives, plurals, contractions, names, and translations from languages that don't use the Roman alphabet).

Written English may be subject to rules, but attempting to subject every facet of writing to formulaic rules is the perverse aspiration to create an algorithm that removes the need for human judgement or aesthetics from the language altogether. Peter S Strempel 11:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterstrempel (talk • contribs) Sorry, that signature should be Peter S Strempel (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, trying to substitute one person's perception of common sense for the Manual of Style usually leads to more chaos, not less. When the Manual is clearly wrong, you should at least try to change it, which keeps the French Revolution confined to this page. But sure, the Manual of Style appears to be written primarily to show off how much grammar we know, or to gain prestige by resembling manuals intended for institutions that can fire editors for not studying them. It isn't streamlined in a way that would best influence the rest of Wikipedia. A camel is a horse designed by a committee. Art LaPella (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe Darkfrog24 grokked my post better than others. The point I was trying to make (obviously not very sucessfully) is that the MoS is the guide to creating quality articles - how to be a good Wikipedian. In that sense it is comparable to the "moral code" function of "Holy Scriptures". BTW it seems most commentators missed the tongue-in-cheek ™ that I appended to the phrase.

Now to get to the core of what I really want to say: The MoS obviously must evolve and develop to suit the needs of the project but there seem to be some MoS editors who have no regard for it's important function as "the" manual. I see people "coatracking" their personal feuds onto the MoS by edit warring about dashes versus hyphens and other similar minutiae. The edit waring over such "trivia" points to a disrespect for the objective of the Wikipedia project - creating the worlds best encyclopedia. So please stop messing with it. Roger (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, this is not a personal feud - despite the efforts of some editors to make it into one.

But dashes and hyphens and such things do matter to the encyclopedia: using the wrong one makes it harder to read and understand; using forms which are hypercorrect or subliterate makes the encyclopedia look stupid.

MOS is being actively used and quoted - often misquoted - in an effort which does make the encyclopedia worse; if this can be slowed down by changing MOS itself - and it does change, like other guidelines - shouldn't this be done? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Stability?

Tony's argument, that MOS is a set of decisions (more or less arbitrary, it would appear) which are to be imposed on all articles in the interests of stability is also refreshingly frank. His system has three disadvantages:

1. It does not in fact produce stability. More editors are fluent in English than know the recesses of MOS; when MOS differs from English usage, we get the following cycle: Some editor corrects an error; some worthy soul replaces it as a "MOS breach"; an editor corrects it again; and so on until WP:DEADLINE.

   When MOS arbitrarily picks one usage within the corpus of formal written English, the same thing happens (more slowly, since only editors who prefer other usages change MOS back). This is the sort of thing WP:ENGVAR averts; but the rest of MOS is not so sensible.

2. It does not produce English. Since the purpose of en: Wikipedia (and therefore of MOS) is to produce an English encyclopedia, this is actively harmful.
3. It attracts everybody who would like to Fix the English Language. <drumroll> That's how we got the Kibibyte Wars: some good soul decided that kibibytes were the Right Way to Do Things, and attempted to produce stability. If MOSNUM said, first of all, "write English", that would have been comparatively easy to settle.

This is presumably why this view is not consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Reversion

For, I think, the first time in this matter, I have made an exact revert, eliminating the first sentence here:

Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources when considering a stylistic question. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources. If the sources can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage, follow current English usage instead—and consult more sources.

The conclusion of this discussion is surely that the first sentence is not consensus, whereas the other two sentences are; but I am too tired of this nonsense, crowned by this falsehood of an edit summary, to propose another compromise text.

Tony, if the text you keep reverting to is consensus, why did it stay out for two days until you reverted it - again?

Our policy is either to discuss (without uncivil accusations), or to offer a compromise text, in the hope that the wikiprocess of collective editing will resolve the matter. I have done both; you have done neither.

I've put in Blueboar's summary above, as common ground, if there is one. If anybody else can think of anything better, I should be most grateful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Tony is right in his reversion. If he didn't get to it first, I would have reverted it myself. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? Since, despite your profane assurances, Blueboar is right that no change of meaning has been affected here, merely a simplification of weaseling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

According to WT:MOS#Is there consensus to end the long-standing role of the MoS?, although the wording of the question clearly wasn't neutral, it does show 5 for the long version, 2 for the short version including Enric Naval, and 2 for "what's the difference?" If "what's the difference?" is the consensus, then whoever reverts last loses. Art LaPella (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

But expecially if there is no consensus, the claim that this clumsy version is uncontested consensus is, shall we say, a terminological inexactitude. Therefore this removal of a tag is less than accurate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Septentrionalis there. See the "Dispute tags" entry here. Art LaPella (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should apply Andrewa's first Rule of Thumb: If after a significant amount of debate there's sill no consensus, then it doesn't really matter which way we go, so let's all stop wasting time. Andrewa (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll learn something. Have you ever successfully closed a discussion by pretending it doesn't exist? Art LaPella (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, frequently. Your restatement of the rule is unflattering to it (see WP:rhetoric) but logically sound. Or in other words, if it really doesn't matter, then realising this and conceding defeat amounts to a possibly important victory. Andrewa (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought we were discussing removing a discussion tag. Art LaPella (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologise, and we are. Clear now? Andrewa (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, because you're arguing why the person who inserted the tag should end the discussion, not why the person who removes the tag can expect the first person to suddenly see it that way (it didn't work this time). But if you get good empirical results, I suppose that's the answer. Odd; in my experience tags themselves are more likely to be the subjects of lame edit wars. Art LaPella (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

MoS is the real anti-instruction-creep policy

For what it's worth, I've long understood the MoS as being the part of the P&G that is aimed at preventing people from making up their own, arbitrary and often hypercorrective rules.

In my mind, the MoS is the real anti-instruction-creep part of the P&G, by collecting valid stylistic rules as well as collecting and explaining logically valid and sometimes necessary exceptions from those rules. (Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep is the relativistic, mob rule take on the same issue: "teh soshalist Wiki government should get off our backs and let us create our own ad hoc rules".)

This means that the MoS is by its very nature, at least to an extent, elitist, dogmatic and normative (ie. the way I see it). Consensus is completely overrated on Wikipedia because too many are actually following the invitation for anyone to edit. --87.79.114.210 (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As for your first sentence, no, all too often, once somebody makes up an arbitrary and hypercorrective rule, the first thing done with it is to put it into MOS.

What are your criteria for "validity", Sir?

Some people appear to believe that what their divine afflatus tells them is a valid rule; this leads to WP:MADEUP violations.

Mine are simple: The ideal rule should:

1. Reflect English usage;
2. Represent the advice of reliable sources;
3. Be consensus of Wikipedia editors in general.

I will settle for two our of three. Much of MOS (and almost all of the rules peddled across Wikipedia as "MOS-compliance") satisfy zero of three. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think your least favorite rule is WP:DASH, so let's see how your 3 rules apply. Googling "dashes hyphens" on Wikipedia or the rest of the Internet shows that almost nobody says dashes and hyphens are interchangeable, and almost nobody wants to overthrow WP:DASH. Dashes and hyphens are often interchangeable in practice, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, but dash advocates would dismiss most of them as low-quality sources. So the number of rules satisfied on this issue depends on how you define the terms in your rules. Rule 2 says "advice", so WP:DASH should get at least one point because those who never use dashes seldom talk about it. Art LaPella (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

To say expressly that hyphens and dashes were interchangeable would be a different mistaken rule. Is there any authority for all of what WP:DASH says? for example, searching for an authority for east–west with a dash instead of a hyphen yields a lot of writing on other topics, including this style guide which uses dashes and east-west with a hyphen, and this lesson plan which uses east-west as an example where a hyphen is preferred to a dash; on the other side, there is -well- the Wikipedia Manual of Style, apparently by itself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like more of a swamp than I want to dive into. Here is a better explanation; you oppose WP:DASH but don't always oppose dashes, although few Wikipedians are aware of the difference. Art LaPella (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I support dashes when they are English, as here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

ISBNs

A bot has been converting ISBN-10s to ISBN-13s and hyphenating the latter (see also WT:ISBN). I am not aware of community consensus for such a mass change. Is there? Geometry guy 21:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The BAG approved it Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RjwilmsiBot 6, and suggested to be following WP:ISBN appropriately. But there wasn't any discussion on if the task was appropriate from a MOS standard (even though I see the author flagged WT:ISBN for input).

