Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

WP:IDENTITY on transgender people: why more opposers?

Compared to 2 years ago, there appear to be many Wikipedians now who disagree with the status quo of how Wikipedia deals with transgender people. Any reason it's becoming common now?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably in reference to these two threads: VPP:Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals

I don't know. Maybe it's proportionate. Perhaps five years ago, the cohort of people who had an opinion on transgender pronouns was more limited and would have included a higher proportion of people who've met trans men and trans women. With Manning, Jenner and Cox so visible, we have more people who know about trans individuals overall but a higher proportion of people who've only seen them on TV. The idea that the gender binary doesn't work for everyone after all can feel very threatening. People reject the idea to keep things simple. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Treating transgender people with respect has wide support, rightly in my view, but the Jenner case has highlighted more sharply the issue of rewriting history, which does not have wide support, equally rightly in my view. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Which Cox ? The most visible one is Michael Cox (archbishop of Cashel), but he doesn't seem to have advertised any kind of cornflakes, nor released any kind of documents. Pldx1 (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean Laverne Cox. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the reason is that as that we are applying MOS:IDENTITY to more and more articles... which means more editors are now seeing it in action. As more editors see it in action, more editors are discovering situations where it doesn't work well... situations that perhaps were not thought about two years ago. This happens to any policy or guideline... the more it is applied, the more it comes under scrutiny. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Intriguing. Like what situations? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Well... most of the push back seems to come from editors who work on lists and articles that focus on historical events. So I would start there. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am revising the heading of this section from Why is this happening?? to WP:IDENTITY on transgender people: more opposers, in harmony with WP:TPOC (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents, and it facilitates maintenance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I have amended your revision... the topic of this sub-thread thread is the question WHY? I think the question should be highlighted in the sub-section header. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Peter Coxhead. The gist is that while more people are aware of TG issues, and perhaps fewer people feel their worldview is threatened by TG people, more editors have become keenly aware of the challenges inherent in writing about people when we forget that informing readers is our primary goal, not assisting TG individuals (or those who have something against them) in any kind of language policing/activism campaigns. The best way around the problem generally is to rewrite in a way that doesn't result in confusing constructions, doesn't pretend that the past did not happen, and doesn't use conflicting pronouns or other attempts to reinforce the former gender linguistically, mentioning it only when the context needs it. Good: In 2001, Smith (then publicly identifying as a woman) won the BAFTA Best Actress award. Confusing, even if it's what some TG people would prefer: In 2001, he won the BAFTA Best Actress award. Disrespectful/combative: In 2001 (while still a woman), she won the BAFTA Best Actress award. No one really seems perplexed about how to go about this any longer other than people with an advocacy agenda to fudge history by erasing mention of previous gender identity, or those with an opposite agenda against TG people. They both need to drop their respective sticks, and remember that we're an encyclopedia, not a blog.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

MOS:QUOTE on translations: Bloat?

[I am revising the heading of this section from Bloat? to MOS:QUOTE on translations: Bloat?, in harmony with WP:TPOC (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents, and it facilitates maintenance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)]

A recent edit has further expanded a section that I think has a dubious claim for inclusion—at least in the already over-large MOS central. Why do we need a smattering of examples of what is a complex and elaborate skill-set and knowledge-base for translating foreign text into English? As a gnome, I encounter much more troublesome features of our translations than a few "false friends". This section should be much shorter and just link to whatever style we (should) have on translating into English. Tony (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that that addition is superfluous. The page should be less like a frog about to burst, and it should be less like a chameleon.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC) and 02:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I propose a new subpage: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Translation.—Wavelength (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Splitting MoS content into multiple pages does not reduce complexity; it increases it. It only makes the rules harder to find. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Foreign-language quotations can have a link to the new subpage. Also, the search box at the top right-hand corner of WP:MOS can be used for searches of both the main MOS page and also its subpages.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

