Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Computing (failed proposal)

Needs overhauling

I've lightly copy-edited the top, but I seriously doubt whether anyone takes any notice of this guideline as it stands. One change I made needs expert review, I think: "Video game vendors that make sequels and prequels for their most notable products sometimes affix to the name of a product a different number to the version number." It was pretty clunky before. Is the meaning correct now?

I see two structural issues straight off:

1. It starts with very specifically targeted advice, about starter packs. It should start with broad advice about style that applies across the board (with exceptions, perhaps, but they should be noted for editors' benefit). I've gnomed through a few related articles and found commonly repeated stylistic horrors, which underlines the need for a more useful MoS/Computing.
2. There are probably opportunities for merging guidelines into this one.

I'm going to leave a note at MoS main page, at whatever WikiProject is relevant, and at the talk pages of a few people in the area who I know are interested in style.

Your thoughts? Tony (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the light copy-editing. Much appreciated.

As for the two other points:

1. It starts with "common mistakes". That's the broadest topic I could find. And yes, it targets very specific audience, i.e. those who write computer articles. I hope I didn't miss anything. Did I?
2. Unfortunately this article is an essay and not part of the "official" manual of style. (One day, it will be.) Until then, we must be careful not to merge it with anything official without gathering consensus first.

Fleet Command (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks FC. But if it's not part of the MoS, why does it have MoS/ in its title? Something's amiss here, and I'd say a computing/telecom MoS subpage is very much needed. Tony (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Simply because I loved the title and I wanted it to become MOS one day. I asked an admin if I am allowed to use that title and he said he cannot find a clause that prohibits me and as long as I put the essay tag on it, it is fine.

And tell me about telecom. Maybe we can expand this essay. Fleet Command (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it needs to be a proper MoS page if MoS is in the title, and it's clearly a slip-up that whoever changed the title to our new formatting, with the slash, didn't notice the essay template. You might be interested in contributing to the thread at MoS main page, where a few other possibly similar pages have been mentioned. Telecom and computing ... is there a distinct boundary between them? What really counts is utility for editors who seek stylistic guidance. Sorry to be critical (now it's clear that it's largely the effort of one editor). Your expertise would be welcome: these topics are a bit of a mess in stylistic terms. How does this page relate to Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style (computer science), in your view? Is there an overlap, and could they be conflated? Tony (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I proposed a merger and received a non-negotiable "No"! But they do overlap. As for telecommunication, it is in direct connection with IT. For instance, take VOIP and unified communications. And yes, this article was almost entirely my work. (I felt there was a lot of unwritten consensus lying around that needed writing.) Not anymore! You copy-edited and now it is a joint work. That's how joint works start. :) Fleet Command (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Command-line examples is the other obvious merger candidate. In the meanwhile, I would like to make an attempt to add some proposals for the issues we recently ran into, for example on article titles. W Nowicki (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

We definitely need guidance as to upcasing and downcasing. It's clear that protocols, trademarks, and proprietary names should be upcased, but systems and servers and equipment items such as USBs (expanded) need to be dealt with. This is one of the glaring needs. Tony (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOS already has a section on this, so I guess that would be redundant. Fleet Command (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you'd think so; but the devil is in the detail in computer and telecom articles, where fine judgements sometimes need to be made concerning whether an item is a proper or common noun. MoS expresses the general principle, but it hasn't been enough to stop rampant capitalisation, which in the end makes the text harder to parse, especially for non-experts. Tony (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well just like in normal articles, I wanted to summarize and link to the appropriate in-depth discussion. Indeed, the problem is for topics like DSL, which started as one specific protocol (thus proper noun) but evolved into a generic term for a family of related technologies (so is being proposed now to down-case). Anyway, please review my proposal and let us discuss if it makes sense. We can then add other guidelines as we run into related issues I hope. W Nowicki (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Nowicki, is your proposal linked here? Tony (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I meant my changes to the proposed MoS/Computing, for which this is the talk page. delta here W Nowicki (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Styleguide version history / release history tables

I'd like to introduce the Template:Version template to this styleguide, with the goal to establish it as a standard. It simplifies creation of release histories, standardizes release stages and makes the content more accessible:

Version	Description
Old version, no longer maintained: 1.0	Old version
Older version, yet still maintained: 1.8	Older version, yet still supported
Current stable version: 2.0	Current stable version
Future release: 3.0	Future release

I imported it from the german de:Vorlage:Version and I synchronize it manually. It is used widely on de:WP and begins to grow on en:WP Please comment and/or help improving the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus Presley (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

Currently, in English Wikipedia, we have our own style. See articles like Internet Explorer 10#Release history, Firefox (actually Template:Firefox usage share) or Google Chrome#Release history.

Color	Meaning
Red	Old release
Green	Stable release
Blue	Beta release
Purple	Dev release

But in my humble opinion, this is a Color of the bike shed issue. It must not be put into the manual of style without strong consensus. Please consider calling in additional input. RfC, village pump or various WikiProjects (software, computing, Microsoft, Apple, etc.) may be used to attract input.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Fragments should not end with period. Also, I forgot to mention: I don't like it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Good ideas to use such a template, but why with colours? As someone with (slight) visual acuity problems, I hate that people don't think about those who have problems. There is nothing wrong with the default black on white that most of Wikipedia is published in. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, template documentation page says this template ({{version}}) populates accessibility data. (No more explanation is supplied.) In addition, as much as I appreciate your attention for visually-impaired people, I find that people blessed with the gift of sight also need attention. Wikipedia, for the most part, is black and white. (Images add color but are constantly removed with reason that amount to excuses.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so far for the comments. Accessibility is provided by replacing the color codes with replacement information inside the "title" attribute. As I only translated the template, I cannot report of more accessibility features. The color scheme (of course) is replacable, it can easily be adopted to the one that CN Lisa mentioned. However, above colors are not consistant at all across en:WP. IMHO it makes sense to introduce one standard - and I didn't find any styleguide that decides on this. I am happy with differing styles for (german) de:WP and en:WP. Jesus Presley (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Y I moved this discussion to the template talk page. Please continue there. Jesus Presley (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Cost and license should not be combined

Cost and license are entirely different things and should not be combined. Cost deals with money, licensing deals with rights. Palosirkka (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I entirely agree with "Cost and license are entirely different things and should not be combined".

What I don't agree is what you call "cost" and "pricing information" (judging by our conversation in your talk page.) For example, you regard "freeware" as word that specifies pricing information. I don't. Most Wikipedia, by the look of it, does not. (Evidence: The volume of editing that you have done so far and is disputed. When you find an entire world in need of editing, please take into consideration that your point of view may not have consensus.)

Freeware, by definition, is proprietary software that can be used and often shared with family and friends without restriction, free of charge. "Proprietary", "used ... without restriction" and "shared ... without restriction" are use term. "Free of charge", yes, it is price. So, "freeware" is three parts licensing info and one part price info. Evidently, you have only taken "free" and "ware" and thought it is pricing. No.