The issue of failure to ignore wrapping might be solved with some CSS ala no-wrap flags. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am advised that the bot is not yet converting ISBN-10s to ISBN-13s, although this was sought in the bot request. In my view this may be an example of BAG approving a task on technical grounds without considering community consensus. Geometry guy 21:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

But again, there is a call by the bot author on WT:ISBN to review the bot's purpose before it was approved by BAG. I don't see that notice here on WT:MOS but at the same time, it certainly wasn't done in a vacuum. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As you say, I do not think the bot operator is particularly at fault here; rather it is the BAG approval for mass stylistic changes which are not documented in the MoS. Geometry guy 22:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no community consensus for stylistic edits without thought or consideration. There is a strong feeling, at least, that editors should know why they are doing things; bots never do, although they are not the only offenders. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

ISBNs should obviously be hyphenated since it makes them much easier to read and gather the relevant information from them. This is routine cleanup. Likewise for ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 conversions.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The hyphenation of ISBN-13s is not in the MoS, so it needs to be discussed. Geometry guy 22:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Clearly the bot operators should know why the bots are doing those things. Just as clearly Rjwilmsi knows why this bot is doing this thing. Converting is the right thing to do, at the least in all articles that have both -10 and -13 types. We should not have them mixed. As for the hyphenation and nowrap, we've discussed it before. It's pretty much a yawner. Some editors will squeal over slow load times, others over wasted space on a small screen. That shouldn't stop the bot from doing the -10 to -13 conversion. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The bot is not currently doing the -10 to -13 conversion (although that has, apparently been approved). However, it is adding hyphens to ISBN-13s. Geometry guy 22:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the -13 contains more info of -10, I don't understand why use not use -13 in all cases. Is there any problem with that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What information does the 13 digit ISBN carry that the 10 digit one does not? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that hyphenation/spacing is useful to the reader. The ISBN folks' current preference is to use hyphens. I have hyphenated quite a number of ISBNs in the last year or so, several times at FAN or GAN or in the FPA queue, and to the best of my memory none have been reverted (except once when an editor expressed a preference for the retention of existing spaces, I forget why I changed the format). I have been reading long enough for my brain to recognize that a hyphen at the end of a line indicates continuation. I am unpersuaded that the 10-13 change is a benefit. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer ISBN-13s, and I also prefer ISBN-13s with minimal hyphenation (one at most). So I would support a bot to covert -10s to -13s. However my personal preferences are not the issue here: mass stylistic changes need community consensus, and in this case, that probably means explicit support for the preferred style (whatever that is) in the MoS. Geometry guy 22:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the single hyphen is not approved or described by the ISBN authorities (but enlighten me if I'm wrong). I don't see what information it gives the reader, and we should avoid it. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Per ISBN international manuals (which was pointed to at the BRFA), both ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 require hyphenation. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

From the ISBN page linked above:

"The ten-digit number is divided into four parts of variable length, which must be separated clearly by hyphens or spaces: ISBN 0 571 08989 5 or ISBN 90-70002-34-5 Note: Experience suggests that hyphens are preferable to spaces." and from the ISBN 13 manual: "The ISBN is divided into five elements, three of them of variable length; the first and last elements are of fixed length. The elements must each be separated clearly by hyphens or spaces when displayed in human readable form:"

i.e. hyphens are NOT required, just preferred.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I interpret the ISBN standard to mean that one of hyphens or spaces is required, hyphens preferred over spaces. If there is a feeling we should allow correctly placed spaces or hyphens I can certainly do that, though I would wonder whether use of two formats would be more confusing, and less consistent overall. Rjwilmsi 21:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no a priori reason for Wikipedia to follow an ISBN standard any more than a particular style guide, and the evidence at WT:ISBN#ISBN_usage_on_English_Wikipedia_as_of_January_2011 is that Wikipedians do not follow the ISBN standard. We can of course compel them to do so if there is a case for it, but discussion so far does not amount to such a case. On the other hand we make frequent use of Google books and Amazon for verifiability; the latter uses a single hyphen for ISBN-13s. Geometry guy 22:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If the ISO, as the body that defines the ISBN standards, calls for the hyphens or spaces, we should definitely use them. There is a defined, correct form. This is not merely a matter of style.There's no reason not to use it. What Amazon does, especially if it can be empirically shown as incorrect (which it is), does not concern us. oknazevad (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Who determines what is "correct" or "incorrect"? Who determines common practice? Which authorities should we follow slavishly and which should we ignore? Who decides? You? Geometry guy 23:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The ISO. The scare quotes on correct aren't needed. There is a correct way to write them. I don't define it. Nor do you. oknazevad (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Who says that they're right? Themselves? Why should we prefer what they say to anything else? Ultimately, this is a convention. The right question to ask is: Do we want to follow ISO's convention or not? The ultimate standard, here as elsewhere, is what there is consensus for. There may be consensus for obeying ISO—I think it's a good idea—but I don't think there's consensus for obeying them just because they're ISO. Ozob (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course they're right, they define the ISBN! (End snark.) Regardless, The real question is do we go with the ISO, or our own convention. The whole point of international standards is that they're the same everywhere (that is, standard, natch). We could go with another convention, but we should have a very good reason for it, otherwise we mis-present the facts and work outside the framework. I don't see any good reasons presented.

The question then boils down to the question of whether to use hyphens or spaces, which are both allowed. I prefer the hyphens, as they are a stronger grouping symbol, and even if the text does wrap at the end of a line, it shows that there's a continuation. oknazevad (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Quoting: "which must be separated clearly by hyphens or spaces" and "The elements must each be separated clearly by hyphens or spaces when displayed in human readable form." Am I missing something or does it not say "must" and refer to multiple hyphens between elements? Anyway, whether WP or Google Books/Amazon should actually follow their standards is at each one's own discretion. Of course non-hyphened ISBNs are much easier to deal with programmatically and lead to better search hits, so I can understand why they prefer them.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not advocating above that we should follow Amazon and Google, only that the case for conformity with ISO has not been made. When ISO state that "the elements must each be separated by hyphens or spaces", they are emprically (oknazevad's word) incorrect, in that there are plentiful counterexamples to such a claim! The issue is similar to SI units, which we do not systematically use in all cases. There are many other examples. The most important thing is internal consistency within each article. Geometry guy 21:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

PS. The Library of Congress doesn't use hyphens either. That "must" is looking increasingly like wishful thinking.

---

I'm deferring comment on this issue for 24 hours. However, in the hope of aiding discussion I've posted some stats on existing ISBN usage on Wikipedia at Wikipedia_talk:ISBN#ISBN_usage_on_English_Wikipedia_as_of_January_2011. Rjwilmsi 22:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding ISBN-10 vs. ISBN-13, I want to point out that books published before ISBN-13 was developed will not have an ISBN-13 anywhere to be found on them. I don't see why we would be changing citations to print sources that reflect the identifying information actually found on the source. (Yes, that's right, there are articles that cite physically printed books!) If you are looking at the physical book, not just some database of book information, the ISBN that is printed on the book is what will allow you to verify that it is the same edition as what was cited. This is not a question of "style", but of accurately citing source information. --RL0919 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This also occurred to me, and is why early on I removed ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 conversion from the bot request, and none have my bot's edits have involved this. I am happy to state here that I do not consider the bot task to include authorisation for any ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 conversion. Rjwilmsi 21:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems a pity. Since there is exactly one ISBN-13 that can be computed from a given ISBN-10, looked up in any number of major catalogues, or even some combination of these, it is difficult to conceive of any substantive error that this could introduce. Remember too that the authoritative ISBN is not the one on or in the book but the one by which the publisher lists the book. Indeed the publisher's occasional practice of applying ISBN corrections by self-adhesive labels will be familiar to most book buyers. Publishers routinely added the ISBN-13 to jackets at the time of reprints without waiting for a new edition, and we certainly don't routinely trouble ourselves to identify distinct printings in our citations. Can anyone show cases where there have been problems resulting from adding the extra digits? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• There are clear disadvantages to using hyphens in ISBNs with regard to searches both on the Wikipedia and the web in general. What are the practical advantages, other than some subjective aesthetic criteria that I personally don't see, to adding the hyphens? See: Wikipedia talk:ISBN#Proposal to remove hyphens from Wikipedia ISBNs. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  No hyphens is better for cut and pasting the numbers; hyphens should make the number easier to understand and remember if you aren't cutting and pasting. (Presumably this lies behind the ISO's original recommendation of hyphens, in 1970.) Neither sounds like the sort of overwhelming advantage that would justify a bot, and the statistics indicate that there is no consensus among Wikipedians. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  The bot made over 20000 edits (starting 14 February) to ISBNs before I stopped it; however, the more comprehensive run, starting 22nd February, only made 7000 edits, and got as far as "Amo-" (including articles beginning with a number or non-character). Geometry guy 01:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  The Bot can augment ISBN information with ISBN-13 information in the id field, e.g. id=Template:ISBN-13. Removing the ISBN-10 information would be horrible, hampering the book trade for dealers and buyers alike.