How about just compress it into something meaningful and manageable? I'm skeptical that MOS has enough to say about translation that it needs a subpage, and agree that the recent additions are overkill. This is a manual of style; problems with translations are most often matters of WP:NOR. Poor translation that misrepresents the original material isn't really a style issue, but a content matter. When it comes to overinclusion of excessively long non-English text followed by excessively long translation, that's already covered by the overquotation guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for including guidelines

According to MOS:LIST#List naming, "the precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section". WP:LIST#List layout says: "Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list." (The noun "criterion" has the plural form "criteria".)
WP:MOS is a list of style guidelines, but the current version (version of 03:21, 26 October 2015 [UTC) does not specify inclusion criteria. Ideally, it would contain every guideline that every editor should know: guidelines with frequent applications. (Ideally, its size would not be daunting to an editor who wishes to study all of it.) However, sometimes editors want it to include decisions made about matters with infrequent applications. (Understandably, they want it to settle disputes on those matters, but the possibilities for inclusion are almost limitless.)
Therefore, I propose that the introduction of WP:MOS include a brief mention of one or two criteria for limiting what can be included in the main page. I perceive that deciding on one or two inclusion criteria will not be easy, inasmuch as there is a degree of subjectivity involved. However, the benefits can be worth the effort.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that that's how the MoS is used. Editors will come to the MoS and then either use the table of contents or CTRL-F to jump to the section that they need at that moment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There are known knowns and known unknowns and unknown unknowns. An editor who consults WP:MOS only for answers to specific questions could be for a long time unaware of guidelines that he or she is not applying. Wikipedia articles contain enough stylistic errors to occupy many editors for a long time.

Do you agree that the size of WP:MOS (the main page) should be limited? If you do, how do you propose that it be done?

—Wavelength (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaking from my own experience, when I was new to Wikipedia, clicking through six and seven and ten different pages of rules and still not finding the one I needed was a problem, but the size of the MoS never was. Because it was all on one big page, I could hit CTRL-F and get right to the point. If the idea is to give new Wikieditors a set of instructions short enough that they can actually be expected to read all of it, then we have to look far beyond the MoS.

So no, I don't agree that it's too big but that doesn't mean I'd automatically oppose any proposal to shorten it. If any part of the MoS can be shown to be unnecessary or no longer necessary, it might be best to remove it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Using the search box at the top right-hand corner of WP:MOS searches not only WP:MOS itself but also all of its subpages, so using the search box is superior to using CTRL-F and not more difficult.

One example of an "unknown unknown" involves the use of "&" where "and" should be used. I have frequently seen that error when I have searched in Wikipedia articles for other errors. An editor who has not read all of WP:MOS might continue editing for years without being aware of the error. WP:MOS itself contains many instances of "&" and many instances of "and", and there are people who do not know the word "ampersand", so in this example even searching on WP:MOS (if an editor has the idea to search) would not necessarily locate the guideline (at MOS:&).

—Wavelength (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

So the problem is that people don't know when they're breaking the rules. Shortening the MoS does not seem the optimal way of solving that. In that scenario, the Wikieditor would still have to take it upon him or herself to come here and look for information. It would make more sense for the information to be sent to them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

In each of my edit summaries involving MOS, I almost always provide one or more links to MOS, but in at least one recent case, my revision was later undone.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC) and 15:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

My proposal to limit the size of the main page of WP:MOS does not explicitly say that it is necessarily too large already. We can take preventive action before a crisis. Also, editors can overcome their reluctance to study WP:MOS. (One statement in my original post—"Ideally, it would contain every guideline that every editor should know: guidelines with frequent applications"—needs some revision.)

—Wavelength (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I'd say the criterion for adding new content to the MoS should be the existence of a non-negligible number of instances of a non-hypothetical problem that adding said content would solve or ameliorate.

Remember the discussion about the use of animate vs non-animate pronouns for fictional characters? We worked out a good wording but consensus formed that fights over animate vs non-animate pronouns did not occur often enough for a rule about it to earn the space that it would take up in the MoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that discussion, although I observed it only briefly when it was active. Since your post of 18:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC), I have been studying it more closely, but without much benefit.

I propose the addition of the following text to the end of paragraph 2 of the introduction of WP:MOS.

