Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Don't retrieve sections from the archives

I have removed an entire section from this page (in this edit). Please, can we not restore old sections from the archives like that, and present them as if they had been visible on the page and never archived? It distorts the record of proceedings here. As a participant in the archived discussion, even I struggled to work out what was going on.

Start a new discussion as appropriate, with judicious reference to and citation of that old section as you see fit.

Thank you! ☺

Noetica^Tea? 01:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's standard to retrieve archived sections if the archiving is recent and the section not too long. But I will start a new one as requested. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine, Slim! It's just that the way you did it was confusing, and perhaps it distorted the trajectory of the dialogue. I've been around here since 2005, and it took me a while to figure it out, as I have said. ☺

Noetica^Tea? 03:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, it is not standard to retrieve archived sections period. It is standard to link archived material if it is archived.Curb Chain (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've unarchived threads that were bot-archived too rapidly, and I've copied large sections from archives when it was critical that participants in a discussion actually read the content (rather than just linking to the archived-thread, and hoping they would click through and read).

It is a standard practice (See this search), but doesn't seem to be explained anywhere (I could've sworn I'd read about it in WP:ARCHIVE, but after searching through about 30 random diffs from the last 6 years, I couldn't see anything). So, I've made a post at Help talk:Archiving a talk page#Archiving loses record of errors, asking for suggested wording (hopefully something very short). Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Internal consistency v consistency across articles

Further information: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_129 § Internal_consistency_v_consistency_across_articles

Noetica removed these words [See correction below.–Noetica ☺] – "though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole" – from this lead sentence:

An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole.

As the lead already mentions internal consistency, this sentence is arguably repetitive without the juxtaposition. More importantly, we don't require consistency across articles, and it's important to stress that. The lead currently implies that we do, or at least does not make clear that we don't:

• "The MoS presents Wikipedia's house style, to help editors produce articles with consistent, clear, and precise language, layout, and formatting."

• Consistency in language, style, and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion; this is especially important within an article.

Therefore, the addition of "though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole" (or similar) is needed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

---

The first sentence of this section inadvertently misrepresents what happened. The sequence of events (all on 12 August 2012):

• SlimVirgin restored some wording that had been long absent from MOS (diff)
• Curb Chain reverted that restoration (diff)
• Noetica restored what SlimVirgin had added, except for what Curb Chain objected to (diff)

Slim, would you please amend that first sentence? Best to keep the account accurate. ♥
Noetica^Tea? 07:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

[Note: I have exhausted my reserves of time for dealing with this issue. I see that Slim did not make the factual correction I requested (see immediately above). For the RFC on this page (#RfC: Internal consistency versus consistency across articles), please refer to the detail in all of my submissions in this earlier section. I explain my temporary absence in that RFC. ☺Noetica^Tea? 03:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)]

---

Not needed. As these sentences in the lede show, consistency across articles is indeed important. Including your proposal is contradictory and will be a contention of confusion for editors.Curb Chain (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken there. Articles do not have a single standard style. When there are two or more acceptable styles, an article can use either of them: English/British spelling, BC/BCE, date formatting, citation style, etc. (this has been said by arbcom, for example here or here) There is no requirement to make all those articles consistent with each other.

The extra phrase is to prevent people from going in style-fixing sprees when they get the mistaken idea that articles need to be consistent among them. This is a real problem that caused many headaches and arbitration cases. For example Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/jguk_2#Findings_of_fact, where someone tried to ensure BC/BCE consistency across articles. A more recent case is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking where people used scripts to adapt hundreds of articles to their preferred style. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No Enric, Curb is not mistaken. As things stand, there is nothing in the Manual to support such a spree. If MOS supported campaigns to impose one style choice uniformly across Wikipedia, from among options, it would say so. It would not single out consistency within articles, as it does now. Indeed, it would not present options at all!

Consider three propositions:

P1: There is a hard requirement for consistency within articles, where MOS presents options.

P2: There is no hard requirement for consistency between articles, where MOS presents options.

P3: In groups of articles on similar topics, similar styling is better than an unprincipled or random selection of styles.

Who disagrees with any of those, and why? (Not a rhetorical question.)

We might regard P3 as a motive for our glittering array of subsidiary MOS pages, naming conventions, informal conventions out there in the projects, and so on. It starts as an unspoken presumption; and then, many specialists make it explicit for their own fields.

I think we should not send a message against efforts to unite groups of articles in that established way. I am yet to see an argument that such groups of articles (often cross-linked, often cited together) are improved by a perceived licence for each to take its own independent direction, subject only to the whim of editors narrowly focused on a single article rather than a thematically united group of articles.

Noetica^Tea? 07:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Noetica's general principles here, but would formulate the propositions to take account of the following.

• for P1 and P2, "where MOS presents options or is silent".
• for P3 I think we should make it clear that consistency is expected for closely-related articles (and try to establish that if anyone is inclined to disagree).

Of course, how closely articles are related can be a matter for discussion. Authors should be relatively free to agree the appropriate scope for any consistency.

Apart from being general common sense, an appropriate degree of consistency both enhances the user experience and makes it easier for editors to make corresponding changes everywhere where they are needed.

Nobody should be able to say "MOS says that articles do not have to be consistent with each other" as a pro forma excuse to block changes among such closely-related articles. At the same time we should emphasise that editors should establish consensus before making extensive changes. --Mirokado (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The MoS does not require articles, even articles in the same Wikiproject, to match each other, so it is perfectly okay to say so. "Let's make this article match a related one" is not, by itself, sufficient reason for a change in style. However, "I feel like it, I raised it on the talk page, and no one objected within a reasonable time frame," is sufficient reason. To use the language of the thread, we should not put P3 in the MoS. 1. We shouldn't add rules to the MoS unless there is a real reason to do so, like a) said rule is part of the English language or b) adding said rule would solve a non-hypothetical problem and 2. Enric Naval has provided evidence that attempts to enforce cross-article consistency have caused non-hypothetical problems on Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but adding such a rule will allow editors to WP:WIKILAWYER.Curb Chain (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

With what do you disagree exactly, Darkfrog? I don't read Mirokado as saying that any version of P3 should be actually included in MOS. P3 is just a proposition that we are invited to consider. On the other hand, if you disagree with P3 itself, will you please tell us why?

I would in effect reverse your judgement on the two reasons you mention, like this:

• "Let's make this article match a related one" presents an excellent reason for a change in style.
• "I feel like it, I raised it on the talk page, and no one objected within a reasonable time frame" is never a sufficient reason for making a change in the style of an article.

To use the reason that you favour (the second reason cited here) is contrary to current provisions in MOS, at MOS:RETAIN:

When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary.

That wording makes good sense. Some talkpages are sparsely attended; but the article in question might have a style that fits well with related articles, for example. A positively expressed consensus should be required, to overturn such valuable consistency.

Noetica^Tea? 01:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with Mirokado's statement, "Nobody should be able to say "MOS says that articles do not have to be consistent with each other" as a pro forma excuse to block changes among such closely-related articles." Yes, they should be able to state that the MoS does not require inter-article consistency and use that to block changes among closely related articles. People should need a reason to make such changes. That reason need not be big. It can be "I feel like it, I raised it on the talk page, and no one objected." However, "We have to make these articles match because they're closely related in subject!" is false. No we don't have to.

I do not believe that we should add P3 to the MoS for the reasons that I stated yesterday. 1) We shouldn't add more rules without a good, non-hypothetical reason. 2) We don't have a good reason to add this rule; E. Naval even showed that we have a good reason not to. If pushing cross-article consistency causes trouble, then we shouldn't require people to push it, even if some people would prefer articles to be written that way.

As for the "I feel like it, I raised it, no one objected" rationale, if only one person has an opinion on the matter, than that person's opinion is the consensus. In that situation, 100% of the people involved would agree. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The MOS is also a guide and set of pages to indicate to readers/editors which style to use when there are differing styles. We don't make rules to limit peoples' choices for the sake of limiting peoples' choices; we make rules, and the MOS's purpose, to make it easier for viewers to read our articles so there is some sort of consistency and so that readers can expect a sort of userfriendlyness versus a chaotic page-after-page styled encyclopedia. There is a way to block changes where people quote WP:IAR but that requires the use of WP:COMMON.Curb Chain (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that's how it should work, CC, but it's not how it does work. 1. We should assume that anything written down in the MoS will be cited as gospel on article talk pages. 2. Because Wikipedia is a crowdsourced encyclopedia, giving people their freedom wherever reasonably possible, as in such proven policies as ENGVAR, allows disparate editors to contribute. Some inconsistency is worth it if it means we don't grossly insult Brits or Canadians or non-native-English-speaking contributors. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

ENGVAR already is sanctioned at MOS:RETAIN. We don't need this extra statement as it will be used by editors to disrupt pages per their own style.Curb Chain (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is about other things as well as WP:ENGVAR such as WP:CITE and WP:APPENDIX (and others such as date formats, table formats, quotation styles and any other style of format issue that an editor thinks should be "consistent"), so there is a need for the extra statement over and above the specific ENGVAR. -- PBS (talk)

I disagree with "In groups of articles on similar topics, similar styling is better than an unprincipled or random selection of styles." this has never been a requirement. The problem is what is a group? For example it could be argued that all articles about any subject within the countries of the EU should use British English/Irish English because the EU does. Or all articles on NATO (except those specifically about Britain and Canada) should use American English because the US is by far the largest contributor to NATO and therefore most articles about NATO are about American topics, and As NATO is deployed in Kosovo and Kosovo is not a member of th EU all articles about Kosova should be in American English. This type of argument has never been accepted.