  Please make sure that the BOT should preserve 1-2 distinct ISBNs for a volume: For example, consider the ISBN problems of Charles Sanders Peirce's New Elements of Mathematics, which took me a lot of time to fix. Our page is the only resource on the internet that correctly identifies the ISBN numbers, which is necessary to find and order any of these books (for risk-averse book buyers). I did not add the 13-digit ISBNS because that would violate WP:OR; how does this Bot avoid problems with OR?

  Can the bot protect multi-volume sets with a set-ISBN and individual ISBNs?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 23:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  The bot does not add or remove ISBNs, only adds or updates hyphenation. No ISBN-13 addition or conversion is part of the task. Rjwilmsi 08:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Protection

There are several issues involved in the present protection, including a revert war for the verbose and clumsy sentence now leading MOS:FOLLOW, but one of them is the claim, perhaps most clearly made in this link, that somehow one of several phrasings of the same sentence confers on MOS the authority to mandate whatever spellings and punctuations it pleases, even if they don;t occur in English at all. While, as the response to the post remarks, this ignores the actual wordings at issue, it does seem worth settling. So:

Should the Manual of Style be a guide to English? should it avoid mandating forms which are not English, and which readers of English will stumble over? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Since this condensed question has been found unclear, I give a fuller #Platform below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

(no threaded replies here, please)

• Yes The Manual of Style should be a guide to encyclopedic English. It should follow the usage of reliable sources, unless there is good reason to do otherwise. When it chooses among the usages of reliable sources, it should have consensus to do so, and state its reasons. It should not be used for rules which somebody made up one day; that's how we had a year with the good soul who wanted everybody to use kibibytes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• No. The Manual of Style should limit itself to expressing the choice that articles should be internally consistent, but consistency between articles is not required, and choosing from among acceptable alternatives of English style for use within Wikipedia. For matters on which the MOS is silent printed style guides and the usage of reliable sources should be relied upon. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• No to the first question, and yes to the second. The Manual of Style should not require anything which is not common English usage, but it is not a guide to English: it is a guide to the English language requirements for articles written on Wikipedia. Geometry guy 00:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Balderdash the questions asked are both completely unclear, and completely unrelated to how PMAnderson will interpret the answer. !Voting means endorsing PMAnderson's version, !Voting no means not endorsing his version. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • If Headbomb would read my posts more carefully, he would see that these are the questions I have always been asking. Part of the confusion below appears to be disbelief that these questions need to be asked, and therefore a search for some more complex sense. This is a position which several editors uphold, and which has been responded to largely with personal attacks such as this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Are you sure your issue is with the Manual of Style so much as with certain, limited aspects of it and its jurisdiction? The MoS is so much more than merely a guide to encyclopedic English (which incidentally it really isn't, by its very nature). It concerns many aspects of text formatting and content organization entirely unique to Wikipedia.
  Honestly, Mr Anderson, isn't this all yet another avenue in your constant battle to eradicate things you don't like? You see, the points you are desperately trying to make at this talk page might carry more weight if everyone else wasn't aware of your neverending battles at various articles, where you habitually don't shy away from asking again, and again, and if the consensus still doesn't please you, yet again. --87.79.114.210 (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Please sign yourself in, Sir.
  • No, my issue is not with the Manual of Style, aathough it is imperfect; it is with claims which have been made on this talk page, which are unsupported by the text of the Manual of Style, contrary to WP:POLICY and insofar as they peevent this English Wikipedia from being written in English, harmful to the Encyclopedia.
  • To quote oknazevad above: MOS "describes the English that exists, not the English yet to come. Most importantly, it should describe English as widely used, not just because some editors like it; some parts are currently minority usage (regardless of variety) that were preferred by editors at the time of drafting, but are uncommon in daily usage." Do you agree, Sir, or do you not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• For those that haven't read and followed this closely: What exactly is this RfC asking? As far as I know, the parts of MoS that refer to English usage should be a guide to how English is to be consistently used in Wikipedia. I thought that this was the long-standing consensus/status quo? Does "should it avoid mandating forms which are not English" refer to hypothetical incorrect usage of English or does it refer to the usage of non-English content? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  It's code for "PMAnderson always gets his way." Ozob (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  I would ask the same question: I don't know what the RfC is about. The MoS is the style guide for the encyclopaedia which is written in English, so yes, it is about encyclopaedic English. But it's not just about the language, but about all things that make up the formatting, as opposed to the content, of the encyclopaedia. If an editor is unhappy with any part of it they can start a discussion on it, to try and get consensus for change. What this RfC is for, i.e. exactly what change to the guideline is being proposed, is not at all clear.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't mind that the MoS contains formatting instructions et al. I like that they're all in one place; that makes them easier to find. I believe that, because what happens on the MoS can ripple out to other articles, the MoS should be held to a standard at least as high as regular articles when it comes to verifying its content. We need to start citing sources for what's on this page. If we do that, then we can justify treating the MoS as a document—whether we call it a guideline, a policy or a rutabaga—that should be enforced strictly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think we can cite sources for much of what is on this page, and sources are divided on much of the rest; but it would be a start. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Only the sourced parts would be enforceable. Smells like more trouble than it's worth. And why this constant need to appeal to authority? Yes, we should cite sources in discussions about the MoS wherever possible, and maybe even cite those sources in the guideline itself. But why can't we just drop the charade and just say that the MoS is normative in nature? By shifting the normativity to secondary sources, we are not ridding ourselves, as a community, of the challenge to make judgement calls for the MoS. More importantly, any appeal to authority makes this easily gameable by the very likes of PMAnderson. --87.78.24.210 (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • To deal with the personal attack first: my only game is the time-honored one: "Write in English, so that our readers will understand us."
    • The purpose of having only the sourced rules enforceable is so that MOS being used by those who prefer things WP:MADEUP one day. Those who prefer to make their own language are free to do so; I believe there are conlang Wikipedias - and if not there ought to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• What Darkfrog24 said: this document, as one that seems to be held as more than just advice (though I think it's too strictly applied at times), should be based on sources, not just personal preferences. English is funny, of course, in that there's no definitive set of rules set down by an official academy, but there is widely accepted standards of usage; this document should reflect these, using sources specific to show these.

That said, there's issues with that ideal. Firstly, that there are multiple different national varieties of the language, and it's long-shown consensus that Wikipedia doesn't prefer one over another, just uses whichever makes the most sense for the article. (WP:ENGVAR does enjoy wide consensus.)

Also, some usages are purely stylistic. There's equally valid differences in usage that cannot be attributed to a national variety or any other rigid rule set, just what the writer has been expose to most often. That's where much of our conflicts lie; MoS as it stands picks one valid usage over another arbitrarily. The problem is not so much in the choosing, it's the ossification that follows, where a valid usage that wasnt the arbitrary choice becomes "banned", for lack of a better word, and editors who came along later are basically told they are wrong when all they're doing is using a valid form of the language.

That's where the MoS needs to be softened, I think. These chosen usages are truly arbitrary, as they were chosen by those who just happened to be involved in the discussion at the time, and are then defended far too strongly as law. It's truly off-putting to consensus building and the collegiality that Wikipedia is based on. (Doesn't help that many of the defenses boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, either).