So is the commercial software: "Commercial software" indicates that software may only be used by licensee, may not be shared, restrictions such as number of computers and/or number of users is in effect, a price must be paid. So, the term "commercial software" is three parts licensing terms, one part price.

One thing I find disturbing in your editing is that although you wish to eliminate the distinction between "freeware" and "commercial proprietary software", calling them all "proprietary", you take your time to separate "free software" into "GNU GPL" and "MPL".

That said, since we already disagree, I called in an RFC. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like our little spat is a misunderstanding, a communication failure. I concentrated too much on the rousing allegations of censorship as that is something I'd never do. I guess neither of us assumed good faith. What you say about freeware and commercial software makes sense after all. You have convinced me now. Palosirkka (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

However, looks like your definition of commercial software differs from the one in the article which says that commercial software is a commentary on non-zero price alone. Palosirkka (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. About the "commercial software", I never disagreed with you. I agree completely. But it is exactly for that reason that Wikipedians always write "proprietary commercial" to indicate that a usage right is intended. (I myself write "commercial proprietary" to better deliver the message.) As the article says, "free software packages may also be commercial software". So, neither "proprietary" nor "commercial" alone sufficiently describe a licensing term because proprietary is a source model and commercial is a price model unless it is used in a context that indicates proprietary source model. (This "unless" portion is part of the key to our dispute.)

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Tenses in articles about discontinued software

This has come up in the FAC for OpenOffice.org. The project stopped in 2011. I see that, for example, RSTS/E is entirely in past tense, Microsoft Works has a not-entirely-clear mix of tenses. I put OpenOffice.org entirely into past tense - but is there a perceptible general practice about how to address dead software? - David Gerard (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

There are the school teachings, you know. Facts about software that are true regardless of time should be written in simple present tense while timed events should be in other tenses. For example, Windows 95 is an operating system; it is a discontinued operating system but an operating system nonetheless. Discontinuation does not turn it into a tomato. So, "Windows 95 was an operating system" is wrong.

That said, tense consistency is an issue of story books. Wikipedia articles are not story books to have a consistent tense. There is nothing wrong with mixed tense.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean. OTOH, for RSTS/E, was an operating system would not be unreasonable. (The software, company and hardware are long dead; old geeks might fire it up in an emulator once or twice just because they can and go "ooh, lookit that!") But OOo is not quite that dead. I might try recasting it along the lines you suggest - David Gerard (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Or not. Microsoft Works is basically along the lines you suggest and comes across as a mess in terms of tenses, often switching in the same sentence. It's not striking me as an example to emulate - David Gerard (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You are treating software like humans! It is an interesting take, one that shows your sensitivity to accuracy; but metaphor and Wikipedia are not really in good terms. Take this example: "Julius Caesar was a ruler". To our knowledge, he was not born a ruler but became one and ceased to be one when he died because rulership is invalidated with death. Now, which one of these two sentences are correct about a dead wife? "Lisa Hayes was my wife" or "Lisa Hayes is my wife"? That depends on the culture; some take death as an end to existence, while others take it as another great adventure. And it is generally not a good idea to say "Lisa Hayes is my wife" peremptorily to a woman one is dating.

But consider cold hard facts: "Halberd is a two-handed pole weapon." "Sword was once a widely-used weapon." "Gun is a modern weapon."

If we go by a rule-based approach, "To be" verb in all these sentences is a state verb and changing it to past tense requires the state to be invalidated. "Dead" is also an absolute adjective; one thing is either dead or not. That's why in legal context, which is strictly rule-based, Lisa Hayes is treated as a deceased wife, not an ex-wife, and Julius Caesar is a deceased ex-ruler. Treatments like "was my wife" are not rule-based; they are emotional. Saying Windows 95 was an operating system because we don't see it around is an emotional treatment of Windows 95. A rule-based treatment says "Windows 95 is an operating system which we don't see around much." (You and I both could argue that "don't see it around much" is also an emotional treatment too.)

IMHO, the fact that Microsoft Works is badly written and is using rule-based treatment of the tenses does not sanction emotional treatment of the subject. The solution is to resolve the badly written state through a rewrite that still supports rule-based treatment of the tenses.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

tl;dr "write well". Well, yes ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to fire up this discussion again. I just got corrected at Intel Binary Compatibility Standard, which I had written in the past tense, because this is a dead standard. MOS:COMPNOW currently states that:

TrueCrypt was a disk encryption program, released by TrueCrypt Foundation.

This sentence suggests that TrueCrypt is not a disk encryption program, although it once was. (Assume TrueCrypt has never changed its nature during its development lifecycle.)

I wholeheartedly disagree. This text does not, of itself, suggest that TrueCrypt changed into a tomato, as Codename Lisa puts it. It just says that at some point in the past, TrueCrypt was an encryption program, just like "Uruk was an ancient city of Sumer". That's not saying it turned into anything else. Its present status is simply left open; it might be lost, ruined, put to other use, etc. (I also find it hard to believe that "to be" is a dynamic verb here. "TrueCrypt was being an encryption program" strikes me as ungrammatical, but I'm not a native speaker.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! FWIW, using present tense per MOS:COMPNOW makes sense to me, as software remains what it used to be even after its discontinuation. For example, you can still download Slackware 3.6 ISO and use its packaged iBCS kernel module as if iBCS hasn't been discontinued long time ago. On the other hand, Uruk, as an ancient city of Sumer, can't be brought back to life that way. In other words, iBCS still exists in its original form, which was pretty much virtual all the time. In comparison, some ancient city also still exists in a virtual form, as a set of records, while its original, physical form, has been lost many years ago. Just my $.02. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Qwertyus

• I also find it hard to believe that "to be" is a dynamic verb here. Well, because it isn't. It is a stative verb.
• it might be lost, ruined, put to other use, etc. The first two almost never happen to computer software. The last is a valid state in which you can use "was", e.g. Final Cut Pro was a professional video editing app. It is now a consumers video editing app because the last version Final Cut Pro X, changed things a lot.

It seems you and I agree more than you think.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hm. Aside from the whole discussion, can we maybe remove the stative/dynamic verb stuff from MOS:COMPNOW? It seems really beside the point. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I wish it was that easy. They are the source of the problem, not a comment. Also, as I told David above, they are the rules, the basis of our rule-based treatment of the subject. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

License

Can I add to License section clarification and standardization on license tags. For example:

1. GPL instead GNU GPL or GNU General Public License
2. BSD instead BSD License or Berkeley Software Distribution or Berkeley Unix
3. MIT instead MIT License or X11

--Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 20:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

No, you can't; the guideline reflects community consensus and currently there is no wide consensus on restricting any of these correct forms. The community is free to choose whichever it likes. In fact, per WP:STABILITY, ArbCom has previously blocked people who made such edits.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I would only to make a provocation to discussion about it. Anyway thank you for quick info, let us begin the discussion to reach the consensus. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

First, let me tell you my feelings about such a mandate: I see no harm in using either "GPL" or "GNU GPL" and bluntly spoken, I think I'd be a very mean and sadistic person if I forced other people to surrender their freedom and stop using "GNU GPL" in favor of "GPL".