One can see the fun one can have with arguments such as if its in a category its grouped in that category therefore it has to be consistent with all the other articles that appear in that category (An editor at the moment is using that as a justification for using his preferred spellings and ignoring usage in reliable sources). When an article appears in two categories then in which "group" does it belong?

This is why the MOS has only ever agreed that consistency should within an article, not across "groups" of articles.

I am with SV, EN and Darkfrog24 on this one. If as has been said "SlimVirgin restored some wording that had been long absent from MOS" then as it is a sentence that sums up a lot of Arbcom decisions, when was it deleted who deleted it and what was the justification given on this talk page for the deletion? -- PBS (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a task for the history search where I pick half way between the latest and earliest version and see if the sentence was present or not and continue this process until I find the version where it was taken out. It doesn't always work, because there could be reverts in between or it could have been added and removed multiple times, but usually it does work. What instances where there that people were changing spelling styles according to like articles and not according to reliable sources?Curb Chain (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

But you miss the point, PBS. Please read the exchanges above with more care. The core suggestion is not they we insert P3 in MOS: "In groups of articles on similar topics, similar styling is better than an unprincipled or random selection of styles." I must say, I would be amazed if anyone disagreed with it as a statement considered in isolation. Do you disagree with it? In other words, do you prefer "an unprincipled or random selection of styles" in a group of articles (however defined)? For example, would you prefer that within a group of obviously related literary articles, these two forms be randomly selected: Dickens' novels; Dickens's novels?

With respect, PBS: perhaps you have neatly demonstrated the kind of confusion MOS should avoid inadvertently promoting, in the matter of consistency. Do not conflate "this has never been a requirement" [in MOS] and "this is a bad thing". Those problems you discuss with defining "group" are not weighty. Any competing systematic groupings among articles can be resolved by the appropriate projects, and agreements can be reached. Only if we actively seek difficulties, or manufacture them, can we expect possessive apostrophes to emerge as a casus belli in thematic groups of articles. Editors will generally prefer a consistent look and feel – and take pride not just in a single article but in the appealingly uniform style that greets the reader who follows links to similar ones.

That said, I have always favoured more singularity and less optional variability in MOS guidelines. Apart from British versus American, en dash versus em dash, and some other inevitable diversity, most variability in fundamental style is avoidable and detrimental. The community really does appreciate a well-considered standard that will settle disputes at the 4,000,000 articles. Look, I always prefer the spaced en dash for sentence punctuation, and always will. But I cheerfully use the em dash instead: and that includes across related articles, not just within them. If I got militant about it and sought to promote en dash regardless of such broad coherence, I would be doing a disservice to the readers. Let's all avoid such militancy; and let's not carelessly promote it by including unnecessary text that people will misread, and will use to justify disruption. And the fewer kinds of variability we have at the most basic level of style, the fewer opportunities we give to militants.

Noetica^Tea? 21:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"within a group of obviously related" Obviously related went out when it was agreed that article space would not support subpages ("/"). -- PBS (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

How about this: "Making this a requirement would be a bad thing." And Wikipedia has a long history of "guidelines" and other unofficial rules being treated like requirements. No, there should be no requirement or any unofficial resolution or declaration that could later be mistaken for one.

The more freedom/variability we have, the better. That way we don't insult people by claiming that their way of doing things is inferior. This is a crowdsourced project. The rule requiring intra- but not inter-article consistency is a good way to strike a balance between neatness and diversity.

Noetica, you state that making this into a rule would settle disputes in many articles. Can you offer evidence, as EN has offered evidence to the contrary? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Darkfrog, I cannot follow some of those points. Making what a requirement "would be a bad thing"? What does that answer, precisely? My point was general; but you seem to have something specific in mind. I do understand this though: "The more freedom/variability we have, the better." I appreciate your being consistent on that point. Unfortunately, maximising variability is not the business of MOS. Quite the opposite. A core function of any manual of style is to restrain variability in a principled and measured way, which improves the reader's experience. And freedom? A robust, clear, and consensual MOS has freed editors from many a wilderness, such as these archived disputes over Mexican–American War, which were only settled by the sharpening of WP:DASH that we achieved here in 2011. Remember those disputes? Wade through all of that archive! Or search for this: "consistent with itself", especially at the exchange following Enric Naval's "Oppose". Read all of that exchange. You will find him insisting on the same line as he does here. I had hoped that the lessons of Mex~Am War were well learned; but no. In that exchange see reference to this provision at WP:TITLE (it stood then and it stands now):

* Consistency – Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles behind the above questions.

That's the last of five points so salient that they bear this link: WP:CRITERIA. Why should we weaken its force with the "not necessarily" wording at MOS? My example, to answer Enric's evidence: Mexican–American War.

WP:TITLE and MOS have to be in harmony. This is achieved by WT:TITLE settling the choice of title (the wording, as the title would be spoken); and then almost all of the styling is delegated to MOS. As with any publisher. No other arrangement works. If the title were styled without consideration of MOS, we could not even achieve consistency within an article. The title would drift with the inconsistent and untrackable usage of "sources", but the text would follow recommendations at MOS. Or what?

Noetica^Tea? 21:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As I've said earlier in this discussion, I mean that making P3 into a requirement or having some sort of resolution stating "It is better for closely related articles to use the same styles" would be a bad thing.

Wikipedia is not a publisher the way other entities are. There's no chain of command. There's no understanding that things are one entity's opinion. The current rule requiring intra- but not inter-article consistency strikes a good balance between the benefits that you cite above and the insult that we would be doing our editors by requiring them to kowtow to other people's whims for no practical reason.

And in case this wasn't clear, let me explicitly state that I don't think that cross-article consistency should be banned, only that it should not be required. If someone writing an article wants to use the same style as any other article in Wikipedia, then he or she should go right ahead. If someone proposes this or any style change on a talk page and a consensus forms that the change would be beneficial, then they should have that option. However, what people should not be able to do is say "We must make these articles match each other because the MoS requires it of us." Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very like a publisher in the relevant respects: it assembles and edits material, and disseminates it in text and related forms to the public. Very early in its history, people decided that it needed a manual of style, in the manner of a publisher. MOS has existed continuously since then. Its role has been tested and certified again and again, as for example in this ArbCom finding of fact:

The English Wikipedia Manual of Style has been built from a number of pre-existing Manuals from numerous fields. The best practices from these have been combined to create a single, unique MOS that applies to articles on the English Wikipedia.(from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation)

I have repeatedly challenged people here to find a manual of style for collaborative web writing, editing, and publication that is more thoroughly considered, or more comprehensive, or more detailed than Wikipedia's MOS. Like it or not, WP:MOS and its subpages are in their own right a major style guide of our time.

If you object to that, or want to alter the role of MOS, make a proposal to do so. Good luck!

You speak of "kowtowing". No one is asked to do that. MOS is as consensual as we can make it, and a good deal more consensual than WP:TITLE (look at the troubles there at the moment, and over the last ten months), and even than WP:CONSENSUS itself (currently a hotbed of troubles, and recently placed under a month-long protection). If you object to following consensual guidelines, with the occasional application of WP:IAR where they fail to cover a particular set of circumstances, then make a case against guidelines at the village pump. Not here! Here we continue orderly development of a premier style guide for a very special purpose, unprecedented in history.

Finally, you write: "... what people should not be able to do is say 'We must make these articles match each other because the MoS requires it of us.' " That's right; and MOS does not require that. It is policy at WP:TITLE that comes closest to requiring that. Nor should MOS provide an argument for those who would twist its words in support of inconsistency between thematically related articles.

♪

Noetica^Tea? 04:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The current discussion is about which rules Wikipedia MoS should endorse. Wikipedia's difference from other entities that disseminate information—its crowdsourced nature—is relevant. People aren't getting paid. People are for the most part nonprofessionals and volunteers. "Do it because I'm the boss and I think A looks better than B" doesn't hold much water here. We have to treat people with respect, and that means not making them adhere to our whims. If we endorse something as a rule, and people are punished for not following it, that is "requiring people to kowtow," as I put it.

For the most part, the rules that are in the MoS weren't made up from scratch here. They were sourced from other, professionally compiled style guides. The majority of those style guides say "using a lowercase s in 'summer' is right and using a capital S is wrong." There's a difference between copying what can be said to be a rule of the English language and making stuff up on our own just to shove down other people's throats.

Do you know of any case in which someone claimed "The MoS requires that we use different styles in these articles"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Darkfrog, of course I don't know of any such cases. No one is claiming that there are any, right?

Wikipedia is not simple anarchistic "crowd-sourcing"; it has policies and guidelines to ensure that a high-quality encyclopedia results. So what, if people are not paid? People have always engaged in voluntary work and subjected themselves to local restrictions and rules – for a better outcome. As I have said many times, the work of this talkpage is to make the best set of guidelines to help Wikipedia be the best possible encyclopedia. If that work is done well, MOS will earn respect. The community will decide on the value and status of MOS within the project that it serves. We cannot decide that here. But ArbCom has decided; and the quiet majority of editors seems to appreciate the consensually derived recommendations and standards that MOS encodes. When they are asked, which is rare enough. No one is "making them adhere to our whims". No one here compels anyone to do anything, in editing articles; and anyway, the guidelines should certainly not be "whims". If any one of them is, let it be challenged. I have challenged in that way from time to time, and I will again. WP:MOS itself ("MOS central") is in pretty good consensual shape, but there are problems at several other MOS pages.