PS, PMA, if you're going to quote me, please get my user name right ;-) oknazevad (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I abase myself repeatedly at your feet, Sir. If it helps, I thought I had. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

S'alright. People make mistakes. (I'm guessing you didn't see the smiley.) oknazevad (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I did see the smiley. If I hadn't, my reply would have far less baroque. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• • And then people are going to cite the sources they want to support their view, even if that is not the most common view. It makes little difference on that score, Oknazevad. Witness Pmanderson's edit warring. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • If sources are divided, then both versions are well-supported English usage; that is the situation Oknavzevad envisages. We should normally acknowledge and permit both, rather than picking one arbitrarily.
    • If there is reason to pick one - and consensus among Wikipedians to do so - that is a different matter, but the fact that reliable sources think differently should generally persuade us to edit with common sense and awareness of context, allowing for the occasional situation in which the other possibility is indeed preferable.
    • Nothing I have proposed has said anything more.
    • Since it seems that certain points of view here cannot be maintained without personal attacks, I will simply remark that I have not "revert-warred" for anything. I have tried, with others, to propose something other than the present text, which is not consensus among Wikipedians - nor even on this talk page; personally, I would have accepted almost any compromise text, if any had been offered. But a small number of revert-warriors have suppressed even the evidence of this discussion.
    • Let us have reasons for the present ossified text which do not consist of, "It's all Septentrionalis' fault." I have spent months away from the MOS at various times; during those times it was equally controversial - and equally despised by many Wikipedians - but the revert-warriors disposed of the mere students of English with greater ease. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Precisely my point; the standard for consistency on Wikipedia is at the article level. As long as the same usage is throughout an article, and it's not blatant error, there's no reason to make any arbitrary changes to the article. The MoS should acknowledge that, and not enforce some arbitrary choice made years ago without acknowledgement that consensus may have changed. In the couple of years I've been watching this talk page, I've seem too many cases of ideas for change being dismissed offhand. That's not useful. oknazevad (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • And why would we want to encourage diffuse series of edit-wars out on article talk pages as to which style, from which of the many sources, should be used? The MoS is here to minimise edit-wars over language in the project. It performs this function well, as far as I can see. Tony (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
        • On the contrary. What supports a diffuse series of edit-wars is the present interpretation of MOS, which demands things which are simply not English. Far more editors are fluent in English than in the MOSsy recesses where these rules lurk, so we get the following cycle: An editor corrects an expression foreign to English; some good soul restores it, to correct the "MOS violation"; another editor corrects it; and so on until WP:DEADLINE.
          • On the other hand, where MOS reflects English usage, and is consensus, it doesn't cause edit wars; everybody agrees with it, including literate people who have never seen MOS or Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Because right now, Tony, the MoS forces a few editors' revisionist preferences, some of which are in direct conflict with correct English, on all of Wikipedia. It would be better to let people fight about it than to get it wrong every time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• [this comment copied from above, when moving threaded reply] No. The Manual of Style should limit itself to expressing the choice that articles should be internally consistent, but consistency between articles is not required, and choosing from among acceptable alternatives of English style for use within Wikipedia. For matters on which the MOS is silent printed style guides and the usage of reliable sources should be relied upon. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Then we do not disagree. If a few people were to write into MOS a requirement that Wikipedia always use double commas, it would be a formatting requirement, but it would not be English usage; I intentionally choose a patently unEnglish example, unconnected to any actual controversy. Some editors would then insist that the double commas be imposed on every article, for "MOS compliance". I am somewhat taken aback by this position, and believe there is consensus against it, as a matter of princeiple. This RfC, therefore, asks whether MOS should ever require something which is not English.
  • I concur with comments below [now above] that when MOS chooses between styles within English it should give a reason and note a source.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"this vulgar post" cited here links to a history page, not to a vulgar post. Therefore, I don't understand the question (the snotty answer would be that both sides use English not French.) Does it mean formal English, informal English, Internet English, style manual English, or what? Art LaPella (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Oops. this post. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Close this RFC; it is a flagrant abuse of process

This RFC is corrupt from the very start, and cannot result in rational unbiased discussion. It ignores this clear instruction (from WP:RFC):

2. Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template. Keep it simple and be clear about what the question is, so that the RfC attracts a clear and actionable response.

And it ignores this follow-up instruction (at the same location):

If you feel as though you cannot describe the dispute neutrally, ask someone else to write a summary for you. You can also do your best, and invite others to improve your question or summary later.

The wording of this RFC is far from neutral. I underline some of the biased phrasing:

There are several issues involved in the present protection, including a revert war for the verbose and clumsy sentence now leading MOS:FOLLOW, but one of them is the claim, perhaps most clearly made in this vulgar post, that somehow one of several phrasings of the same sentence confers on MOS the authority to mandate whatever spellings and punctuations it pleases, even if they [don't] occur in English at all. While, as the response to the post remarks, this ignores the actual wordings at issue, it does seem worth settling. So:
Should the Manual of Style be a guide to English? should it avoid mandating forms which are not English, and which readers of English will stumble over?

The instigator of this RFC is transparently not interested in a fair consideration of the issues. Rather, this is a pointed and abusive attempt to pursue a relentless partisan campaign: to weaken the status of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Since this may not be apparent to those less familiar with the history of MOS, they have been called in to comment on false pretences. The RFC should be closed immediately. It is irredeemably flawed.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 05:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hear, hear. --John (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• 100% agree. We should consider topic-banning PMAnderson from all MOS and style discussions as well. This disruption has gone long enough. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • More personal attacks from Headbomb. Does "corrupt" mean that I have been paid off (by whom?) or that I come from the Nether Deeps (I don't)? Please try to express the positive substance of your views without profanity or scurrility; when you are finished accusing me of things I have not done and positions I don't agree with, I would be interested to see what you think MOS is - which is the one thing you have not stated. That might persuade me; this sort of thing never will. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• • While I will argue that I don't get the point of this RFC, this is far from being disruptive (no more so than the regulars here) and it's not AFG to call for a topic ban. --MASEM (t) 06:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • AGF is not a suicide pact. PMA is not here to discuss honestly. The RfC proves that as succinctly as it gets with him. --78.35.220.2 (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Exactly. There is nothing wrong with questioning "Holy Writ." I have done this myself and been shot down a few times. After being shot down, I don't try to mount the same aircraft and take off again on the same mission! It seems disruptive IMO. Student7 (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• With all the AGF in the world, I still don't get what this RfC is asking? Perhaps it should indeed be restarted to address some well-forumlated issue, rather than an unclear blanket decision about English on Wikipedia. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Yes close it. It's still not clear what change to this guideline the RfC is asking for comment on: I asked for clarification and received none. It's still not clear what it is trying to achieve, and absent such clarification it has no point.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• What's this about? Someone is making a point... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• I agree. What is this about? Maybe this discussion doesn't need an RFC (which certainly isn't too clearly worded) but there's nothing inherently inappropriate about it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Platform

1. There should be a Manual of Style
2. That it is most effective at stopping edit wars in sections like the one under #Serial comma above: anybody who starts an edit war over a serial comma can be told there are two ways of doing things, and pointed to MOS' section of that name
3. That MOS should not (as with Mexican–American War, but there are all too many other examples) mandate a form which is vanishingly rare in English and unsupported by reliable sources.

   That general claim 3 is the subject of this RFC.

4. To quote David Levy:

   This page is a guideline, not a replacement for editorial judgment; it should be applied with common sense and awareness of occasional exceptions, not always stated. Users are expected to pay attention to their edits and understand the reasons behind them. The indiscriminate application of style rules is potentially harmful, whether it stems from unmonitored use of editing tools, failure to adequately consider context, or adherence to a rule's letter instead of its spirit.

5. To quote Blueboar:

   None of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines come close to being Holy Scripture... even NPOV, V and OR have to take second place to community consensus (ie if there is consensus to change them, we do so). And the MOS is no where near that level.

6. To quote Oknavezad (have I got it right this time ;}?)

   This document, as one that seems to be held as more than just advice (though I think it's too strictly applied at times), should be based on sources, not just personal preferences. English is funny, of course, in that there's no definitive set of rules set down by an official academy, but there is widely accepted standards of usage; this document should reflect these, using sources specific to show these.

   That said, there's issues with that ideal. Firstly, that there are multiple different national varieties of the language, and it's long-shown consensus that Wikipedia doesn't prefer one over another, just uses whichever makes the most sense for the article. (WP:ENGVAR does enjoy wide consensus.)

   Also, some usages are purely stylistic. There's equally valid differences in usage that cannot be attributed to a national variety or any other rigid rule set, just what the writer has been expose to most often. That's where much of our conflicts lie; MoS as it stands picks one valid usage over another arbitrarily. The problem is not so much in the choosing, it's the ossification that follows, where a valid usage that wasnt the arbitrary choice becomes "banned", for lack of a better word, and editors who came along later are basically told they are wrong when all they're doing is using a valid form of the language.