Second, A simple talk page discussion with a few dozen participants is not enough to override ArbCom sanction.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to mention an important thing that this will be useful only in infobox. I agree with it, editors may write as they wish. Determined writing of the license in infobox will be also useful when infobox entries will move to Wikidata. Besides, I don't want to override any sanctions. If this is a wrong place to propose it, then just please tell me where i have to do it. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 12:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Policy proposal ordinarily go to Village Pump. But in this case, you must first contact an arbitrator to check with him. Basically, you should state what you want to do and provide a very strong reason as to why this case is so urgent that should be exempt from past ArbCom sanctions, e.g. trying to prevent a huge damage to Wikipedia which cannot be prevented by any less restrictive measures. If he or she confirmed that you are indeed right and something should be done about it, then you proceed with the proposal in the Village Pump. There, you must collect a huge consensus.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I'll try to take this challenge :). --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 12:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Linux vs GNU/Linux

I basically agree. I've rephrased it a bit as a guideline rather than a rule (because the exceptions do exist, and legislating against editorial judgement is silly). I've also toned down the second paragraph, which came across as condescending. Do we have handy links to the discussions, since we're referring to them? - David Gerard (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, David. Thanks a lot for the review, though I'd rather we supply the reasons based on which the discussions are ended, i.e. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV.

The first paragraph, however, is where I tilt my head a little. "Generally," is redundant. (All MOSes have generally written on them.) "Exceptions include proper [...]" does not apply here at all because when you say "proper names", you are automatically walking outside the domain of "family of operating systems". So, this not an exception.

I am going ahead and fixing it, but if you didn't like it, you know where the revert button is, right? Bless you.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, cheers! - David Gerard (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Debian GNU/Linux is specifically cited here, although in practice Debian seems to be used throughout WP. A clearer example is perhaps Trisquel, which specifically describes itself as Trisquel GNU/Linux on its front page, unlike Debian. The Trisquel article was recently moved to Trisquel GNU/Linux, and then moved back again, citing the MOS, although the MOS seems to indicate Trisquel GNU/Linux is preferable. See talk Greenman (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Greenman: Is the fact that "Trisquel GNU/Linux" is the common name established beyond all doubt among the community, or is it challenged too? And I hope this isn't one of those cases when the editor practicing WP:BOLD has forgot to add an edit summary and riled up everyone! (That's pretty much always the case. *sigh*) Fleet Command (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Fleet Command. no, Trisquel would be the common name. MOS:LINUX appears to be ambiguous then, as it begins by stating that GNU/Linux should be used for the proper name of certain individual OS's, such as Debian, and only later mentions WP:COMMONNAME, but doesn't go into when each suggestion applies. Article names? Use in text? Use in contexts where a full name is necessary? I suggest rewording the section to emphasise the use of common name in article titles and in general text, and then give an example (if any exists) of when Debian or Trisquel GNU/Linux would actually be used (I can't see any right now, so not sure where the suggestion applies). Greenman (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Greenman: Hi. About this: "MOS:LINUX appears to be ambiguous then, as it begins by stating that GNU/Linux should be used for the proper name of certain individual OS's". No, it doesn't. It says "call the family 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'". The part about the proper name does not have "should" in it.

Still, I will try to make the sentence clearer because it is using a negative whose positive form might be a blurry shape. AVRS, for instance, was at a loss as to what I mean when I said "violation of MOS:LINUX", because MOS:LINUX says it does not concern itself with the use of GNU/Linux in proper names of individual operating systems. But to think this way, he must have taken it for granted that I think "Trisquel GNU/Linux" is the proper name, while I do not. I took the "GNU/Linux" in it as a descriptor. In this case, the descriptor should be "Linux", not "GNU/Linux". Now, I changed the MOS:LINUX section to mention WP:COMMONNAME directly. This will resolve the "does not concern itself" issue.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

So, after much back and forth, we're back to the original version, which states that "This practice does not apply to proper names of individual operating systems, such as "Debian GNU/Linux". Expect a further stream of edits changing article text and titles to GNU/Linux based upon MOS:LINUX :) Greenman (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Greenman: It is amazing how you hold no credit for the human nature responsible for the edits. When a person makes up his or her mind to do such edits, he or she would do it even if the MOS, through clairvoyance of the writer, call him (or worse, her!) by name say "Don't do it". "GNU/Linux" fans do not come to Wikipedia to read MOS. They come to change names!

IMHO, all this forth and back alterations were pointless, the section still says the same thing.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: this is all about confusion between article titles, which should follow WP:COMMONNAME and not generally use "GNU/Linux", or for that matter even "Linux", even in OS/distro names, and mentions in article bodies, which would depend on context: namely, if talking about the specific Debian variety called "Debian GNU/Linux" (there are other Debians!), it makes perfect sense to say "Debian GNU/Linux", and similarly, when explicitly mentioning the official name of an OS/distro, for example "Trisquel GNU/Linux", the actual official name should of course be used. The fact that we don't use official names, but common names, in article titles and elsewhere to refer to a topic does of course not mean that we're prevented from giving information about official names. LjL (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: Fully agree! But the title of the article at this time Debian, not Debian GNU/Linux. The example was just counter-productive and sub-optimal. I am open to replacing it with another actual and working example. Also, 73.40.108.10 is a stalker whose contribution to Wikipedia has been exclusively WP:HOUND. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk)

So why can't we simply spell out that usage in article titles vs other uses don't necessarily have to match? Which is what we had more or less come to an agreement to do, with a text I found decent, before most of it was stripped out... LjL (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Because, LjL, I think you are overreacting. You remind me of Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol: William Brandt was confused as to why people shooting towards them suddenly starting shooting a floating body with a flare strapped to it. "What were they thinking?" he asked. Ethan Hunt responded that they weren't thinking; they were shooting! Only they didn't have a tangible target before.

Do you know why PerfectBike was opposed so hardly? The essence of what he did was probably right. He sensed the full name had "GNU/Linux". But he overdid it. He renamed every nook and cranny of Wikipedia, even a sandbox, making people he has ulterior motivations. (Maybe he has.) If instead of renaming, he had thought a bit as to what he is doing, none of this would have happened. Likewise, you should stop pushing so hard for ultra-clarifying a text that the longer it gets, the less likely people would read it and the less likely they divine its purpose. So, while what you think is correct, you are in the wrongest place in the universe. So, stop worrying about MOS and get down to business instead; you know, establish precedence.