Noetica^Tea? 22:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You said, "Nor should MOS provide an argument for those who would twist its words in support of inconsistency between thematically related articles." This caused me to wonder if perhaps you had seen a discussion in which someone thought that the MoS required different styles, "word twisting," as you put it.

By "people are not paid," I mean that at a regular publishing company, it is okay for one or a few people to hand down arbitrary decisions that could just as easily go the other way. This is because 1. the lower-ranking people are paid to put up with it and 2. the lower-ranking people can assume (sometimes with a great deal of benefit of the doubt) that higher rank was bestowed based on merit or seniority or something else that makes their supervisors worth heeding. Because Wikipedia doesn't have any of that, we should be extra careful that there is a good reason for every rule that we ram down people's gullets. "Y looks neater to me" invites the response, "Well X looks better to me." This is why I think we should be very cautious about adding new rules to the MoS. There are too many whims in it already. Maybe there shouldn't be whims in the MoS, but there are.Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

And if people can be brought up on AN/I for violating the MoS, then yes, that counts as "compelled." Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Read more carefully the answers you have already been given, Darkfrog. I have responded patiently and at length; and at considerable cost in time and patience. No one here is making "rules that we ram down people's gullets"; MOS has guideline status, and is consensually developed. As I have said (see above):

"No one here compels anyone to do anything, in editing articles; and anyway, the guidelines should certainly not be 'whims'. If any one of them is, let it be challenged. I have challenged in that way from time to time, and I will again."

(I will run out of time for this, you know. ☺)

Noetica^Tea? 03:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is it that you want me to discern from your previous posts, Noetica? My last post, the one to which you're responding, consists entirely of my clarifying things that I had said to you. Did you mean to respond to my question about the M-A war article?

By "compelled" and "ram down people's gullets" I refer to anything that people can be punished or censured for disobeying, as in AN/I. The MoS may be only a guideline in theory, but in practice, it's a set of hard rules. That means that we should treat any new additions to the MoS as if they will be cited as gospel on talk pages.

By "whim," I mean any rule that offers no real benefit to Wikipedia. WP:LQ, for example, has been challenged repeatedly and it's still there, even though it directly contradicts the preponderance of reputable sources and discussions have failed to show that the ban of American punctuation gives Wikipedia any benefit. It is a lot easier to keep whims out of the MoS in the first place than to get them removed once they're there.

Bringing this back to the issue at hand, this is why I don't think that the MoS should endorse P3 either officially or unofficially unless someone can offer evidence that doing so would solve a problem that has actually happened. We'd be forcing people to follow rules that we made up solely because we felt like it, and that's a slap in the face. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There has never been style consistency across articles on WP, and the MoS makes that clear at various points (e.g. ENGVAR), as do other guidelines (e.g. CITEVAR). So the issue here is only that the lead should properly reflect that. I'd therefore like to go ahead and restore the words in question, because they do make the lead clearer on that point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course there has been "style consistency across articles on WP"! How could that be a bad thing? MOS assists that; and so do WP:TITLE, the many naming conventions, and other "regularising" instruments across wikispace. But MOS is already very clear: in some areas there are choices. Where that applies, stick to one option within an article, and don't switch to another option without good reason and consensual discussion. No more needs to be said; stressing a lack of consistency between articles only encourages a lack of consistency between thematically related articles, through misreading for "political" purposes. I have given a potent example of such politics: Mexican–American War.

Noetica^Tea? 22:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There has never been consensus to introduce style consistency across articles; on the contrary, there has always been opposition to it. I don't know what you mean by thematically related articles, or "political" purposes, and the example hasn't enlightened me, sorry. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure there has been such a consensus! Style consistency across articles is what MOS is all about. But there has never been a requirement in MOS to implement a particular style option uniformly across articles, where MOS provides for such options. I for one am not proposing any such requirement. Let's be strictly accurate, otherwise we will be misread. It's bad enough when we do express ourselves with precision, apparently. ☺

As for Mexican–American War, it is an infamous example of a battleground. Disregard for reader-friendly consistency of style where MOS did not provide for such options; and it caused protracted conflict. I gave the example at least to show how hotly disputed the matter of conformity to MOS has been, generally. But more specifically, MOS was cited inaccurately: against any consideration of titles that in the relevant respect were precisely the same (based on the pattern "X–Y War", using an en dash). Cited, in fact, against the policy provision at WP:TITLE that I have quoted above (from WP:CRITERIA).

Noetica^Tea? 23:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I finally had time to click your link and it's just the article on the Mexican-American War. How exactly does this serve as evidence that having some sort of resolution in favor of cross-article consistency on closely related topics would prevent problems on Wikipedia? I'm not being sarcastic; I'd like to know.

As things stand, I support returning "but not necessarily across Wikipedia as a whole" to the MoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The link for you to click is clearly marked as "archived disputes" (see above). I then wrote (see above): "Remember those disputes? Wade through all of that archive!" You contributed there, Darkfrog. Read how you made points that are almost identical to those you make now, and read how I referred you to policy at WP:TITLE, then too. Try again.

Noetica^Tea? 03:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I mean the link you posted a few days ago, the one that just leads to the war article. (Checks) And today's link just leads to the article too. Yes, there was a big fight about whether M-A War should be hyphenated/dashed the same way in every article, but I am asking you what you think. Wading through the archive would at best facilitate a guess at what your reasoning is. What I want to know is what part of which M-A war dispute you feel is a specific problem that would be solved if the MoS were to endorse P3.Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Darkfrog: I have no time to limn yet again the stance that I have already made quite clear. Just note my response to your last sentence: I have linked you the general archived mess at Talk:Mexican–American War; and I have drawn attention to your own points there, and Enric Naval's. Let us ask: How much progress has been made? Who has worked for that progress, and who has worked against it? Finally (as I hope!), I stress once again: I am not proposing P3 or anything like it as an addition to WP:MOS.
Noetica^Tea? 00:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be agreement to restore "though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole." Enric Naval, Darkfrog, PBS and I are in favour; Noetica and Curb Chain are opposed; Mirokado wants consistency between closely related articles, but not necessarily across WP. I think the more people we ask, the greater the consensus will be against requiring cross-WP consistency, so I'll go ahead and restore those words. I think the lead could use some general tweaking too, but I'll address that separately. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add that this is not a discussion about whether we should change the policy. The policy is that cross-article consistency is permitted but not required. The issue is whether the MoS should have the words "though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole" in it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Break

The problem is that the second and third paragraphs contradict each other. The second says we have a house style; the third says we do not. Both have redirects (WP:CLARITY redirects to the second, and WP:Stability and WP:STYLEVAR to the third), so anyone reading those in isolation would be misled.

Second paragraph: "The MoS presents Wikipedia's house style, to help editors produce articles with consistent, clear and precise language, layout, and formatting. The goal is to make the encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to use. Consistency in language, style, and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion; this is especially important within an article. Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording."

Third paragraph: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason. Revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I see the third paragraph as a clarification of the second. It does not contradict anything in the second. The second says, "Consistency is good." The third says, "By that we mean intra-article consistency." Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph says there is a house style, but the third paragraph says there isn't, so there's a contradiction right there. It matters less if the two paragraphs are read together, but the separate anchors mean they might not be. The question is: to what extent does Wikipedia have a house style, or to what extent does it allow contributors to choose a style so long as there is internal consistency? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional discussion

I just want to note that I agree that User:Noetica was correct in removing the discussion that User:SlimVirgin started by pulling the archive instead of linking it, but some comments had been added when she restarted the discussion:[1]Curb Chain (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, Curb. SlimVirgin acted completely in good faith. I only objected because the way she did it left things unclear. I think it would often be fine to restore something had very recently been archived, and to put a clear explanation at the top. I do think that one is generally then expected to join in the discussion that one has wanted restored. I don't see that happening.
☺ Noetica^Tea? 20:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Curb's point is that, when you removed the discussion from this page, you removed six new posts that had not been archived. So they disappeared. But they're now in the archive along with the others. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

O yes, of course. Well, that's what can happen when material is retrieved from the archives without clear signalling. I have checked, and it turns out that anyone who made a post in that discussion has joined the new discussion, and can see what has happened. If anyone had been left out, I would have notified them now. Turns out not to be needed.

Noetica^Tea? 22:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of non-consensual edits concerning inter-article consistency

I have reverted (see diff) two edits by SlimVirgin. The change in question clearly has no consensus. Editing and discussion for this page are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions (see the note at the top of this talkpage); so a high standard of conduct and respect for due process applies. Please discuss more, and if necessary initiate a neutral RFC. If any RFC is not set up in neutral terms, according to the provisions of WP:RFC, I will call for its immediate closure and refer the matter to WP:AE. Please note especially: This is not intended as inimical to any good-faith development of the page; but experience has shown how these things can escalate, and how they can wear away people's time and patience. ♥
Noetica^Tea? 00:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

When changing subtle things, it's a lot easier on the rest of us if you use "Show changes" a bit, and try to minimize the distracting diff variants. I had to compare sentence-by-sentence, just to figure out that the only thing you changed in that edit was a single sentence, and a number of linebreaks.

This is why plain-reverting is bloody annoying. (The same thing is happening elsewhere at the moment). If you have a partial dispute with an edit, then just revert the part you disagree with (or even better, offer an alternative/compromise edit), not the entire damned thing.

Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The words in question were in the MoS for quite some time, and were removed without discussion. I have restored them because this is an important issue, and one that has caused quite a bit of grief on WP. If you want to remove them, please gain consensus here, or open an RfC to attract more eyes.

I didn't restore your other reverts, but I can't see the point of having six short paragraphs in the lead, so I'd be grateful if you would let them be condensed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Noetica, what was the point of this revert? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

As Noetica continues to object, I've opened an RfC below. Apologies if it ends up being largely repetitive, but it might attract fresh eyes and we can request a formal closure to avoid arguments. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I reverted Noetica there in a moment of irritation, but I shouldn't have, so I'm going to revert myself and abide by whatever the RfC decides. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

Trivial spelling or typographical errors should be silently corrected

MOS:QUOTE says "Trivial spelling or typographical errors should be silently corrected (for example, correct ommission to omission, harasssment to harassment)—unless the slip is textually important." I did assume the reached to trival grammar but now I'm not sure.

Is changing "... a old house" to "... an old house" considered trivial enough to silently correct? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 13:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Who's the writer and what's the context? Tony (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No specifics, looking for the principle meaning. There are likely a few thousand quoted texts on Wikipedia with incorrect indefinite article designation. If you want a specific case look at Gary Gygax ref 61 "three shot Mossberg 16 gauge shotgun, a old single-barreled 12 gauge", now you could silently correct to "an old", the alternative of adding {{sic}} seems a bit excessive. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 13:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go with yes that is sufficiently trivial to correct silently. Even changing awkward wording to smooth wording requires no previous discussion. Just do it and if people don't like it, they'll revert. Only then is discussion required. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"Changing awkward wording"? Not in a quote, surely. Also, people generally don't notice or care about most changes/edits, so I'm not sure about the suggestion that it would be OK so long as no one reverts it, as if silence indicates approval. As for the original qu, if it's a genuine, published, written source I'd prefer a [sic] - which mosquote also recommends, albeit more for what it describes as "significant" as opposed to "trivial" errors. When the original written source is a verbatim unproofed transcription from speech or as-live forum noodlings, one could be a little more generous with silent corrections. One other option for the specific option is to add the [n] in square brackets, which also avoids a pedantic and potentially rude or patronising [sic]. N-HH talk/edits 16:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, not within a quote, of course. I refer to awkward wording within article text. But yes, in general, people do not need talk page permission to make changes. Silence indicates a lack of objection. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

For changing 'a' to 'an' you could add the [n] but if it's changing 'an' to 'a' how would you handle it?

"the old book is not an text in the ordinary sense, but an actor. Just as much as the others."

— Vampyr

How could you correct 'an text' to 'a text', if not silently? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 16:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Or the third way: paraphrase, or part-paraphrase if the glitchy language is at the start or end of the quote-fragment. I often do this as a service to readers in our task of balancing the smooth read with faithful reproduction. And let's not forget: no one would bother retaining the original font or font-size, or the justification/non-justification, of the original text. Is "a" rather than "an" a substantive matter? That's why I wanted to see the context and to know who the author was. Tony (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Commas to delimit parenthetic material

The MoS says of using commas:

"Pairs of commas are often used to delimit parenthetic material, forming a parenthetical remark. This interrupts the sentence less than a parenthetical remark in (round) brackets or dashes. Do not be fooled by other punctuation, which can mask the need for a comma, especially when it collides with a bracket or parenthesis, as in this example:

• Incorrect: Burke and Wills, fed by local Aborigines (on beans, fish, and "ngardu") survived for a few months.
• Correct: Burke and Wills, fed by local Aborigines (on beans, fish, and "ngardu"), survived for a few months."

Am I right in thinking that commas should perhaps not be used in place of round brackets in situations where those round brackets are themselves within a parenthetical remark, as happened in this change here? I am inclined to reword the sentence in this instance anyway so that neither brackets nor commas are required, but I am curious as to the preferred way from a general grammatical point of view. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• • No; they can both be used. But here, why the parentheses at all? "Burke and Wills, fed on beans, fish, and "ngardu" by local Aborigines, survived for a few months." Or better, since a lot of commas are hanging around: "Burke and Wills—fed on beans, fish, and "ngardu" by local Aborigines—survived for a few months." Or since feeding months is not at issue: ""Burke and Wills survived for a few months, fed on beans, fish, and "ngardu" by local Aborigines." Tony (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

adding hyphens where sources don't use them

I have changed:

However, hyphens are never inserted into proper-name-based compounds (Middle Eastern cuisine, not Middle-Eastern cuisine).

to:

However, hyphens are never inserted into proper-name-based compounds (Middle Eastern cuisine, not Middle-Eastern cuisine). Or in compounds where in the literature usually doesn't use a hyphen, like second language adquisition.

Because there are names where the lack of a hyphen is not going to confuse any reader, like "cold fusion research", and barely any source thinks that there is a need for a hyphen, and wikipedia should follow the best sources.

For example The American Heritage English As a Second Language Dictionary is not a "second-language dictionary", and it's also hyphenless in Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree, although as a matter of principle rather than via reference to use in sources. My personal preference - and it's one validated by places I've worked and publications I read - is that hyphenation in such cases is only needed to clarify ambiguity; otherwise it's just the addition of redundant marks onto the page. Semi-formal technical terms often don't need it, as don't a lot of common constructions such as "public sector worker". However, my sense is that US publications are much more rigid about applying hyphens and that this is the practice preferred by most MOS regulars here. The proposed wording does also open up potential problems such as defining "usually", which sources we give credence and weight to etc. N-HH talk/edits 17:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should use the "best" sources in the relevant field. The editors can decide which are the "best" sources in the talk page.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I in a few discussions I have found a troubling double standard:

• if the best sources use hyphens, then we need to follow them.
• if the best sources don't use hyphens, it's because the experts often drop the hyphens in compounds they are familiar with, and we don't need to follow them.
• if popular media uses hyphens, then it's common usage in English
• if popular media doesn't use hyphens, it's because of sloppy editorial standards

This way the decision always goes in favor of using hyphens in all compounds. Idem for hyphen/dash discussions. Maybe we should agree on a single standard, and follow it. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Or in compounds where in the literature usually doesn't use a hyphen" ... no, this is well documented in RMs and the like. More often than not, the literature is inconsistent, especially where so-called experts in a field drop typography that's important for easy comprehension by non-experts. Tony (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "Easy comprehension by non-experts" is a canard repeated so often here that it has become a constant drumbeat. Enric correctly points out how the argument is rigged in favor of using hyphens or dashes always, regardless of what our sources do. Quale (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue has been mis-characterized. I normally would not suggest hyphens or dashes without evidence that reliable sources do it that way. But not "usually", as in the sense of "most reliable sources" doing it that. The point is that if some sources have shown that the hyphen is legitimately useful there to help the reader, than that's evidence that WP editors can rely on and use to guide the choice of a style that will best help the reader. It's clear the most reliable sources, especially expert and specialist sources, tend to drop hyphens when a compound becomes so familiar that is no longer ambiguous to their readers. That's not the situation in a general-readership encyclopedia. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If the suggestion is that we hyphenate a term if we can find a few decent sources that do, we may as well just say "always hyphenate" when technically required, since hyphenation practices vary so widely across the multitude of publishers and publications. Also, on the claim that this is about helping non-experts, similar to the hyphen/en-dash debate, we seem to be affording punctuation a pedagogic and instructive power it does not have, or at least has only marginally. The meaning of "wave-oscillating capacitor" is no clearer to this non-scientist for example than "wave oscillating capacitor". Equally, as noted above, where the term is more familiar to a general readership, the meaning is often so obvious that hypenation adds nothing, eg "public sector worker". N-HH talk/edits 08:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Tangentially, maybe – that's probably because neither of those are recognized terms, at least not to me :) It looks like those three sequential words are from a scanned datasheet that has been copied to multiple sites. It was probably originally printed "sawtooth-wave-oscillating capacitor", meaning the external capacitor that an IC uses as part of a sawtooth-wave-generating oscillator. Ironically, in this case, if the hyphens were in the source, it probably would have resulted in grabbing the whole term instead of leaving off the "sawtooth" prefix, without which it makes no sense. If that makes sense. :) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Internal consistency versus consistency across articles

This sentence had been in the MoS for some time: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole." The whole sentence was removed 12 months ago, [2] then restored, [3] then it was changed so that it read: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article." [4] [5]

Should the words "though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole" be removed from that sentence? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

[Correction by Noetica: The sentence in question had been absent from MOS for over 12 months, till Slim Virgin reinstated it a few days ago. It was then removed by an editor, and then restored in part by Noetica.]