   That's where the MoS needs to be softened, I think. These chosen usages are truly arbitrary, as they were chosen by those who just happened to be involved in the discussion at the time, and are then defended far too strongly as law. It's truly off-putting to consensus building and the collegiality that Wikipedia is based on. (Doesn't help that many of the defenses boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, either>)

7. As Darkfrog says above: [added 00:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)]

   The unit of consistency is the article.

   • Where there is consensus for consistency across Wikipedia, so much the better.
   • Since this is WP:CONSISTENCY, I would have thought it would be consensus; but the post immediately below disagrees with MOS as it stands.

Expressing these positions (and I have not said anything else, really I haven't) has produced incoherent rage and insults. With two noteworthy exceptions, it has produced no replies of substance, and Tony's claim that provisions which make arbitrary choices reduce editwars seems unfounded.

And yet, outside this talk page, all of these appear to be consensus; many editors support them here.

Can we please have a substantive discussion, in which those who don't agree say which ones they disagree with, and on what grounds? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

We have, you just don't seem to want to listen to most. Levy and Blueboar's comments are common sense applied to every guideline and stated at the top of every one of them. Several editors have disagreed with you throwing the text into other parts of the MoS. Secondly, every style guide makes hard rulings on English usage. As brought up in the contractions section, many (I would hazard to say "most", in my limited estimation of common US guides) dissuade use of contractions in academic writing. Likewise, a significant minority say it's no big deal. But the point of a style guide is to enforce as much consistency as possible. As such, they make seemingly arbitrary decisions. That doesn't mean one is better than the others. In other words: Yes, some usages are purely stylistic, but if you profess to agree with the idea of the Manual of Style, a manual of style, then you must accept these stylistic variations. The Manual of Style is already far weaker than any sensible guide. So what's your point? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The point is there appears to be a fundamental disagreement about what the proper scope and purpose of the MOS actually is and that this, in conjunction with a complete breakdown in civility by some of the regulars here, is leading to the ongoing nonsense that keeps getting the page protected. Unless there is better consensus as to the fundamental scope issues (which probably needs to Wikipedia wide, not just the usual suspects here, then this will continue.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Style guides presumably work better at places like Encyclopedia Britannica than at Wikipedia. Our serial comma debates quiet down when someone finds out the Manual of Style permits both styles. It's imaginable that both sides would say the Manual allows their style, therefore they shall continue their quest to the death, but I don't remember that happening. The most memorable edit wars are over whether something is an exception to a guideline or not. Furthermore, many editors insist they are right regardless of the Manual of Style, and the Manual's arbitrary decisions presumably reinforce that attitude. So I'm far from convinced that arbitrary decisions reduce more edit wars than they cause.

Exceptions to guidelines, as in point 4 for instance, are real but overemphasized. Remember that nearly all of our guidelines are unknown throughout most of Wikipedia, and most of our guidelines are unknown even to Manual of Style regulars. Did you know we have a guideline on musical F sharp? If not, then why would you look it up? So obstructing an obscure guideline because of a small percentage of even more obscure, unexplained exceptions, is making the tail wag the dog.

On the one hand, many of the arguments advanced in favor of this platform seem to dissolve on close examination. On the other hand, many editors, not just one, have argued that challenges to arbitrary decisions are routinely shouted down by the WP:OWNers of this page. So responses like "bleep no" do make me lose confidence. At least it isn't as uncivil here as it was a couple years ago. Art LaPella (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The page protection issues are entirely because of PMA continually adding back his text after a one-shot response here; it's hardly a bellwether of anything. The last time this page was protected was more than two years ago, so the idea that this is such a hot topic seems unfounded.

Any manual of style has some degree of arbitrariness, indeed any rule, period, has some descent from fiat. At some point, you have to draw the lines in the sand. I'm asking if people agree with a certain level of arbitrariness; if you don't, then you cannot support the notion of a style guide at any point, because with the English language it is impossible to have something that is in keeping with all standards of usage and provides a level of consistency across articles. The whole point of many WikiProjects, infoboxes, and templates is consistency. You will never find a consensus that "editors can do exactly what they like", so you're left with only one alternative. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

PMA's point 1 is that there should be a Manual, but his point 2 is that his favorite rule is the absence of a rule about serial commas, so perhaps he should explain that one; does it mean he wants only a list of all the things that are optional? The Manual has some arbitrary rules, and some universal rules like capitalizing Monday that can be found elsewhere, and I'm not sure I'd miss either one. But I'm pretty sure that isn't a consensus. Art LaPella (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sections like the one about serial commas are useful (as you yourself say) to quiet debates; they are probably more useful than arbitrary choices by the divine MOS. But I have no objection to the MOS making choices among the styles of English if

• The decision to do so is consensus of Wikipedians in general, not just a handful of regulars.
• MOS gives a reason for the decision (as with Logical Quotation; it need be no longer than that) which may induce others to join the consensus
• The choice made is frequently used in English, not something some Wikipedian has made up; acknowledgment of the existence of other possibilities might also support the consensus.

Again, I'll settle for two out of three.

I don't think there is a consensus for arbitrary choices either; more editors have supported this platform on this talk page than have revert-warred against it. (I have done my best to reach a compromise position, adhering to WP:1RR, and perpetually proposing new language; I will support anybody who can do better.)

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

On some issues, formal modern English offers no real choice (sentences end in punctuation; use the United States is); it is sometimes useful to remind editors of these anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's actually far more important to remind them that extended nominal groups (e.g. in many image captions) do not end in punctuation. --78.35.199.178 (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As much consistency as possible?

I thank David Fuchs for stating a position: that MOS should enforce as much consistency as possible; this is the third substantive claim by the defenders of the present text.

However, this post makes two errors of fact.

• Style guides do not require as much consistency "as possible"; they require as much consistency as is useful to the publication in question. Certainly MOS does not require as much consistency as possible, and never has. We could require that the encyclopedia use honour and the Oxford comma (or any of the other three choices possible) but we explicitly do not, and refuse to rule out other options - and those provisions are consensus.
• On the other hand, nobody has yet claimed that editors should be able to do whatever they like. Certainly this platform does not; that would have been one much shorter plank, not seven.
  • Also, rejecting editors can do exactly what they like does not leave one non-null style guide; it leaves indefinitely many. That is no justification for any particular text, including this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Fuchs wants the MOS to produce "as much consistency as possible", but that is not consensus - and MOS itself explicitly rejects that position. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • Congrats, you can make straw men. I specifically pointed out that the MoS is nowhere as stringent as any normal style guide, if you cared to read my entire post. And if you say there are an infinite number of style guides, write your own and come back here when you're finished so everyone can comment on your whole cloth idea. Also, how about you stop dividing the discussion into your own headers? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 06:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Oddly enough, the relevant guideline says make a new header for a new topic. Why is this guideline not binding? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This might not be the thread to state this, but I would like the MOS to be able to establish basic rules of grammar/style that a bot ("AI") might follow in the future. I am tired of making low level changes. I don't see why a bot (for example) can't keep up with census data. (This might not require MOS, but it is the bot application at the low level, that I am trying to emphasize). If we are all "style artists" who try to outdo each other, the encyclopedia goes downhill IMO. We already have well-paid hype on television. We volunteers can't compete with that. We can compete with objectively and consistency. We don't rely on hype to sell the next few minutes of virtual time. Hopefully, we rely on something more solid. "Artistry" is people aiming for Pulitzers. I just want my articles to be accurate.

And I don't want to be forced to have a "style discussion" with all editors, new and old, on each and every article I work on! Student7 (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This last outcry is a red herring; nobody has ever suggested any such thing.

On the main post:A bot is not an AI, an artificial intelligence. An AI would understand what the sentences it read meant; no such machine exists. It is impossible to parse sentences in general without understanding; most of English grammar, including most of the topics covered on this page, cannot be edited correctly without doing so; the only acceptable proof-reader is the human eye.