Also, there is one more thing: We have an operating system called "Microsoft Windows", right? But people call it "Windows" for short. Have you thought that even though "GNU/Linux" might be part of the title, people might still want to shorten it? One more reason not to emphasize.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, so now having a civilized discussion about a guideline (after the previous consensus about its contents was actually overridden and reverted by one editor) is "overreacting" and being "in the wrongest place in the universe"? I did also try to "establish precedent" by pointing out to you and the other (pretty rude) user that the reason you used for reverting PerfectBike's edits was badly-grounded in the policy being invoked.

As to Windows, you can easily see that while the article exists, it is a redirect to Microsoft Windows: the actual article uses the full, official name (in the title and in several other places, while - sure - mentioning that it can be shortened to "Windows"), so this seems like a pretty bad example on your part. LjL (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: There is little doubt in your civility. But the Victorian era in which longwinded speech was celebrated is over. Civil and charming as it maybe, it is of little consequence. WP:STICK and field work. (Also, don't think so badly of the other editor; plain text is occasionally open to being misinterpreted due to lack of emotional cues that disambiguate the person's intent.)

As for "Microsoft Windows", no the example is deliberate one: The reason "Windows" is not the main title is WP:DAB's mandate; it should not be confused by windows. As for the redirect, that's pure common sense.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Uh, what logic is that? "windows" is not a WP:DAB page which says "Windows can be the thing that stop you from getting cold, or Microsoft Windows". It is an immediate redirect to Microsoft Windows. WP:DAB does not (and cannot) mandate anything about non-disambiguation pages.

Anyway, if you don't like to have discussion (or "longwinded speech") about policy, well then perhaps Wikipedia is not the most appropriate thing for you, as there is plenty of that here, and justifiably so. You seem to be (very civilly) trying to shut me up when, in fact, the topic is actively being debated, and it wasn't me challenging WP:Consensus about this guideline in the first place, but the person or people modifying it from what it originally stated. I have every right to object, and there is no stick to drop, as there is no carcass yet. LjL (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I was trying make you less uncomfortable about people who don't appreciate your concerns and turn your attention to those who do. I seem to have gone the wrong way. Well. Ironic how you also told me not to overreact to PerfectBike's edit and I didn't think you were trying to shut me up. In a way, I stayed my hand. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Here, I've created your precedent. How long do you think before someone reverts it, possibly based on the very fact that this guideline presently doesn't provide any example like it did before the non-consensual change that removed the longstanding "Debian GNU/Linux" example? LjL (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

How is "Freemium" a software license?

"Freemium" answers the question of "do I have to pay for it" not "what are my rights related to its use". The latter is the concern of licensing. 02:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

I'd appreciate if you kept this discussion in one forum instead of multiple. (Just add notices to the forums to publicize the topic).

"Freemium" is a license type (similar to shareware, freeware, free and open-source and commercial software), not the name of a pre-written licensing text such as GPL or GFDL. As for "what are my rights related its use", yes, the word does imply that: Freemium type EULAs grant rights similar to freeware, but stipulate that with a payment, the user can receive additional features or services. For the exact nature of your rights, you must read the license agreement itself. (But again, this is true when you know a program is free and open-source but do not know whether it is under Apache license or GPL.)

Perhaps it helps alerting the participant what brought you here: The issue of what to put into the infobox to describe concisely and as much as possibly accurately, the licensing terms of a piece of software that allows one to use its basic features freely but requires payment for its additional features and services. Surely, we cannot copy and paste the license agreement in there. "Freemium" is an excellent compromise.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep the discussion here since it has the correct audience and greatest visibility.

Shareware, freeware, FOSS and commercial software aren't a licenses either, although 'Proprietary commercial software" is. GNU General Public License, GNU Lesser General Public License and BSD License are clearly licenses and are some of the choices that FOSS may use. The former are distribution models and not licenses.

If a product does not have a standard license type it's a proprietary license. So "Proprietary freemium" would be a better description. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I do not disagree with your proposal in the last paragraph (because it is a good compromise) but I myself won't go with it because when an article goes to WP:FA, they ask "why proprietary freemium? Do we have non-proprietary freemium too?" The answer is "no" and the author is forced to remove "proprietary".

As for your first paragraph, correct, they are not licenses (I said the same myself); they are license types (mind the word "type" at the end). But also, their use in |license= field is the best compromise to accurately and yet concisely tell the reader what are the licensing terms without risking a revert on the grounds of publishing extremely detailed info that interests a minority.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

x64

Apparently only Microsoft (and those rehashing their press releases) use term "x64". Term "x86-64" appears to be used much more widely, and the article about the platform is called x86-64 either. I propose replacing all "x64" suggestions with "x86-64". Opinions? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

I am afraid your proposal is already overruled by WP:ArbCom. (See footnotes in MOS:STABILITY.) Both forms are currently in widespread use, hence both forms are acceptable.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Command-line elements formatting

I've changed the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing § General guidelines section so it suggests use of the {{Mono}} template for the purpose of displaying command-line elements, instead of using <code>...</code> tag pairs. IMHO and based on my experience, that reflects the way command-line elements are actually formatted in many computing articles, and allows a clear distinction from source code samples. Of course, I'm more than happy to discuss this change. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Dsimic

I'm not sure I agree. For a single filename or inline name that one wants to retain the case and make sure no one mistakes 1 with l, {{mono}} is acceptable. Most of times, plain sans serif text is good. For one ore more lines, <code>...</code> is the way to go, if <syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight> is not available. The gray background is definitely a plus, IMHO.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Sure thing, {{Mono}} template would be used only for displaying short command-line elements, such as command names or their switches, as described in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing § General guidelines section. Using <pre>...</pre> or <syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight> would be the way to go for longer command-line elements, such as examples of command outputs.

What I had in mind while referring to "a clear distinction from source code samples" is something like this:

When running command foo, function bar is called to perform data manipulation.

In this example, foo is the name of a command, while bar is the name of a subroutine. Unfortunately, I can't recall the exact article in which I've seen something like that, but it is present. Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dsimic: Very close to what I have in mind. (In real world, bar is something like CreateFileEx1. So, yes.)

But (prompt) command parameter-name should be in <code>...</code>. What's your take?

Also, please make sure you notify the original author, FleetCommand. I think he'd like it if you called him, than I did with a ping.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

To me, something involving a command prompt and a set of switches/paremeters, what should apply to longer command-line examples in general, would fit the best in a separate line using <pre>...</pre> or <syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight>. Sure thing, let's hear FleetCommand's opinion as well; thank you, Codename Lisa, for pointing that out. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dsimic and Codename Lisa: I just logged in and it seems I must already go. So, I'll be brief; please ask for any needed clarification. (Codename Lisa knows how to find me outside Wiki.) <Code> and <SyntaxHighlight> tags are more than just some formatting tags. They are HTML5 semantic tags, something that {{Mono}} (essentially a <Span> tag) and <Pre> tag aren't. You might not immediately feel their importance but many technologies that provide for your good life today use them, including your favorite search engine. Its companion is <Samp> tag, used to format sample output. <Kbd> and <Var> tags are for key combinations and variables.