Responses

• Oppose removal. There has always been an understanding that internal consistency is required when it comes to style issues, but not consistency across articles. There are formatting issues that are applied across the board (the general layout, for example). But when it comes to language variations, punctuation, and a host of other issues, we allow the editors on the page to decide, sometimes governed by personal preference, sometimes by whether a particular English-language variant ought to be dominant. The words "not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole" signal that cross-article consistency is sometimes expected, but not always, and I feel it's important to retain that point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• I am opposing the removal because style consistency across articles has always been discouraged since the "date delinking" edit wars years ago. It's clear and concise. The removal leaves room for other interpretations. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose removal. per SlimVirgin and Enric. (Maybe we can get "Description not prescription" added back to wherever it was, too, eventually...) Time is not especially relevant, the detail/context that the sentence contains, is. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Not taking sides in the RfC (haven't thought it through yet); but I want to point out now that all manuals of style are both prescriptive and descriptive. Tony (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly where it was, but I think it was originally in WP:NOT or WP:PG or similar (not a MOS page). Pointers appreciated though. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. I think it's important to include a phrase that underscores the point that we have options for styles. Otherwise MOS would require, say, American English and SI units and common date formats across all articles. The MOS is not a prescription to be applied slavishly to all articles. A short phrase serves as a useful reminder of that fact, and its removal, as Enric Naval pointed out, leaves room for other interpretations, contributing to wasted time in needless debates about inter-article consistency. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose removal. The sentiment expressed by the phrase in question is essential to preventing disputes over English spelling style, comma style, referencing style, etc. "The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." <grin> We should emphasize that we are not here to make everybody toe the same line. If somebody's formatting can be traced to a practice that is accepted in a particular venue, then that formatting should be allowed. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose removal. It must be understood that an absolute consistency across articles is not possible with the diverse population we have and hope to have. This lack of rigid consistency must be explicitly permitted, along with the wish expressed that styles be referenced and adhered to when possible. But when the permissiveness disappears silently quietly without much notice to the common editor, the appearances are chilling.

Which brings up two issues on my own mind. Noetica, do you really think that 12 months is a long time, for pages which nominally are to be used to guide the entire 'pedia? You've been here since 2005, seven years. The lapse of one year before even active editors discover a misjudged edit is not unreasonable. It would seem from your strong surprise that a year could possibly be called 'recent' that you must be far too familiar with these environs to tell on that particular.

These pages are not welcoming, quite dense, often confounding, and I am not surprised that editors would not often make themselves available to review proposed changes. Saying that "see talk" is sufficient for changes to MOS would seem to me to be entirely insufficient for the average non-MOS-wonk editor.

Removing the explicit allowance for editors to not be required to conform to the tittle of MOS, through a change by the MOS-most editors, is troubling on multiple levels. Shenme (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support the removal of text that was done twelve months ago. The stress on intra-article consistency is fine, of course. So is motherhood. But why labour to include what many editors have unfortunately misread as a licence for chaos? Groups of articles on similar themes benefit enormously from similar styling (where MOS allows for a choice). Why bend over backwards against such efforts? They are clearly in readers' interests. MOS was, till a few days ago, silent on such laudable efforts. What benefit is there in it making a statement that is bound to be misused by those who favour complete independence of styling, at each of 4,000,000 articles? No one is suggesting that a contrary statement be made; just that it is not the business of MOS inadvertently to counter worthwhile efforts to improve the readability of closely associated articles.

Noetica^Tea? 08:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
[NOTE: As I explain below in "Threaded discussion", I am tied up with matters in real life. I have said all I need to say for this RFC, in the discussion earlier on this page: #Internal consistency v consistency across articles. The question facing us is important, and I advise people not to conflate consistency of style for Wikipedia in general (the very essence of MOS) and consistency of style where choices are allowed in MOS (and there are very few such choices, at least in WP:MOS itself). Misreadings we observe in this RFC illustrate the very problem that such carefleesly added wording introduces: people do not read accurately, nor discriminate as we expect they will. ♥ Noetica^Tea? 03:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)]

By "what many editors have misread as a license for chaos," what do you mean? What happened, specifically, and when? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose removal by which I really mean "support re-insertion." Wikipedia is not like other encyclopedias. It requires on the unpaid service of editors from many disparate backgrounds and it has no chain of command. There's no one who can legitimately say, "Do it this way because I'm the boss and I've earned my authority." Inter- but not intra-article consistency strikes a balance between neatness and the diversity of opinion among our editors. If it is "bound to be misused," then show at least one case in which that has happened. Has an editor ever claimed "We are not allowed to make these articles match each other; the MoS says so"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose removal/retain - This would also seem to fall afoul of WP:ENGVAR, among other things... - jc37 20:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• I think the sentence should be re-inserted. It's good for readers of the MOS to see a reminder that it is meant to include only a minimal amount of standardization, and that there are many reasons why different articles will have different styles. Where some see chaos in numerous styles, I see a field of wildflowers. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. In my opinion, style and formatting inconsistencies across articles within English Wikipedia should be viewed as unavoidable exceptions to a general ambition that Wikipedia should be as consistent as possible throughout. Inconsistency should not be tacitly encouraged or presented as part of a "principle". 86.160.221.242 (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support re-removal per Noetica, and per the fact that the removal has been stable for a long time, and the fact that we do not need to repeat everything ever said in every guideline and policy on the system. It's already implicit in MoS's mandate as a guideline that it operates in juxtaposition and compromise with other forms of guidance here. Reiterating that a guideline can have exceptions, or that any particular guideline is not an ironclad policy, is not what we do here. Also, it really has been misinterpreted as a license for chaos. It was removed for a reason.

  Furthermore, there's an underlying assumption (one that is often advanced by the sort of editorial misprioritization addressed by WP:SSF, and WP:NOTHERE before it) that inter-article consistency is not desirable, and is immediately trumped by narrow, even personal preferences. Yet, obviously it is desirable to the extent that it can happen without raising intractable problems (like those addressed by WP:ENGVAR). If it were not desirable MOS would be very short, as the bulk of it and its subpages is style advice for dealing with English-language prose across all articles here. Material is not being broken out of MoS into small, topic-specific WikiProject "guidelines"; rather, the exact opposite is happening: Good advice from projects is making its way steadily into MoS so that it is applied consistently in articles on other topics.
  — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 08:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  You said "It was removed for a reason.", but what? The only clues I can find are the original edit summary, and the archived thread Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 124#Extraneous clutter at the top - neither of which discuss the sentence/section in question at all. Is there anything else to look at, that makes you (and Noetica) consider it a license for chaos? (I'm assuming this is related to some sub-battle about date or titles or dashes or engvar or etc, but I'm not familiar with what/when/where/who :/ If I/we have more information, we can give better input. It is an RFC, after all; lots of non-regulars who need context...). Here's the talkpage history from 4/5 Aug 2011, in case that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I second Quiddity's request. You are the second person to say that this rule has been "misinterpreted as a license for chaos." What happened, specifically, and when? Was it only once or many times? We've seen some evidence that this text prevents problems, but if we can prove that this text causes more problems than it prevents, then it should stay out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support re-removal When one says 'consistent within an article' and is mute on what happens outside, lack of consistency between articles is unambiguous as implied in the guideline. There is no ambiguity in its absence, and I find the deleted half superfluous and repetitive. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support removal. The main purpose of the MoS , like other guidelines, is to achieve a level of consistency above the level of the individual article. Even in the case of the exceptions which prove the rule, like WP:ENGVAR we strive for consistency with things like WP:COMMONALITY. It is not required, but within the context of the Manual of Style we should not stress that it is unnecessary, thus giving the impression that it not desired. I think we achieve a reasonable balance by not mentioning it all in this sentence.--Boson (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Remove to reduce chaos – "though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole" sounds like the opposite of what MOS is about, which is to encourage some consistency of style across WP. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support removal.—It's unnecessary to confuse editors on this point, when the whole of MoS concerns stylistic consistency on en.WP. The absence of this text in no way suggests that articles have to be consistent with each other where a choice is allowed (engvar, em vs en dashes as interruptors, etc). Tony (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose removal (of "though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole.") This is another case where discussion of wording changes gets confused with discussion of policy changes. "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article" of itself implies that between articles consistency of such choices is not of "overriding" importance, so if we were only discussing wording, I don't see the need for "though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole." That there is no overriding requirement for consistency throughout Wikipedia as a whole is clear from many other places (ENGVAR, choice of citation styles, etc.). If on the other hand those who don't want to include "though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole" seek thereby to change policy (as some comments above imply), so that consistency between articles becomes an "overriding principle", then these words should certainly be present, otherwise the implication is that consistency overrides ENGVAR, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
• Retain/oppose removal' - The key words being "not necessarily". On those formatting issues about which broad community-wide discussion arrives at a consensus, consistency can and should be enforced, but about those the community maintains a more laissez-faire attitude, editors should have the leeway to improve articles as they see fit, given the specific needs of the specific article, without having to answer to those who try to enforce a non-existing consensus. The very most important thing, which it is best that we put our energies to, is to give our readers good, accurate information, well presented, rather than that every article have every tiny formatting aspect be exactly the same. Such "fooliosh consistency" is, in Emerson's words "the hobgoblin of little minds", in Shaw's words "the enemy of enterprise", and in Wilde's words "the last refuge of the unimaginative." Surely our editors are just the opposite: enterprising, imaginative and open to the world. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Though they certainly are superfluous these few words can serve as a reminder to people of how we do things here. It would be much easier to point a misguided editor to this phrase than to the absence of words to the contrary. There may not be a lot of benefit but the cost is nanofarthings. JIMp _talk·cont 09:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Question - How does this apply to an issue like "The" v. "the Beatles"? Could/should we have our article about the Beatles use "The" while those about John, Paul, George and Ringo use "the"? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. Wikipedia should have a global view on that (unless the different camps become so entrenched and intractable that people just give up trying). 86.128.4.124 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur with anon. Where something is clearly incorrect English and can be shown through sources to be incorrect English, like capitalizing "the" mid-sentence, then the MoS should not allow people to use it. This is a separate issue, dealing with optional matters, like whether or not to use the serial comma. As for "The Beatles," its my understanding that their fans kept shouting until the opposition was too tired to object any more. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• An RFC should not be advertised misleadingly to the community. I have therefore added a factual correction that will appear on the relevant RFC listings. If Slim Virgin would like to amend her text to incorporate that correction, fine. Otherwise, please let it stand. ♥ Noetica^Tea? 11:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to write underneath my posts to correct or add an interpretation, that's fine of course, but please don't post inside them (this is the second time it has happened). In any event, none of these details – when it was restored, who partially restored it – matter. The question is simply whether we (now) want these words or not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Slim, I am the last person to want irregular procedure at this talkpage. But you posted misleadingly so that the RFC is not advertised honestly to the community; and your rewording is still misleading. An RFC is, as I clearly reminded people here recently, required to be presented neutrally (see WP:RFC). Please now reword accurately. I'm sure you will understand: if you do not fix the advertised portion of your text, my proper but reluctant next move might be to seek a remedy from ArbCom. Noetica^Tea? 23:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I assume you are asking SlimVirgin to alter the text at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines, presumably to include the text you added above in the "Correction from Noetica" section? (Your request is unclear, and bringing up arbcom is .... [insert eyeroll insinuating-word here].)