Some bot-like programs can assist, and will be right more often than not. Few such programs have a lower error rate than the average Wikipedia page; they are much longer and more sophisticated than our bots; if the bot has a higher error-rate than our editors, it will make things worse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Adopting rules that are not English in order to make bots' work easier sacrifices the purpose of Wikipedia to our tools. However, we could look among existing styles of English and pick those which are most suited to bot management. The most obvious example of this would be typesetters' quotation: always put trailing commas and periods inside quotation marks. Even this would require a careful regex not to fail in strings like The following characters: #, *, ", &,... but that can very likely be done; in fact, the rule is widely adopted because it is undemanding on copy-editors. Unfortunately, MOS recommends against it unconditionally. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but while this form of punctuation is necessary and correct in American English, that is not always the case for other varieties. Is it possible to program a bot to detect the form of spelling used (keeping in mind that there are more than two sets of spelling rules) before implementing its program on an article? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is largely a question of variety; but for those, like Student7, who want rules enforceable by bot, this would be a place to start. Most actual rules, even such straightforward ones as Always close parentheses, will never be enforceable by bot - until we have AIs.

I doubt that bot detection of variety is feasible, although it is not impossible. It could search for diagnostic words, like honour or defence, but if the list is of reasonable length, most articles won't have any of them.

Also, any bot will have trouble telling inconsistency within dialect from some Commonwealth dialects. Canadians use some, but not all, American spellings; I believe Australians use labour, even though the Australian Labor Party inherits its name from the spelling-reform era a century and more ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Automated spell-checking bots are currently not allowed per WP:BOTPOL, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Bots cannot function error-free in context and language sensitive content. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC) edited 22:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Automated bots shouldn't be confused with semi-automated bots including AWB. What BOTPOL says about spelling, for instance, is not "in an unattended fashion". My AWB has some WP:LQ logic because ," and ." are usually wrong (as defined by that guideline), and I manually undo the changes otherwise. Art LaPella (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, obviously, when a human is looking at the edit, it is no longer the software making context decisions. I added explicit "automated" to my former comment to avoid imprecision. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A review of Wikipedia's bot documents shows they use the word "bot" inconsistently, so I hereby back down a notch. Art LaPella (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Simple poll

This discussion has clearly drifted from topic to topic and no clear opinion on the matter has been gained. As such, I've set up a simple poll below. Please do not discuss the matter next to your position! Simply choose your position, then add a pound symbol ( # ), and your name. I hate that this matter needs to be dealt with in a more bureaucratic fashion, but it seems ultimately necessary in resolving some issues. Also, while this will likely illustrate a clear preference by the contributing editors, it does not necessarily illustrate a clear consensus for every editor or user of wikipedia. --Xession (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Topic 1

--Xession (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• This poll will only determine whether the above, original wording should or should not, be changed. A preferred wording is only designated by voting to oppose changing the original wording; agreeing to change the wording does not designate what the wording will be, only that a change in the wording is necessary. If recommended to do so, subsequent changes will be decided at a later time.

• Please, do not discuss the matter in the polling region. This is a simple poll to gain perspective on support and opposition to the above proposition. Discussions will only spur further comments in the polling region, which is not the intent of this poll. Further discussion on the matter will be considered at a later time.

Agree: -this vote is to recommend changing the wording

1. --Xession (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
2. --Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Any shorter or less clumsy sentence which preserves the meaning of the section; silence would do this.
3. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK to the basic idea of "Stylistic issues, otherwise not covered by MoS, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources." 19:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Yes, but please make a specific proposal next time. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Too vague IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: -this vote is to oppose changing the original wording

1. --Dicklyon (lame poll – voting for an unspecified change seems only likely to be more trouble than it's worth)
2. Strongest possible oppose, per this. To requote:

   We have our own manual of style, specific to our own needs. Sometimes we disagree with allowed styles, other times we impose one over all others, and sometimes we permit all of them. PMAnderson's version strips the MOS of it's power to discriminate against styles deemed undesired. Many MOSes would allow for YYYY-MM-DD in prose. Yet we don't want that. Many MOSes would likewise impose the Harvard style of citation. We allow all styles. Many MOSes tells you to use titlecase for sections. We choose sentence case. External sources provide good guidance most of the time, but which are different from our agreed-upon house style. But most damning of all, several reliable sources have shit-poor stylistic standards. Assume for instance, that all books on say... whale reproduction italicizes the English names of whale species blah blah blah, the blue whale is a .... Should we then start italicizing the English name of whales in the article on the reproduction of whales, and not italicize them otherwise, as most books don't italicize the English names of species? The answer is a resounding NO. In this case, books on whale reproduction can take a hike. PManderson's version tells you that no, if you can find a subset of book with weird, sub-par, or otherwise-innapropriate-for-Wikipedia conventions, you can now Wikilawyer their horrible style into articles.

   I have no faith that this poll will not be used as a wedge by PMAnderson (and possibly others) to resume/continue his war on the MOS. Asserting that this passages should be changed to something without specifying what that something is pure folly. Make a concrete proposal for rewording, and submit that to the community. A "should we change it" poll will yield as much result as a poll asking "Is something broken with RFA". You might get 90% approval, but no consensus. We already have a solid guideline, a good guideline. If it can be refined, great, but let's not undermine it by making polls that would equate "can it be improved" to "this has no consensus / this version sucks". No matter the original intents of the poll/Xession, the well has been poisoned and nothing meaningful can be gained from it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

   Please, reread the rules of this poll. Discussion is not wanted. The only purpose of this poll is to reflect on the opinions of editors who have contributed in this drawn out debate. Many opinions have been expressed but no localized area has existed yet, to collect consensus on the matter. Discussing the matter here, continues this trend and prohibits the process. Thank you.--Xession (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

   It was my impression that "preferred wording is only designated by voting to oppose changing the original wording" would be followed, especially by Pmanderson, who seems to have a strong position on this. However, if the agreeing editors do not give an actual resolution, then this poll is redundant. What is going to be proposed on closure of this? If it is a change in wording, then we might as well propose it already. I !voted "agree" to make a point -- my reasoning for the change differs from other editors, yet I am left to !vote agree and am also directed not to comment on this further. This poll looks like a fallacious complex question. Even though no conclusions should be drawn from this poll on closure, I am weary that any blanket conclusion can only further individual agenda. Can the agreeing editors at least specify their proposed change? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

3. Ozob (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Oppose - just close this thing and the RfC, until someone comes forward with a concrete proposal for change.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
5. I think I have registered my reasons several times above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
6. OpposeChaosdruid (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

Could you clarify what is "agree" and "oppose" precisely? Can you rename them to "change"/"not change" or similar? If I follow the above (i.e. "it is suggested the wording should be changed"), then:

Agree with "the wording should be changed" -> !vote "agree" -> both users have not given new wording

Disagree with "the wording should be changed" -> !vote "oppose" -> it says "preferred wording is only designated by voting to oppose". So apparently these are the other way around, but then it contradicts the original question. P.S. remove this comment to not clog the poll when this is fixed if you want. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict itself. If you vote to oppose the change, then you are voting to keep the original text, which is boldfaced and located under the topic at hand. Voting to agree to the change is not voting in agreement with previous suggestions for wording; rather it indicates you agree the wording needs to be changed. However, I will change it to help clarify. --Xession (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I.e., if you vote to approve, you are not committed to a particular wording, but to the position that there is a significantly better one, reasonably available. I, for example, hold that the first clause is weasel-wording and that the whole sentence says nothing not implicit in the rest of the section. Perhaps we should include the other two sentences. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you please add "change the wording" and "keep the wording" in parenthesis so it's perfectly clear for everyone? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Change it to what ? Like the RfC it's unclear exactly what this question is asking, i.e. what it will be changed to, whether it's a minor tweak to the wording or replacing it with something completely different (and then what?). Without that the question is pretty useless--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