Code snippet: Out ("Hello, World!")

Output: C:\> Hello, World!

Keyboard: CTRL + Alt + Delete

Sample text: Use MaxRows variable

So, any piece of code whose sense for a computer is similar to the sense of a sentence or fragment for human must be put inside <Code> tag, inline or otherwise. If you don't like the gray background, you must appeal to the MediaWiki developers (or something to that effect) or use alternative CSS styling. It is my understanding that if your personal opinion is different from that of the public, you can write your own personal Common.css in your user space which overrides Wikipedia's. Fleet Command (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for a detailed explanation, FleetCommand! I see what you mean, but could having another template, which would apply additional CSS to the <code> tag to make its appearance different, be a possibility? I'm having readability of something like "When running command foo, function bar is called to perform data manipulation" in mind when referring to that additional template; it might be found to be similar to what we have available with the {{Key press}} template (which produces things like Ctrl+Alt+Del), for example. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dsimic: Your example is okay AND is not constrained by the MOS in any way because a single name of a function plus a name of a command are hardly exclusive command-line items. And yes, you can apply CSS to <code>. So, even if you don't change the MOS, you can still do your formatting things in the articles. Fleet Command (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, Ok, guess that editors are given their freedom of choice when it comes to different fixed-width styles. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dsimic: Indeed they do. There is only a consistency requirement that shouldn't be a problem. Fleet Command (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Linux vs GNU/Linux (2)

The MOS:LINUX guideline is a shame, specially as it stands now.

According to it, the Android (operating system) page (among others) should not even exist or should be merged into Linux. It is also worded to imply that "GNU/Linux" is only used by the FSF and thus must be refused on those grounds, but this is an outright lie as can be witnessed in a particular section/paragraph at Linux and a more extensive list I have prepared during the last years.

If you are going to put forward a guideline that favors the common usage of a term over its correctness and accuracy at least formulate it properly. --isacdaavid 05:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: We've discussed this issue ad nauseam; discussing this with one who opens the discussion with "you are a liar" simply can't happen. The part about Android is pure nonsense. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Isacdaavid didn't call anyone liar. He told a lie (i.e. his first two sentences of the second paragraph) and then said it is a total lie. It is called a straw man, which is an extension of lying.

Fleet Command (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the Debian GNU/Linux example because the removal appears to be motivated by a recent dispute where the example was cited in discussion and now participants on one side of the discussion are trying to change the rules against consensus. 73.40.108.10 (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, hello! If it isn't my favorite stalker!

I already said why I removed the example: Because it is not practice. But since you are a stalker whose contributions so far have been exclusively hounding, I say your restoration is probably motivated by harassment and nothing else.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of Internet/internet

Apologies if this is re-opening a can of worms. I've done some searching but can't find much.

Wikipedia, strangely, has an article about the history of the capitalization of "Internet", but the Manual of Style doesn't seem to have any guidance on it. Am I missing something?

... My own two cents: capitalizing internet is archaic and looks stuffy - and as far as I can tell, there was never any good reason to treat it as a proper noun in the first place. The article on the history of its capitalization helpfully provides a list of publications that don't capitalize:

"A significant number of publications do not capitalize internet. Among them are The Economist, the Financial Times, The Times, the Guardian, the Observer, the BBC, and the Sydney Morning Herald. As of 2011, most publications using "internet" appear to be located outside North America, but the gap is closing. Wired News, an American news source, adopted the lower-case spelling in 2004. Around April 2010, CNN shifted its house style to adopt the lowercase spelling."

Thoughts? Popcornduff (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! To me, it should be capitalized when referring to the Internet as a global network, and left uncapitalized when referring to individual or generic interconnected networks. Just my two cents. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks the reply. Care to explain why?

Anyone else want to chip in? Popcornduff (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, when referring to the Internet as a global network, IMHO it's about a unique entity, something you can pretty much point a finger to and say "that's it". With individual interconnected networks, internets, it's not about unique entities but rather about the concept of internetworking. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that it's a unique, individual entity. But that isn't grounds for capitalising it - it isn't a proper title. Anyway, most major publications aren't capitalising it any more. Popcornduff (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm far from being a linguistic expert, but a unique entity should qualify as a proper noun, which in turn should be capitalized. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Re-opening this discussion because 1) I forgot about it the first time, apologies and 2) it's come up on a page I edit. I still think there's no need to capitalise internet. It's basically archaic at this point, and just because there's one of something doesn't mean it becomes a proper noun. Examples: we don't write the Ocean or the Sky. To which you might respond "but there are multiple oceans and skies", which is true if you look at it in one way, but it's also true of internets. We also don't write the World, or the Universe... without wanting to get into a metaphysical debate. Popcornduff (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's time to lowercase this. Per WP:MOSCAPS, only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. Numerous and possibly most mainstream reliable sources now lowercase "internet". Popcornfud (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

HTTPS use

How come we are prevented from putting in HTTPS links for sites that support both properly, but not enforce HTTPS?

A recent edit on the FaceTime article pointed to this project page, and I would like to understand why we are putting users at risk by redirecting them to non-secure resources. #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 09:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, DokReggar

The edit in the FaceTime article uses a protocol-relative link. It means, I, who visit Wikipedia over HTTPS, see that link over HTTPS too.

As for why, did you notice the footnote? There was a discussion at "Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 111 § As WP uses HTTPS, should (some) external links, too?" and this page only reflects that consensus.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, well, I knew I already read something on that topic, but did not manage to find it. Thanks, Codename Lisa.

That being said, Wikipedia is a major website, and user security should be considered. I do not understand why sites properly supporting HTTPS, but not mandating it, should not be pointed to using secure links, particularly after all the revelations about mass-scale surveillance. A secure link has no downside over a secure one, as long as the website supports it, which I checked before editing. Wikipedia can (and should, in my opinion) take a stand towards a secure Internet for its users.

Thanks for the feedback anyway :-). #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 10:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

In case of apple.com/mac/facetime, it does not offer anything unique to each visitor, so security is practically not a concern. Participants in that discussion were more concerned about the feasibility of loading the site over congested networks. So, the PURL clause helps both group: People who are overly concerned about security will get HTTPS, while people who have to navigate network congestion will get HTTP. It is a win-win. I myself get HTTPS.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The URL does not display things unique to the visitor, but there are nevertheless cookies involved, which may hence be a confidentiality breach. But security does also concerns itself with integrity, and it has been shown multiple times that large-scale injection of exploits is possible (and done) through insecure connections. Using a secure connection prevents a third-party from tampering with the connection, hence securing their browser and operating system.

I will not (unless requested) bother you or take more of your time on that topic; I accept the current consensus, even though I strongly disagree with it. #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 13:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Command names at the start of sentence

Should the name of a CLI command be capitalised if it begins a sentence? Fizzwhiz (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi

If the natural case is lowercase, no, especially if the command is case-sensitive. If you feel uncomfortable still, wrap them in <code>...</code>.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Rewording "shell-specific sequence"

I don't consider describing the shell syntaxes as FOO-like a good idea. Shell language should be categorized into families, but the MOS should not do any overly clever comparisons to describe these families.