I suggest a simple addition, there and above (SlimVirgin only, please): just add the list of relevant diffs, and let people come to their own conclusions based on the evidence.

[6], [7], [8], [9]

It's not complicated, don't make it more so. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs, Quiddity. I've added them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed: it may not be complicated at all, Quiddity. Ask SlimVirgin who inserted the contested words in the first place, and with what consensus, and with what signalling in an edit summary. That might be relevant here, don't we all think?

When the extra words were removed, a year ago, there was reference to an ongoing discussion on the talkpage, where everything was out in the open. The edit summary (see Quiddity's links just above here): "Rationalise unruly bunch of mini-sections ('principles'). Reduce negative angle. Rm repetition and redundancy. See talk page." Now, let SlimVirgin show how the original insertion of the text she favours was managed. And by whom. I'm all for transparency. ☺!

As for referrals to ArbCom, of course I mean through WP:AE (ArbCom enforcement). My purpose is not to impugn SlimVirgin's motives or good faith; but recent cases have left this page under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, and as a regular here I am very concerned to avoid deficiencies in process that have wasted months of editors' time, and reserves of goodwill. We have to be especially careful. False advertising at an RFC notification, editing unilaterally without establishing consensus, chaotic discussion – none of that helps. Let's work collegially to maintain an excellent manual of style for Wikipedia.

Noetica^Tea? 08:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning AE has a chilling effect, and comes across (in this low-stress situation) as tactical. I'm not going to belabor the point, because it's plausibly deniable, and hence not worth debating. But everyone reading is aware, and most are rolling eyes.

Don't just insinuate, show the fracking evidence. Why are you asking others to do the legwork? ("Ask SlimVirgin who ...") Here's some relevant diffs, that led from its initial to final form: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] (And yes, SlimVirgin added it). It's not hard; Open the history, search for "consistency". With the time spent on crafting your polite wikilawyeresque statement, you could have been researching that, or doing something else useful. Grumblegrumble. [Addendum: Having trawled years of the history, I've seen how much work you do, and I do appreciate that. I'm just trying to point out that some of your sentences here are coming across quite badly.] -- Quiddity (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Posted with difficulty, away from my usual place, from an iPad, immersed in real-world concerns involving the care of an 89-year-old woman 18,000 km from where I am: References to WP:AE may be "chilling", but the mechanism is there for a reason, and MOS has a role and a history that mean we must exercise special care. It is not my fault if people edit it disrupively, or discuss without observing the protocols, or without revealing their involvements. If my objections when people do that are seen as unpleasant, consider dispassionately what chaos we must guard against repeating.

Look above on the page, Quiddity, and see how much effort I have already put into this discussion. Thank you for coming in now and doing some more of the necessary work, and for revealing what SlimVirgin really ought to hve made plain from the start. I genuinely have no time to do any more on this for a while. My opinions, and my rather closely articulated reasons for them, are all laid out clearly above this RFC.

Best wishes to all!

Noetica^Tea? 22:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to take part in a meta discussion, but I'd like to add that I didn't know before starting this discussion who had first added that sentence and who had first removed it, because there was a lot of history to look through and it didn't really matter. All I knew was that it had been there for a while, and had been removed relatively recently, so that's what I wrote. I don't like the implication that I knew I was the original author and for some reason wanted to hide that (why would I?). I also wonder what the point is of not saying directly: "Slim, did you realize you first added that sentence a few years ago?".

Anyway, enough said. I hope we can now focus on the substance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if Noetica is still amazed, (21:00, 25 August 2012). But there is a possibility of arguing that while a consistent style may not be desirable across all articles, a consistent style in groups of articles may be desirable. This argument has been advanced in the past for the articles Orange (colour) and Grey because they are both articles about colour. It has also been advanced for the articles in featured topics.

My problem with arguing for consistence in "groups" of articles is what is obvious a group to one person is not necessarily obviously a group to another (and what to do with articles that are obviously in two groups with differing styles). I suspect that while the argument about obvious groups is superficially attractive, due to the problems lack of clarity in defining a group, it will eventual lead inexorably towards harmonisation of style over large parts of Wikipedia. -- PBS (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

And then you have overlapping. There are many articles that belong to more that one group. What will happen when those groups have conflicting styles? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Important new RFC at WT:TITLE

Editors may be interested in a new RFC that has just started at WT:TITLE (not to be confused with an earlier RFC, which it appears to make redundant):

• RfC: RM is standard practice for reaching broad consensus for controversial page moves

This RFC affects the standing of WP:RM as the established central resource for dealing with controversial moves; many of those involve MOS provisions, so perhaps the standing of MOS is affected as well.

Noetica^Tea? 10:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"Airplane" / "Aeroplane" / "Fixed Wing Aircraft" in ENGVAR

Currently in the style manual: "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles. For example, fixed-wing aircraft is preferred to the national varieties aeroplane (British English) and airplane (American English)." Are we kidding? "Fixed-wing aircraft" is far less widely used and far less widely understood than either "aeroplane" or "airplane". Can we please find another example? This one is terrible and IMO gives absolutely the wrong advice (unless you're an aeronautical engineering student). --Lquilter (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It may not be ideal, but this rule does a lot to prevent edit warring over WP:ENGVAR differences. For article naming, so long as you appropriately redirect or disambiguate from other possible locations, this shouldn't create a problem. Unless the MediaWiki software is updated to allow you to select a language preference (and to edit article to enable this), i don't think there is a more elegant solution. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 13:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is that the example is bad, not the rule in general. 86.160.221.242 (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Anon. contributor is probably right. Better ideas, anyone? I know "curb" and "kerb" are spelled differently in AmE and BrE, but if there's another word for that thing at the side of the road, I've never heard it. Ditto for "check" and "cheque." Hm. "Athletic shoe" might do in the place of "sneakers" and "trainers" where "sneakers" refers to athletic shoes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want an alternative example, you can look in "Comparison of American and British English".

—Wavelength (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict): (1) The obvious solution in articles for lay readers is just plain old "aircraft" without the fixed wings for both the singular and plural of aeroplane/airplane(s), perhaps allowing subsequent uses of 'plane(s) or plane(s) when clarity trumps formal encyclop(a)edic style. When a wartime BBC bulletin ruefullly reports that "six of our aircraft did not return", images of helicopters and dirigibles do not come to my mind. (2) For better examples, perhaps "decision", "opinion", "verdict", "award", "consideration" or "reasoning", as appropriate, could be suggested as non-ENGVAR alternatives for judg(e)ment. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

But when I hear "aircraft," I do think of hot air balloons and helicopters. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, in normal parlance, "aircraft" is usually understood to mean fixed-wing aircraft. However, I understand the example wanting to be fussy and precise on this point. It would probably be easier, as has been suggested, to abandon that problematic example and choose an easier one. 86.146.104.131 (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this example should be removed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

But surely the point of the example is that the article is called Fixed-wing aircraft, however clumsy this term (and I agree entirely that it is clumsy). The example demonstrates the importance attached to avoiding ENGVAR disputes, even if the result is less than elegant. So I think it should stay; it makes a valuable point. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the passage as written makes the point quite clearly enough that it's talking about titles here. The article title is fixed-wing aircraft, and I think that's fine. On the other hand, if people were to start straining to use fixed-wing aircraft in running text, say

... but as Lindberg neared the Irish coast, the engine of his fixed-wing aircraft began making an alarming noise

well, that would just be silly. --Trovatore (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

But surely the point of the example is that the article is called Fixed-wing aircraft, however clumsy this term (and I agree entirely that it is clumsy).

And that's the problem. We usually don't adopt "clumsy" titles to avoid English variety issues. The Fixed-wing aircraft article is a rare exception (backed, in part, by unrelated rationales pertaining to technical aspects of the subject).

In most cases, if no everyday term is used across all English varieties, we do use an English variety-specific name as the article's title. For example, we use Waistcoat (not Sleeveless upper-body garment) and Gasoline (not Petroleum-derived engine fuel). Note that the latter is similar to actual suggestions that arose during the "gasoline"/"petrol" naming debate.

The example demonstrates the importance attached to avoiding ENGVAR disputes, even if the result is less than elegant.