That's because the only effect of passing this would be to open a discussion as to what the new wording should be, which simply discussing the sentence has failed to do. I have no particular preferred wording; I will accept anything which preserves the present sense but is shorter and less weaselly (which is why I have proposed about five, including leaving the sentence out altogether); I will discuss changes in meaning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the entire issue at hand is whether the original wording should stand or not. If we determine the original wording is not preferred, only then is it reasonable to suggest alternative wordings. Otherwise, suggestions to change the wording are pointless. Editors such as Tony, would prefer the wording to remain intact and unchanged, while PMAnderson would prefer the wording be changed. Other editors may oppose changing the wording, while others with agree that it does need to be changed.--Xession (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would change the wording slightly, so I !voted under "agree". Then again my change can be seen as basically rewording/clarification, so may as well have been put under "oppose". My reason for "agree" most likely does not match Xession's or PMAnderson's reason. I have no clue how the closing user will sort this out. So I have to second that either new wording or removal would have been more suitable for consensus building. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That certainly fits within the position to "Agree". The question at hand is whether changes to the statement should occur or not. If you feel any change is necessary, clarity, rewording or otherwise, then you would be within the position to "Agree". At a later time, discussion can take place on formulating the best statement possible if such action is warranted. --Xession (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite so; Hellknows' wording would be a drastic change in substance, which could weaken MOS drastically if anybody paid attention to it, but it is certainly agreement within the meaning of the poll. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"weaken MOS drastically"? Actually, my intent was quite the opposite -- only consult sources if the MoS doesn't already cover a certain stylistic change. That would certainly strengthen the MoS's influence. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly "weaken"; most of MOS's rules are hand-waving followed by a couple of examples. Whether they apply to any individual case depends on whether that case is analogous to the examples given; evidence of actual usage is the chief objective tool to show that the analogy is sound. This wording could therefore take away the major tool for interpretation of the MOS. If you want examples, write me; this is getting off-topic, to what the revised wording should be.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with John. This poll doesn't help much unless the alternate wording (or at least the reason why the existing wording does or does not need to be changed) is shown. For example, if we're suggesting that the existing wording should be changed to, "Let us eat cheeses, for the weather is merry and the mosquitoes are fearful," then I would vote to keep the current wording, but this would not be the case for all such alternate wordings. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur; if the choices are between what we have and something else, but that something else is not defined, then we don't know what we're getting. The intent is clearly to see if the current wording has support, but true judgment requires comparison, which this doesn't allow.

But, I must know your inspiration for that line, Darkfrog. 'Tis hilarious.oknazevad (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

To the contrary, I believe it is rather easy to decide if you feel the original wording adequately conveys the intended meaning. Alternately, people may feel the wording is not adequate or does not convey their understanding of the matter. To this, it seems to me at least, easy to decide whether to support or oppose a change to the wording. Previous debates on the matter went no where, regardless of alternate suggestions and regardless of demanding the phrase stay the same, effetively making it a stalemate. To resolve the issue, the process has to begin somewhere, and I believe that should be here, with this poll. If consensus is met to oppose any change to the wording, this debate can be over and we can all move on or if consensus is met to make a change to the wording, then arguments to oppose changing the original wording can end, allowing reasonable suggestions to receive proper attention. This is a logical, necessary step in progressing through this. --Xession (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

By 'intended meaning' you mean what? You have taken time to identify the writer or writers and have asked them what they meant to convey writing it? 'Intended meaning' is a chimera in this or any other discussion of an article or project page. All there is is the text. If it is unclear suggest how to improve it. If you disagree with it say what you would replace it with. Then propose it, so we can have a substantive discussion, not a meaningless poll.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If the intention for a passage in the MoS is unclear, why should it be included in the MoS? The entire purpose for it is to provide a clear guideline, accessible to all. If one person feels a certain portion is unclear, it is likely others have felt the same. I do not seek to provide an alternative here. I've stated clearly the intent of this poll and will not engage in advising alternative wordings unless a consensus is met to recommend doing so. Previous recommendations have been ignored or lambasted by the same individuals and buried in the discussions above, never to be given full consideration. The purpose of this poll is to clarify if any further discussion on the matter is necessary.--Xession (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's why, Xession (love the name, BTW): In no case that I can think of is the wording of this or any part of Wikipedia perfect. If the question is whether or not there is any problem at all with any given part of the MoS, the answer will always be "yes." So should the wording be changed? Yes, absolutely, once a better option is presented. In order for us to know if the time has come, we need to know what that proposed better option is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In a perfect world, more people would have had the chance to review previous suggestions. Instead, a select few lead a rampaging debate, not regarding the suggested alternative, but rather the fact that it was not necessary to change it at all. It would have been wonderful for this debate to have been over long ago, but instead it continued into a complete stalemate where one person ended up locking the entire article down so that it could no longer be changed. Clearly something is wrong in the process if the first step needs to be a suggestion, because that is the only process, prior to this, that has occurred.--Xession (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

past tense, in particular past perfect

I have noticed that on some pages (including WP: pages, even some that provide advice on grammar) the past tense is used incorrectly, and this seems to go unnoticed for a long time. Examples: He was born in Vilnius, Lithuania, after the country (had) gained independence. In designing the sequel, the staff was able to include the speech and improved visuals Gilbert (had) originally envisioned for Maniac Mansion. I haven't seen this subject included in this style page (did I miss it?). Should it be? -- Nczempin (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say no, because this is not specific to Wikipedia, and if we try to write a style manual to cover all English usage, the MoS will become as large as printed manuals of style. The general English usage advice that is present in the MoS now should be removed. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jc3s5h. The MOS is not (and should not be) an English grammar guide. If you think you can improve the language or grammar of an article, just do it. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that the general English advice should be removed from the MoS. This question shows that there is at least one person who consults it for such. I do agree that said user should just go ahead and fix things when he or she finds that they are wrong. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

MOS is a grammar guide; but we should probably not cover this point; this is another case where the actual rules of English are complex:

• He was born in Vilnius, Lithuania, after the country gained independence is grammatical; the sequence of tenses is not always mandatory. The addition of had would strengthen the assertion that independence was before the birth, but after already says that.
• On the other hand, In designing the sequel, the staff was able to include the speech and improved visuals Gilbert originally envisioned for Maniac Mansion. is unidomatic and much more in need of had for clarity, not least because the reader may take improved as an active verb, with the staff as subject.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the fairly common, "Smith would go on to become provost of the base," derives mostly from a tense often employed by genealogists for some reason. I always change this to "Smith became provost in nnnn." (Yes an exception can be granted for "Smith, who would go on to become provost himself, argued with the then-provost Jones...") Student7 (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Question: Addition of crosses

Some ips like to add † next to the name of a dead person [1]. Is there a policy or guideline that supports or forbids this? Should those crosses be removed? In case it's allowed, is it Hillevi Rombin† or Hillevi Rombin †? -John KB (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline. It is not unknown in English next to the date of death, although d. is more common; in running text (as with your example), it is useless and uncommunicative, if largely harmless. I would probably remove them, as actual anglophones are likely to take † as the mark of a footnote, and wate time looking for one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, will remove them. --John KB (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've seen crosses next to names (particularly next to names of authors of jointly authored works where one of the authors died during preparation). But I think this is an inappropriate convention except when the deceased was Christian and the publication is intended for a Christian audience. That's not true here on Wikipedia, so I think it would be appropriate to forbid crosses. Ozob (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe German Wikipedia follows this convention. We do not, and should not. "Died" is not that long or onerous to type, and it is a lot clearer. --John (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

wrong word in article

{{edit protected}} Unnecessarily is an adverb and unnecessary is an adjective. In section Clarity, unnecessarily is used as an adjective in "unnecessarily complex wording." This should be replaced with unnecessary. Blackwidowhex (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: In "unnecessarily complex wording" the adverb unnecessarily is modifying the adjective complex, which is quite correct. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Blackwidowhex. The usage of the adverb unnecessarily implies that complex wording is desirable as long as it isn't unnecessarily complex -- which is completely wrong. The wording should always be as simple as possible without compromising accuracy and comprehensiveness. I have therefore re-requested the edit. --78.35.215.51 (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is silly. An article such as C*-algebra is going to be complex; that's unavoidable. The idea is not to make it unnecessarily complex. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The idea is to make it as simple as possible without compromising accuracy and comprehensiveness. The subject matter may be complex, the wording should strive to be as simple as possible. You and the current wording of the MoS are confusing the subject matter and its explanatory description. --78.35.215.51 (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"complex wording" and "complex concept" are different things. The paragraph in question is about using simple English and avoiding complex wording when it is not necessary -- i.e. "unnecessarily complex wording". This has nothing to do with how complicated the article is. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Telling editors to "avoid [...] unnecessarily complex wording" is the same thing as telling them to "use complex wording, just not unnecessarily complex wording".

What the original author meant to convey is that the article should account for the complexity of the subject matter. Again: the current wording confuses two things: While complex subject matter does require a complex description, the language used to describe it should be kept as plain as possible. Therefore, editors should "avoid unnecessary complex wording" ("in the appropriately complex discussion of the subject matter").