Instead of:

If a shell-specific sequence is required for proper explanation, provide an example for the ALGOL-like shells (Bourne shell, Korn shell, and Bash) as well as one for the C-like syntax of C shell and tcsh.

The MOS should say:

If a shell-specific sequence is required for proper explanation, provide an example for the POSIX family of shells (Bourne shell, Korn shell, and Bash) as well as one for the C shell syntax of C shell and tcsh.

--Artoria2e5 emits crap 21:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The suggested "POSIX family of shells" already encompasses C shell and tcsh. Then, the suggested sentence compares two non-homogeneous groups. That's the recipe for trouble. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Kernel Linux: "name advocated by"

See also: Talk:Linux kernel § Linux is a kernel and a so called operating system family but it's NOT an operating system

@Dsimic: I don't understand well this Special:diff/725707657/725707915.

With this phrase

GNU/Linux is a name advocated by the Free Software Foundation (FSF)

...but also the word "Linux" is also "advocated" by someone else. It's a registered trademark of the Linux Mark Institute to talk about the Linux kernel project. So, for completion, I don't think that there is anything strange to keep this information for the balance of the POV. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! See, the term "GNU/Linux" is considered a point of view here on Wikipedia, because it's used by a minority that pretty much boils down to the Free Software Foundation and its associated projects. As a result, and regarding the diff you've linked above, it's better not to blur the MOS:LINUX guideline with additional explanations that actually don't contribute to the guideline itself. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I know that in en.wiki GNU/Linux is considered a POV to talk about the operating system, bus you have to consider that Linux is neutral only to talk about a kernel, but for the same reasons you said, it is itself a POV if used to talk about a complete operating system. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is the English Wikipedia. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't change the subject: the title of this section is clear and I've already explained my edit. Could you be so kind to explain why you don't want to solve the POV about the "advocated" phrase? --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not changing the subject, and "GNU/Linux" is clearly advocated by the FSF. Moreover, I've already answered your questions. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Unrelated Please take a small wikibreath... Read carefully what I have done. This is not the place to discuss the GNU/Linux term, I'm not discussing that, I've not done an edit about that here (IMHO: even if it's still an historical very sad en.wiki bug). As I've already said, in the evidenced sentence there is an heavy POV. We should say that in en.wiki the term GNU/Linux is *not* avoided for the reason in that sentence, because on the other hand the word "Linux" it's *also* strongly "advocated" by someone else who want that only attributed to a kernel, and I'm not talking about GNU-developers, very-boiling-FSF-lovers, Linux-haters, Ubuntu-geeeks-haters, etc. I'm talking about that "Linux ®" is a trademark that without an explicit permission is only to attribute to a kernel project and not to something else. Again, don't talk about the MOV, that it was not touched there. So, to be complete, I've added both the backgrounds. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dsimic:: Hi. You have reverted this addition by Valerio Bozzolan:

"GNU/Linux" is a name advocated by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) that refers to a complete operating system and "Linux" is a registered trademark of the Linux Mark Institute that refers to the kernel project.

Mind if you tell me what's wrong with it? Thanks.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

As I explained here, that the Linux kernel is a thing does not mean that the Linux operating system does not exist or that Linux solely refers to the kernel. I agree with Dsimic's edit, as the change made it seem as if Linux were solely the name of a kernel and any instance of Linux refers to the kernel; this is not the case, as reliable sources (Linux Foundation, Torvalds, IEEE and others) show. Despite what the edit suggested, Linux does not solely refer to "a kernel project". - Aoidh (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Judging by what you say, the problematic part is "that refers to the kernel project", not the whole thing. Even then, we can still change it to "originally intended for the kernel project". But I myself am in favor of Dsimic's removal on the grounds of brevity, staying on topic and avoiding redundancy.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa and Aoidh: I'm also in favour of brevity, but after neutrality. It's true that Torvalds developed a kernel? It's true that Torvalds used the already existing GNU operating system in top of his kernel? *It's true that Torvalds use to call that whole thing as his kernel*? If so, and please don't discuss here about the Linus Torvalds work, we have to be neutral: GNU/Linux is "advocated" by the FSF? Well, that is not the reason because of Wikipedia don't choose that form: because we can't prefer the also criticized Torvalds POV where he is giving something-with-his-name-plus-"x" on top of 7-8 years of other people work (a.k.a. GNU development). We want brevity? We are OK with the deletion of the Dsmic's edit? We have also to say that Wikipedia don't choose the Linus Torvalds POV, but choose "Linux" *only* because of the English language. Wikipedia can't prefere a POV instead of another POV. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality of point of view belongs to the article. This is MOS we are talking about. It should tell the editor what to do and what not to do and shouldn't waste their time giving factlets like '"Linux" is a registered trademark of the Linux Mark Institute that refers to the kernel project'. Having said that, I might as well add that this MOS isn't playing unfair with the matter at hand either; it is already neutral. Your change does not improve that aspect. Fleet Command (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: Neutrality can be also be reached with less words:

Use "Linux" (e.g. "Linux distribution") instead of "GNU/Linux" to refer to the family of operating systems that make use of the Linux kernel, but keep the disambiguation: "Linux" itself it's not an operating system. The term "GNU/Linux" may still be written as part of the proper names of individual operating systems.
GNU/Linux naming controversy does exist, but Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources). The discussions are archived in the Talk:Linux/Name. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Notes: a lot of operating systems are not based on a kernel: it's better to say that they use a kernel; as said, the FSF viewpoint is not too much important over the Linus Torvalds viewpoint: it's better to avoid that argument to avoid flames and/or POV favouritisms. The small part in the code it's what we should discuss in the see also discussion to be even more neutral. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Sorry for my delayed response. I've reverted that edit simply because it doesn't contribute to the MOS:LINUX guideline, and instead serves just as a "trampoline" for yet another "Linux is a kernel, not an operating system" crusade, so to speak. As Aoidh and FleetCommand already pointed out, our MOS entries should be brief and to the point. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Dsimic, with your statement on record, we are now officially four people in favor being brief and to the point. (CL also said "brevity, staying on topic and avoiding redundancy".) Fleet Command (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Prohibition of "cross-platform"?

Can anyone point to the policy (allegedly on the MOS:COMPUTING page) that forbids "cross-platform" as a descriptive term for being a WP:WEASEL? Such that the term should be summarily removed or replaced [1] [2] [3] [4] with "dunno", even for tools like Apache Ant that exist primarily to work cross-platform, so as to provide a single tool and single script solution for coders needing to work transparently cross-platform. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey there, Andy Dingley

I wanted to start by saying "MOS:COMPUTING doesn't explicitly forbid 'cross-platform'" but you seem to have given the correct answer yourself: The description of WP:WEASEL does indeed seem to fit "cross-platform". So, yes, its summary removal might be very well justified – forgive me if I don't want to be part of whatever dispute there is. (See also weasel word.) The closest thing in the MOS:COMPUTING is MOS:COMPUTING § Oft-neglected sources. But it is often easier to replace "cross-platform" with the name of the actual operating systems and platforms, like Java SE.