But we generally don't attach that much importance. We prefer sane, English-variety specific titles to artificial constructs designed to ensure that no one "wins". —David Levy 08:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well there's "pharmacy" and "chemist's" vs "drug store" ... unless "pharmacy" in North America is considered only to be a medicine shop or section and a "drug store" is a shop (often a supermarket) containing a medicine section. JIMp _talk·cont 07:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the "fixed-wing aircraft" example is poor, as we rarely select such an obscure term over widely used (but English variety-specific) names. Many editors have criticised that decision, which certainly is atypical (even if valid).
A good example is the Glasses article. After debating whether to title it "Eyeglasses" (used in North America) or "Spectacles" (used elsewhere), we settled on "Glasses" because that term is widely used in all English varieties.
I'll go ahead and make the change. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert and discuss. —David Levy 07:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I reverted this change, because it doesn't make the point of the "fixed-wing aircraft" example. Although "spectacles" is still used in British English by some people, "glasses" is much more common – in fact the Google Ngram suggests that it has "always" been more common (and in American English, "glasses" is more used than "eyeglasses"). The point of the "fixed-wing aircraft" example is to show that we are willing to pay a price for commonality; the chosen neutral term is much less common than either of the ENGVAR variants. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

As discussed above, we usually aren't willing to pay such a price for commonality. We should provide a typical example.

Many editors argued for "Eyeglasses" and "Spectacles" (both of which were used as the article's title at different points), so it's an actual instance in which we settled a dispute by setting aside conflicting English variety-specific names in favor of commonality.

I'm sure that plenty of other examples are better than "fixed-wing aircraft", which reflects one of the most atypical naming decisions we've made. —David Levy 08:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that we are in any disagreement about what point to make, just what example to use. The "price" paid for using "fixed-wing aircraft" is, I agree, high and unusual, so this isn't the best example. But in the case of "glasses", whatever editors argued at the time, in both countries the term is more common (according to Google ngrams) than the ENGVAR specific variants "spectacles" and "eyeglasses". So this is an example where the "price" paid is, in my view, negative – it's a better title in either ENGVAR. We need an example where there is some price paid for commonality, but not such a high one as "fixed-wing aircraft". (I'm not suggesting using such an example because of other complications, but the preference of WP:PLANTS for scientific names to avoid regional and national variations in the use of common names is the kind of example I would prefer.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that we are in any disagreement about what point to make, just what example to use.

We're in slight disagreement about what point to make. I disagree that "paying a price" is an intrinsic element. The concept is simply that international commonality often is a deciding factor.

This, of course, doesn't preclude the use of an example in which we favored a term other than the most common one (provided that it isn't uncommon). I just don't agree that it's essential.

But in the case of "glasses", whatever editors argued at the time, in both countries the term is more common (according to Google ngrams) than the ENGVAR specific variants "spectacles" and "eyeglasses".

One of the concerns was that the term "glasses" has other meanings. (Of course, so does "spectacles".) Doesn't the Google Ngram Viewer graph include all instances appearing in the literature searched (such as references to drinking glasses and spectacles of nature)?

If you want to look for a "price", the article's original title ("Eyeglasses") clearly is less ambiguous. We traded that advantage for international commonality. (Granted, we wouldn't pluralize those other topics' names in the articles' titles, nor would we allow any of the three terms to lead to a different article.) —David Levy 12:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In context, "glasses" is pretty clear. It's likely to be used in sentences like "She poured beer into glasses" or "he put in his glasses." Even "I broke the glasses" is likely to be made clear in the paragraph. "He flew overhead in an aircraft" doesn't establish fixed-wing vs. helicopter vs. zeppelin. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And as noted above, "fixed-wing aircraft" isn't an appropriate substitute for "airplane" or "aeroplane" in most prose (though "plane" might be). That's part of why it's a poor example. It's stated that the principle applies "especially in article titles" (which doesn't appear to be true, which is a separate matter), not exclusively in article titles (which certainly isn't true). So the current wording appears to incorrectly indicate that we prefer "fixed-wing aircraft" to "aeroplane" and "airplane" in general.

Conversely, "glasses" generally is preferable to "eyeglasses" or "spectacles" (because of the aforementioned commonality). —David Levy 05:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Trouble is, both "glasses" and "plane" have a multitude of other, quite different meanings, so avoiding one kind of obscurity in this way leads to far greater confusion. You can't avoid ambiguity with Mercury (unless you want to use the far-less common Quicksilver for the element and the Greek Hermes for the god), since that's the unique, precise name for the Roman deity, the planet and the element. But where there are several valid synonyms or related terms, it's not a great idea, in my humble opinion, to use a more confusingly-general term to avoid terms that may be less common in one variant of English, but are still understandable (e.g. airplane & aeroplane, gramophone & phonograph, radio & wireless, automobile & motorcar, licorice & liquorice, pharmacy for British eyes, or cardigan for American ones). —— Shakescene (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Trouble is, both "glasses" and "plane" have a multitude of other, quite different meanings, so avoiding one kind of obscurity in this way leads to far greater confusion. You can't avoid ambiguity with Mercury (unless you want to use the far-less common Quicksilver for the element and the Greek Hermes for the god), since that's the unique, precise name for the Roman deity, the planet and the element. But where there are several valid synonyms or related terms, it's not a great idea, in my humble opinion, to use a more confusingly-general term to avoid terms that may be less common in one variant of English, but are still understandable (e.g. airplane & aeroplane, gramophone & phonograph, radio & wireless, automobile & motorcar, licorice & liquorice, pharmacy for British eyes, or cardigan for American ones). —— Shakescene (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Trouble is, both "glasses" and "plane" have a multitude of other, quite different meanings, so avoiding one kind of obscurity in this way leads to far greater confusion.

It depends on the context.

"Plane" obviously isn't a suitable title for the Fixed-wing aircraft article. But the Glasses article's title is fine. Because its subject is the one sought by most people typing "glasses", it wouldn't make sense for the term to lead elsewhere (such as the Glass article or a disambiguation page). So if the article were titled "Eyeglasses" or "Spectacles", "Glasses" would redirect to it anyway. And anyone reading the article knows what "glasses" means therein.

In general prose, the sentence "Smith owns a large collection of antique glasses." is ambiguous. But the sentence "Smith frequently wears glasses." is not (and is preferable to using "eyeglasses" or "spectacles").

Likewise, we can use terms like "plane crash" without confusion. —David Levy 18:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"fixed-wing aircraft" over "glasses" is like arguing that jamming your toe makes your headache seem better. Or that removing your eyeglasses would make the current spectacle much more bearable. Actually, that's the only way "fixed-wing aircraft" would be unobjectionable. Shenme (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Position of navigation boxes

I have never understood why navigation boxes are typically put in the "External links" section when they are actually internal links (see US Open (tennis) for a completely randomly chosen example). Surely they should go under "See also", shouldn't they? Is there a guideline about this, and, if so, is it time to rewrite it? 86.160.221.242 (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout (version of 21:40, 17 August 2012). Navigation boxes are not in the section "External links", but they are in their own section, below the external links.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but in most articles, as far as I recall seing, they are in the "External links" section. See my random example article, for instance. What should the title of the navigation boxes section be? 86.160.221.242 (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

They are demarcated by their structure, and not by a heading.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not clear. They appear to be external links since they are under a heading that reads "External links" (I have been around Wikipedia long enough to know that they aren't external links, but that's what it looks like from the section structure). Why would they not go under "See also", since that is what they are? 86.160.221.242 (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the kind of add-on that confuses my Watchlist, but perhaps that's unavoidable. That is, I see "Controversial Article I've Edited and Fancy I Know Something About#External Links" in My Watchlist (or in the article's own history) without an edit summary, and look curiously only to find that it's a navigation box or some Wikipedia template that's been added. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The OP has a good point; it might be worth raising this with the accessibility project, to see how such links are perceived by users of assistive technologies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Pine trees

Category:Pinus (pine trees) is a hotbed of Manual of Style rebellion. Or to be boring, the capitalization of article titles like Scots Pine doesn't comply with MOS:LIFE. Other trees almost always use the scientific name for the title and therefore don't have that problem, but tree articles like American Chestnut that use the common name for a title are also capitalized. Art LaPella (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The capitalization of the common names of plants (and other taxa) has been discussed endlessly elsewhere. The reality is that there is no consensus supporting the recommendation to use lower-case (other than for proper names) for the common names of plants (nor is there a consensus to use upper-case). (Also there are other quite widely used conventions, e.g. lower-case in running text but upper-case in titles, lists and tables.) Far too much time has been wasted arguing about this already without any sign of agreement being reached. If you want to go round changing to lower-case, you can do so, but accept that (a) in some areas you'll quickly be reverted and start fierce arguments (b) new articles will continue to appear using different conventions. Consistency within articles is enough for many (most?) of us. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable, but does that mean you would prefer we didn't have that guideline? Or should it say that trees are another exception like butterflies? Art LaPella (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer us to be able to reach a consensus, but long debates elsewhere have failed to achieve this. I certainly don't want any more changes to MOS:CAPS, which will just start up another time-wasting debate! (Trees are no different from other plants; there is simply no WP-wide consensus on the case to be used for the common names of plants.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If we can't make the guideline match a consensus, then I suppose I should ignore that guideline on the Main Page, and hope nobody else reads the guideline, which I suppose is the usual situation anyway. Art LaPella (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Peter on the whole capitalisation debate, however in this particular instance there is the additional question of italics; unless I am overlooking a minor peculiarity of guidelines w.r.t. categories, the common names in that category shouldn't be in italics. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean like Aleppo Pine? It's italicized only on the category page, where italicization is shorthand for "Aleppo Pine is just a redirect, not an independent article." Art LaPella (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so I was overlooking something. Not for the first time.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this confused me in the past. It's a pity that this convention clashes with the convention for scientific names. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Halliday rocks

Don't mention "ideational". Tony (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Content in templates

I have started a discussion of how to provide citations for content that is contained in templates at WT:CITE#Content in templates. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at VPP

People here may be interested in WP:VPP#Proposal to modify MOS:IDENTITY. Comments there would be welcomed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

More Than "Three Main Uses" of Hyphens

Hyphens are used to improve readability and word flow, especially when adverbs precede a verb:

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/hyphens.asp [includes this text]:

Rule 5

When adverbs not ending in -ly are used as compound words in front of a noun, hyphenate. When the combination of words is used after the noun, do not hyphenate.