• New content on this page should be able to improve or solve style issues in more than a trivial number of real instances.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Well maybe that page seems more straightforward to me because I was there to watch it develop scrap by scrap, but I suppose you could use the table of contents [1] or hit CTRL-F "should the MoS" or "explicitly" to jump right to the part relevant to the issue at hand. ;)

I think it would be clearer phrased as *"Any new content added to this page should directly address some style issue that has [shown up in a non-trivial number of real instances]" because "new content" can refer to content that has already been added rather than proposed content.

But we should ask ourselves this: Would adding that line directly address some non-hypothetical style issue that has troubled Wikipedia in a non-trivial number of real instances? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

My answer is: Yes, it would address a style meta-issue. I have read, in a non-trivial number of instances, on this talk page and on other talk pages on Wikipedia, complaints that the size of the MOS main page deters editors from reading it. If the addition of content about a minor style issue results in editors being less attentive to style guidelines of more importance, then that addition is counterproductive on balance to the purpose of the page.

However, I do support the inclusion of minor style guidelines on other pages, preferably on existing subpages of MOS. Also, there can be a new subpage: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Minor points or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Supplement or something similar. That new subpage can also be an optional place for keeping any content removed from the MOS main page as not important enough to be there but still deemed worthy of being kept for settling disputes.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I've gone over what makes that a bad idea: Everything gets harder to find once it's not all on the same page. Whether someone's willing to read something is moot if they can't find it or don't know it exists.

Okay, then, I can get behind inserting some version of this line. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have considered your revision of the additional text that I proposed, and I have revised it further.

• If any new content is added to this page, then it should directly address a style issue that has occurred in a non-trivial number of real instances.

By using a conditional clause, I hope to emphasize (even if only slightly) the fact that we are not actively seeking to enlarge the page.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added the text mentioned in my post of 18:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC).

—Wavelength (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The additional sentence has been revised, with the edit summary "simplify language as MoS states", to the following.

• Any new content added to this page should directly address issues that have occurred repeatedly.

The adverb "repeatedly" is too vague, and the adverb phrase "many times" does not account for simultaneous instances in many places, so I have revised the text again, with the edit summary "making wording more precise", to the following.

• Any new content added to this page should directly address issues that have occurred in many places.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That's actually completely different. It suggests that problems that affect just one kind of article don't count. I think it should refer to number of incidents and it should definitely keep some version of "non-hypothetical" or "real" or "actual." We do get a lot of "Well this would stop people from doing something that I haven't actually seen them do" around here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Please revise the additional text on WP:MOS to match your standards.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC) and 00:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have revised the additional text again, with a version almost identical to what you suggested in your post of 01:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC).

• Any new content added to the body of this page should directly address a style issue that has occurred in a non-trivial number of real instances.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word "the" at the Lauren Lapkus article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Lauren Lapkus#Concerning the 4 characters that have caused such a fuss. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hatnote mentions sidebar, not visible in mobile view

In § Guidelines within Manual of Style we state "... see the sidebar at top right of this page." However, the sidebar is invisible when viewing the page in the mobile skin (look). (See MediaWiki:Mobile.css; the sidebar is hidden due to its CSS class "vertical-navbox", if I am interpreting correctly.)

I can think of three possible approaches:

1. Do nothing, because nobody who cares is using the mobile skin.
2. Remove the hatnote, because it's not important.
3. Add a note such as: "(only visible in desktop view, not in mobile view)".

Comments? Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Or 4: Make all templated content such as that sidebar visible to mobile users on clicking an "expand" button or similar. Stubsorting on a mobile when stub templates are invisible is another problem! PamD 07:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I have added the following text: " (visible only in desktop view, not in mobile view)". I consider this addition to be in harmony with the following statement in the introduction.

• Any new content added to the body of this page should directly address a style issue that has occurred in a non-trivial number of real instances.

I consider the edited subsection to be outside the body of the WP:MOS. I hope that even additions there be made very sparingly. As soon as this issue with the mobile view is resolved, the added text can be removed.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)