Cheers. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I remember something: Back when I was active in Wikipedia I kept seeing articles with "cross-platform" and "multilingual" put in the infobox just to fill it up. It was very annoying. You see infobox, is the place that you prove something is cross-platform or multilingual by listing all the platforms and languages or at list give a source, so that someone else can fill it up. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

So what about those tools (like Ant) where a large part of its original function was to be cross-platform, and to solve regular issues in handling cross-platforming? This is a regular problem in some fields: either to support several platforms from a single source code base (see single source publishing) or to support new platforms, even those not as yet invented, with the minimum of new platform effort needed to make the port. As my comment (summarily reverted) was, "The platform, if anything, is Java. If there's a JVM, Ant will run on it and will also hide many OS variations." This is a very common problem in the area of build tools.

I'm all for removing weasels, when they really are weasels, but some uses are stoatally appropriate.

Also I'm being blindly reverted, citing a styleguide as overriding a policy, and it's a style guide that doesn't even mention the term. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Let's make sure you are looking at this the right way. So, you know Ant; for you, it is cut and dried. I don't know what is Ant. Now, you tell me it is cross-platform. Still it adds zero to my knowledge because (1) every app is cross-platform nowadays and (2) I still don't know on which platforms it runs and (3) platform itself is a loose word with overlapping meaning domains.

So, is the person who reverted you an asshole who has done this just to harass you? Or is he (or she) a poor baffled soul who, try as he might, cannot extract any information from "cross-platform"? It is for you to decide but WP:AGF.

And there is another thing too: I am very comfortable with breaking rules in Wikipedia, be it a guideline, policy, ArbCom ruling, etc. but I do it with a very good rationale. So, someone has apparently reverted you, citing a guideline. In return what do you have that is stronger than that guideline? The best thing I can give you is WP:LEAD: You are allowed to write "Ant is a cross-platform app" in the lead if (1) in the body you expound on which platforms it runs and (2) you have source for it.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 17:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't edit much on medicine or chemistry, because they're not subjects I'm familiar with. I certainly don't do bulk removals because I don't understand something. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I can argue that in case of a weasel word, there isn't anything that anyone can understand. Actually, it is their job to fool people into thinking they understood something. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 17:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

So why is "cross-platform" a weasel word? I'm being reverted here citing a style guide that doesn't even mention it! Cross-platform is an article here: presumably we accept that it's a WP:NOTABLE topic, or else that needs to be deleted too. So we have a meaning for "cross-platform" (which no-one has challenged) and the problem is that the term is also used in a weasel-like manner. How much software is still described as "user-friendly"? Yes, when it's a vacuous term applied to things where the meaning is weak and irrelevant, then it ought to go. But when it's a key part of the subject, it ought to stay. There is nothing weaselish about describing Ant or Jenkins as cross-platform; it's a key part of comparing them to the corresponding Windows-only tools. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Alright, now you are starting to beat yourself up. (And I am still hard on not interfering with the dispute.) I already told you what to do: The WP:LEAD thing and the replacing |operating system=cross-platform with |platform=Java SE. So, do yourself a favor, and suck it up and do it. Trust me, this improves the article's quality. If the situation is more complex than what I assume, you can always replace the word "cross-platform" with the name of the actual platforms. Whatever you do, don't come here weeping again. There is always room for compromise. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 18:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"Whatever you do, don't come here weeping again."

Don't you even begin to think you get to tell me where I may, or may not edit! Andy Dingley (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not "don't edit". I said "don't weep". You've obviously not been good-naturedly ribbed, are you? FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 18:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Codename Lisa: - Would you please point out where "cross-platform" is used in this style guideline. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I assume you are dispute party, aren't you CL? His question is a rhetorical question though. Don't bother writing a full reply. I already told him. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 18:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

So I can see. Perhaps it is best if I started a dispute resolution process. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Feel free. It'll save me raising it at ANEW. I'm still waiting for an answer as to just where on this page "cross-platform" is forbidden as a weasel word (as you have repeatedly used it as an excuse to ignore WP:BRD. And FleetCommand, I do not appreciate any more of your snark. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: "any more of your snark?" You shock me! I was never snarky with you, and if you registered such, I regret to inform you that you suffer from delusion and cannot tell the difference between friend or foe. I was helping you all along. I even show you ways to end the dispute.

And for your information, BRD is neither a policy (or even guideline) nor a free grant to perform unlimited and unconditional reverts. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 22:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Lisa - as you're edit-warring again, I will ask you one last time: where does this style guide prohibit "cross-platform" as a term? Where does it mention it as a weasel word? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: (edit conflict) I told you already. WP:LISTEN! And when you say, "you're edit-warring again" you are indicating that you yourself have made a revert, which is not good news for you. I gave you enough pointers to help you to resolve this matter and win. Why are you going down the losers path? FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 10:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Why are you still claiming that this term is prohibited when in truth it isn't even mentioned? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This term is not mentioned in the style guide. If you claim it is, where is it? What does it say? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I will repeat myself once again in hope of you WP:LISTENing this time. (Although, you have already started talking to the wall. It shows things.)

1. MOS:COMPUTING § Oft-neglected sources applies to this phrase.
2. WP:WEASEL, which you yourself cited applies.

Whatever you are planning to do, please stop doing it. You can resolve this dispute (whatever it is) by (1) mentioning "cross-platform" in the lead (2) citing a source for it and (3) replacing "cross-platform" with the actual name of the platform, like Java (software platform) or Java SE.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Definite article ("The") when referring to Windows Store

Yesterday I edited the Microsoft Edge article by changing the sentence "Microsoft Edge extensions are distributed via Windows Store" to read "Microsoft Edge extensions are distributed via the Windows Store". @Codename Lisa: reverted my edit, citing this manual of style, which states "Titles of computer software, unless used in a noun group, are written without a definite article."

There's one problem with this -- it contradicts Microsoft's own usage of the term "Windows Store". Microsoft refers to the Windows Store both with and without definite articles throughout its literature, including:

• On the main marketing page for Windows apps - "Browse the Windows Store on your PC" [5]
• In its official store policies and code of conduct documentation - "Your app may promote or distribute software only through the Windows Store." [6]
• In its official Windows Store marketing guidelines - "Learn how to promote your apps and content in the Windows Store." [7]
• In its support documentation - "How to open the Windows Store" [8]

I assert that the creator, namer, and owner of the software should be the ultimate arbiter of how its name is used, and consequently that both "Windows Store" and "the Windows Store" are appropriate. Thoughts?