The depth and scope of the article should reflect the complexity of the subject matter. The language however should be kept as plain and simple as possible. These are two different things, which the current wording conflates. --78.35.215.51 (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors should avoid "unnecessary complex wording" irrespective of the complexity of the article. The passage advises editors to not make it more complex, not to make it complex/simple/whatever. The sentence is clear -- "do not use wording that is more complex than it is necessary" = "avoid unnecessarily complex wording". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The passage links to another article that is not clear. Can you explain the first paragraph of Use Plain English? What I thought Clarity should say is not to use the "justly" in that paragraph when it serves no clear purpose. Read the quote from Strunk and see he used the term unnecessary and not unnecessarily. The last sentence of the 1st paragraph in Use Plain English is even more atrocious. I do think Wikipedia should focus more about unneeded words that are used. Blackwidowhex (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Use plain English is an essay (the very top banner of the page), and it's writing does not necessarily represent WP policies/guidelines. Feel free to improve the language there if you want. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

H3llkn0wz, please re-read my comment. All unnecessary complex wording should be avoided. Wording should never strive to be complex. The wording should not somehow "mimic" the complexity of the discussed subject matter. The wording is not the same as the article. You're still conflating these two things. --78.35.204.17 (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"All unnecessary complex wording should be avoided" -- isn't that exactly what the page says? -- i.e. "avoid [..] unnecessarily complex wording". It never says to write complex prose. "The wording should not somehow "mimic" the complexity of the discussed subject matter. The wording is not the same as the article." -- that is exactly what I said: "editors should avoid "unnecessary complex wording" irrespective of the complexity of the article." I don't understand where you see the conflation. "avoid [...] unnecessarily complex wording" is not the same as "use complex wording, just not unnecessarily complex wording". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In "unnecessarily complex wording", "unnecessarily" modifies "complex". In "unnecessary complex wording", "unnecessary" modifies "complex wording". We want neither unnecessarily complex wording nor unnecessary complex wording. Neither of these includes the other, and I think that being so careful about which word to use is not a good use of our time. Ozob (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with those who have pointed out that "unnecessarily complex" is correct. I would like to add that the simplest turn of phrase is often but not always the best or most encyclopedic. I feel that "unnecessarily complex" expresses the intent of th eMoS very well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The simple Wiki [2] is surely where simple English should be used? Chaosdruid (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In a more perfect world, Simple English Wikipedia would avoid complex wording for children, foreigners etc., and English Wikipedia would avoid unnecessarily complex wording – as well as unnecessary complex wording. Art LaPella (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And on the MoS talk pages it seems unnecessarily complex discussing and unnecessary complex dissection can also occur lol Chaosdruid (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

ENGVAR and internal consistency

Within the past fifteen minutes I discovered that EnigmaMcmxc (talk · contribs) was moving several articles concerning the British Armed Forces during World War II to titles that use the standard Commonwealth name of the war which is "the Second World War". Now, in some cases these articles have been at these titles since 2003. These pages are:

• Timeline of the United Kingdom home front during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Demobilization of the British Armed Forces after World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of British Brigades in World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of British Divisions in World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of British corps in World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of British Armies in World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should we keep with the internal consistency which is to use the American name of "World War II" or should these pages on the British activity in the war be moved to titles using "Second World War" as that is how the various members of the Commonwealth of Nations write it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps a shorter version of the question would be: does ENGVAR cover multiple word proper nouns and override site-wide consistency?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

ENGVAR states we are allowed to use local variant in articles (i.e. concensus has already been reached): editors are making these kinds of edits throughout the wiki on a daily basis and titles, regardless of length of time in use, should be held to the same standard. The more important question is, with concensus and policies already in place: why should an American variant be imposed on articles dealing with British matters?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is "World War II"/"Second World War" considered an acceptable variation is the question. And rather than rehash the discussion I had with EnigmaMcmxc on his talk page at User talk:EnigmaMcmxc#Changes of "World War II" to "Second World War", it would be much better, Enigma, if we waited for someone else to comment rather than continuing to argue back and forth between just the two of us.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to claim, for a simple example, the official histories of the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Austrilia are all using unacceptable variations of the American term "World War Two", that is fine by me! What you have just asked is compeltly ridiculous!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not the phrase "World War II" is not acceptable when used on articles in the Commonwealth is what we will be determining here. We should keep possibly controversial changes at the status quo until a consensus can be determined. This is how the site works. So please, allow for outside input.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see History of the Second World War, Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War, Australian War Memorial, and The Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War for further instances of unacceptable usage. If the governments of these nations determined this is the language to use, the ENGVAR policy states local variant can be used, MILHIST stated if was fine years ago ... why are we having this conversation to simple constructive edits? Again i point out other editors are changing the language within articles on a daily basis to use the above term, therefore titles should be held to the same standard.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Those various pages you are pointing out concern proper nouns. Not whether or not general pages on British, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand topics in WWII should use "World War II" or "Second World War" on Wikipedia. And I am asking for a gosh darn clarification on ENGVAR to see if you are right or if I am right. So could you please wait for someone else to say something?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well since you labelled the changes controversial, stated "Is "World War II"/"Second World War" considered an acceptable variation", and "Whether or not the phrase "World War II" is not acceptable when used on articles in the Commonwealth". I am simply producing the evidence, so take a chill pill!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The page moves were controversial, considering one of them had been there since 2003.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)

Does the MoS take precedent, or the MilHist MoS on this matter?

Without adding to the conversation just yet, can I point out that Ryulong made 2 statements, Enigma made a statement and then you made another leaving it 3:1 to Ryulong. At the moment it is at 5:3 to Ryulong. I also think that perhaps this would have been better at the MilHist first and then here if clarity was not given. It is apparent that there are enough US, English and other users of English for a pretty fair hearing there. Chaosdruid (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really 5:3 as my second statement is only a tl;dr of my main statement. And I'd rather it be here rather than MilHist because as far as I am aware there has been no discussion (even though Enigma claims there has been) on this subject and this site-wide guideline would get more eyes on it than a bunch of history buffs. As far as I am aware, the standing consensus of WP:MILHIST is that "World War II" prevails in usage. A quick archive search shows two discussions: one from 2006 and one from 2008, neither of which resulted in any sort of consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(od) By consistency, I assume you mean title consistency across WP rather than internal consistency with the article text? Br-En uses "Second World War" rather than "World War II" so titling an article "Second World War" when the article text uses "Second World War" seems less jarring to me than any need to maintain title consistency. This recent milhist discussion seems to bear that out, preferring that articles are internally consistent with their English variant rather than a single naming scheme be imposed across all articles, though the situation is less clear where cats are concerned (where a single variant - "World War X" in this case - is preferred for technical reasons). I regard Enigma's retitling as in line with ENGVAR and current practice, though as with all large-scale changes a note to WT:MILHIST, while not necessary, may have been diplomatic first! Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 09:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The articles that were moved use "World War II" in text, though, even if they concern British history.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I also think that is a little insulting, whether or not "buffs" is the term (in English that also means naked) there is a separate MilHist MoS and if we are to bother making projects and having extra MoS' there must be a reason for it do you not think? Perhaps it is exactly because of this that we have more intuitive MoS' for things like Biogs, TV, Military history, music etc. They are more in tune with the topics than are gen pop. Chaosdruid (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I considered this an issue with the general manual of style first, rather than that of the relatively lower traffic MILHIST MOS. I have left a comment at the talk page pointing them here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel it should be as follows: World War I or World War II. Adamdaley (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I appreciate Ryulong's concern - mass changes have been the subject of a few acrimonious ANI threads recently, and even where such things have a basis in policy, in practice they are best approached cautiously to avoid giving the false impression to observers that an editor is on some kind of nationalistic crusade (which I don't believe for one moment is the case here). Re the articles also using "World War II" in the text, probably that should also be changed to "Second World War" per ENGVAR (just as "colour" would rightly be changed to "color" in a US-subject article). I think it's really a case-by-case decision though and not hugely important in the big scheme of things :) Further input from milhist will be useful though; perhaps we need to explicitly codify consensus and current practice somewhere. EyeSerene^talk 10:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out, that was second on the list of things to do; one just wasnt given the time to do so. I was working on about 5-6 articles at the same time when the edit conflicts started appearing.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be Second World War for British/Commonwealth articles. Note articles should not be moved until this discussion has concluded. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Dunno about the rest of the Commonwealth, but in Canada I'm pretty sure WWII is the dominant variation. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Likewise in Australia, where I would guess "World War II" outnumbers "The Second World War" (which to me has an old-fashioned ring) by about 4 to 1. The former also has the advantage of brevity. Rumiton (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Both names for the war are in widespread use in British English nowadays: [3]. 137.43.105.17 (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)