Examples: The well-known actress accepted her award. Well is an adverb followed by another descriptive word. They combine to form one idea in front of the noun.

The actress who accepted her award was well known. Well known follows the noun it describes, so no hyphen is used.

A long-anticipated decision was finally made. He got a much-needed haircut yesterday. His haircut was much needed.

[Text copied from copyrighted material removed -- see below]

[And restored, with square-bracketed explanation now preceding it: see below]

Ryoung122 03:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the text you imported from the grammarbook site -- it's copyrighted material. In any event, the examples given in that text are already covered by the third of the "Three Main Uses" MOS covers i.e. the linking of related terms in compound modifiers. EEng (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

EEng, that is certainly not a violation of copyright. It is perfectly normal fair use for criticism or comment. We do such quotation all the time in articles, and of course we do it on talkpages of MOS when we consult compare sources. I have restored what Ryoung quoted, but I added a clarification to precede it.

The post is not very clear in its intent; but for what it's worth, Ryoung makes a good general point. There are other uses of the hyphen, and at some stage they should be added to WP:HYPHEN. I agree on this: the points in RYoung's quote are already covered in WP:HYPHEN.

Noetica^Tea? 22:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm shame-faced -- I over-reacted -- though the commentary-criticism exception is fair-well un-done by the post's total (or, at least, near-) absence of well-wrought thought-provoking use-of-hyphen examples (or counter-examples). EEng (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Does anyone mind if I add a sentence about infoboxes being optional, with the usual reminder to respect the preference of the first major contributor if no consensus can be reached, per WP:STYLEVAR? I am seeing infobox wars breaking out in several places and pages needing to be protected as a result. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I would think infobox requirements would be set at the wikiproject level, and when there are conflicts due to multiple projects, the first-editor approach to decide which to use should take precedent. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither Wikiprojects nor "first major contributors" (by whatever metric that might be argued) own articles. This is a core Wikipedia principle. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Masem with a proviso - if the project has a MOS subset, such as WP:MOSLAW or WP:MILMOS then it should take precedence over projects that do not have an MOS subset. Other than that, I'm fine with the first editor approach for any conflicts. I am opposed to them becoming optional in all cases. I disagree with Andy in part, in that I do not see that setting MOS standards cause ownership of an article. GregJackP Boomer! 19:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Where did I say that "setting MOS standards cause ownership of an article"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You did not say that, I said that. You said that "neither "Wikiprojects nor first major contributors ... own articles." I replied that having MOS standards, such as the one proposed by Masem and endorsed by me, would not cause ownership of articles. GregJackP Boomer! 20:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The current guideline is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles. DrKiernan (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, DrKiernan. So it would just be a question of adding the usual wording, per STYLEVAR/ENGVAR/CITEVAR, about deferring to the first major contributor where consensus cannot be reached. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

And is perfectly adequate (even if it doesn't give as much weight in favour of infoboxes as I would like it to). The problem is with people not respecting that, and not respecting consensus. The proposal above doesn't address that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Object; infoboxes are good and useful, and all the deference to first major contributor is thinly masked OWNership by vested contributors. And Wikiproject's don't own anything, either. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree - it is only if there is no consensus that it defaults to the original language. That doesn't imply ownership, it merely means that if there is not consensus to change something, it is left as is. GregJackP Boomer! 20:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I oppose WikiProject control here. The official guideline on WikiProject advice pages has given infobox wars as an example of what WikiProjects may not demand for articles within their scope for several years now. It is not good for a group of editors to descend on an article and tell the people who did all the work that they must/mustn't have an infobox, because we're a group of editors who called ourselves a WikiProject, and you're just a group of editors who wrote the article. (WikiProject, by official definition, means "group of editors who want to work together".)

The problem of conflicting advice is not trivial: not only do groups of editors differ in their preferences, they differ in which infoboxes they use. WP Chemistry and WP Pharmacology don't use the same infoboxes, but they do support many of the same articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Look at what you wrote: "tell the people who did all the work that they must/mustn't have an infobox". This is classic evocation of ownership. However much work a group of editors did, they don't own the article any more than a WikiProject does. However, a well-supported WikiProject has the advantage that it can set cross-article standards, whereas a group of editors who worked on an article are less likely to. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well said and exactly right. It isn't "control" - it is setting standards. GregJackP Boomer! 14:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Any well-supported group of editors can set cross-article standards. The way you do that is by making a WP:PROPOSAL to the community, and either we adopt your standards or we don't.

What you don't do is get a little group of friends together, name yourself "WikiProject Something", write down your advice, and then pretend that the advice of your little group has to be followed, or even respected, by anyone at all. The community, not little self-appointed fragments of it, is in charge of actual cross-article standards. Any group or individual can put their ideas or preferences forward, but no small group or individual can demand that their preferences be followed.

The actual cross-article standard for infoboxes is articulated at WP:INFOBOX, and it says that you can do whatever you want. They're never required (even if some group of editors says they are required for some type of article) and they are never prohibited (even if some group of editors says they are required for some type of article). WP:Advice pages specifically says that groups of editors who have decided to call themselves a "WikiProject" get no special say in the matter. Both of these are official, community-adopted guidelines, not just essays made up by a small group of editors.

There are solid practical reasons behind this. Many articles are tagged by multiple groups. We do not want to be in the untenable position of simultaneously requiring and prohibiting an infobox on the same articles. We commonly add infoboxes to articles about chemists. We commonly do not add any infoboxes to articles about classical music composers. And guess what? Alexander Borodin is both, in equal parts. Hildegard of Bingen was a prolific medieval composer—so no infobox, if all that matters is the opinion of the composer's WikiProject—but she was also an abbess and author, so other WikiProjects say the opposite. Albert Schweitzer was both musician and physician, among other things, and the WikiProjects make opposite recommendations. Boris Vian was author, performer, musician, and engineer. You cannot simultaneously allow all of the relevant WikiProjects have their way. It's not actually possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Are there advantages or disadvantages to infobox? I started two different BLPs. The first article, someone came and put an infobox on, but it doesn't show anywhere on the page. I added a question about it to the infobox, but no answer. I don't know what it does or if I should delete it. The second article, I found an infobox I liked on another biography and copy/pasted it to the new one. How do I know if that was the right infobox, or if the article would be better without one? There is little guidance anywhere about these infoboxes. Neotarf (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There are two main advantages to Infoboxes; first, they give a handy summary, in a semi-standardised format, of the key points and data in an article, for the benefit of our readers. Secondly, they emit that data as machine-readable metadata, understandable by scripts and computers, to allow it to more easily be reused elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have again undone SlimVirgin's duplication of parts of this section (she reverted me the first time I did so). I object to my comments, and others', some of which I had replied to, being shown out-of-context; especially (but not only) when done above the original discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC

Manual of Style/Infoboxes says that infoboxes are optional ("neither required nor prohibited"). I would like to extend this on that subpage and the main MoS page to read: "The addition of an infobox is an optional style issue that is left to the editors on the page. Where no consensus can be reached, defer to the style used by the first major contributor, per WP:STYLEVAR." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

MOSDASH-related RfC at WT:SHIPS

FYI

 – Just a pointer to a relevant discussion elsewhere.

This RfC should really be happening here, not on some project page no one reads but project members, but here it is anyway, and snowballing in favor of MoS's take on the matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Hyphens. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 00:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Although it seems to be getting a wider input than most debates do on this page, which also mostly has a self-selecting and limited readership. N-HH talk/edits 10:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Commas section

In the "Commas" section, it says "Commas are the most frequently used marks in punctuation, and can be the most difficult to use well." I do not believe the comma between "punctuation" and "and" should be there, as "can be the most difficult to use well" is not an independent clause; the conjunction "and" is merely joining the two verbs. I removed the comma, another user restored it and suggested we discuss it; this is me opening a discussion.  Chickenmonkey  10:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As with a lot of punctuation, including it in that context is neither necessary nor wrong (something that seems to get lost in a lot of MOS debates). It is however almost certainly redundant in the example above. N-HH talk/edits 10:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I just happened to be reading that section and noticed the presumably misplaced comma. I'm not extremely invested in the edit and am not sure of my correctness. I will let you all discuss and sort it out. ;)  Chickenmonkey  10:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the comma is optional; however, I would tend to use one in this instance, because it slightly changes the meaning. I would say it has the effect of presenting the second clause (with the understood subject) as a separate unit of information. In speech, I think, this would be done by using two tone groups, with a (perceived) pause before the "and": "Commas are the most frequently used marks in punctuation [pause] and can be the most difficult to use well." I think this adds weight to both parts of the sentence. --Boson (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)