Stephen Hui (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Stephen Hui: Hi.

You wrote: "it contradicts Microsoft's own usage"

In Wikipedia, we use correct English. We do not reproduce Microsoft's grammatical mistakes.

"the creator, namer, and owner of the software should be the ultimate arbiter of how its name is used"

Feel free to enforce this rule when you became the dictator of your own personal domain. But while you are here, obey our rules.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa:

I acknowledge that this manual of style states that definite articles should not precede software titles -- I'm not disputing that (and in fact, I quoted the relevant section in my original comment).

What I am questioning is whether it's incorrect English to precede a software title with a definite article. You assert that it is, but you provided no supporting evidence; you just referred back to the section that I'm questioning in the first place.

I did some research and have been unable to find any broadly agreed-upon rules for using definite articles with product names. Preceding them with "the" in at least some cases seems to be commonly accepted even on grammar forums.

It's clear that you and I disagree on this, and I find it unlikely that either will convince the other. I'm interested in what others think, and will defer to the majority opinion.

Stephen Hui (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey, guys. Fleet Command here. There are three things everyone should know:

(1) Just a heads-up to everyone discussing here: According to Stephen's user page, he is a Microsoft employee who has worked there for 16 years. This means Wikipedia:Conflict of interest comes into effect.

(2) When it comes to the matter of linguistics, Microsoft is the worst role model. The system partition and boot partition fiasco is a prime example that shows Microsoft cannot understand simple linguistics rules to which even primates adhere. Another example is how Microsoft incorrectly uses "x86" to refer to IA-32.

(3) Stephen has been dishonest in his analysis. The links that Stephen himself introduced do not use "the" consistently with Windows Store:

• [9]: Says "Browse the Windows Store on your PC", but right below it says "BROWSE WINDOWS STORE >".
• [10]: While there truely is a sentence that says "Your app may promote or distribute software only through the Windows Store", there are two others that don't use "the" with "Windows Store": The title ("Windows Store Policies") and the first sentence ("Thank you for your interest in developing apps for Windows Store").
• [11]: There are nine instances of "Windows Store" in this page, some of them have "the", some don't. But most importantly, this is a Wiki page that people can edit.
• [12]: The title of this page says "How to open the Windows Store", but Stephen hid the fact that somewhere in the page, you can read "Windows Store does not launch" (no "the").

Bottomline: This faulty proposal is made by a dishonest Microsoft employee with a conflict of interest. I advise everyone to disregard it in favor of proper English and predominant consensus.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 20:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@FleetCommand:

I wrote earlier that I would defer to the majority opinion, so unless/until more people weigh in agreeing with me, I'll drop this.

Having said that, I don't feel that your response adds value to the discussion. Comments on each of your points:

(1) I acknowledge that I have a conflict of interest. I made the suggestion in good faith, not thinking of my conflict of interest, and unaware of the requirement that I disclose it. That does not excuse my failure to disclose, so I apologize for that.

(2) I'm not familiar with Microsoft's past track record with grammar, so I can't comment on your point one way or another. More importantly, I assert that it's irrelevant anyway. This dispute should be resolved by applying the rules of English grammar, not by litigating Microsoft's past grammar failings.

As an aside, your comment "Microsoft cannot understand simple linguistics rules to which even primates adhere" strongly suggests that you do not have an NPOV either.

(3) I never claimed that Microsoft uses "the" consistently when referring to the Windows Store. If it did, in the absence of a clear English grammar rule governing correct usage of the definite article, I would have suggested that Wikipedia mandate that mentions of the Windows Store be preceded with "the". Instead, I demonstrated that Microsoft sometimes uses "the" when referring to the Windows Store, and thus that Wikipedia allow mentions of the Windows Store to be preceded with "the". Your claim that I was being dishonest is based on a straw man representation of my position.

Overall, I'm disappointed with this response -- not because it disagrees with my suggestion, but rather because of its tone and content. I hoped that we could discuss in a calm, objective manner. I was prepared to be contradicted, but if that happened, I expected that the other party would demonstrate why my suggestion was incorrect using references. Instead, you have provided no references whatsoever; both responses so far have instead relied on proof by vigorous assertion and ad hominem attacks.

I will drop my suggestion, not because you've convinced me that it was grammatically incorrect, but rather because you've convinced me that there will be no rational discussion here.

Stephen Hui (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I agree with Stephen: even though there might be a conflict of interest, he pointed out before FleetCommand that there were inconsistencies in the way Microsoft handles this. None of the arguments that Codename Lisa and FleetCommand provided actually answer the original question of "what is the proper way of saying this in correct English", but instead resorted to strawman arguments and other logical fallacies.

Can we please instead focus on the problem and solve it?

As for myself, I would say "the Windows Store" when talking about it, since we refer to a specific instance of something (which is what the definite article "the" is for, unless I am wrong). As one would talk about "the Apple App Store", or "the Amazon store".

Have a nice day/evening/night, everyone! #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 06:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@DokReggar: Hello. You wrote: None of the arguments that Codename Lisa and FleetCommand provided actually answer the original question of "what is the proper way of saying this in correct English". There was no such question at all. Stephen came here and said the correct way is how Microsoft does it. He didn't ask.

That said, the burden of proof is on the person who proposes or supports something. That means it is you () and Stephen who must prove "the Windows Store" is the correct English way for referring to a brand name. (Hint: "The Windows Store" is completely correct; but it does not mean the app called "Windows Store". Also "the Amazon store" is correct; see the MOS page to find out why. This is the problem I always had with my student: They hear something that is correct in one context, then use that one-time-correct thing in every wrong other context too.)

@Stephen Hui: Yes, unfortunately, Fleet Command is known to go over the top a little. But it does not help that you stigmatized yourself by announcing your connection Microsoft. As I understand it, around the time Fleet Command had joined Wikipedia, Microsoft hired a group of editors to defend its position in Wikipedia, which triggered the ire of the community against this dishonest act of subversion. This is of course the story as I have inferred; I was not part of Wikipedia back then, so this story might not be entirely true. But all the same, it is true that Microsoft's name is the mud with the old guard.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Indeed, the question was not explicit; my mistake.

Just a question: the current section definite article answers the question as it stands (in my opinion). What particular problem is there with its current formulation? #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 14:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Do we even really need a "definite article" section, the examples in it right now regarding right and wrong seem mostly common sense and unnecessary to point out (IE: No one actually refers to it as "The Hotmail") and it seems to be causing unnecessary drama. I also believe that some of the more controversial elements shouldn't be dictated by a single guideline. For instance in some cases putting "The" in front of "Windows store" makes sense ("IE: It's available for the Windows Store") where in other cases it shouldn't (IE: Windows pulled it from their Windows Store), --Deathawk (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

We do need a section about the correct usage of the definite article related to product names, because too many people incorrectly and stubbornly put the definite article in front of mobile phone models: brand + model name, where the definite article would make the model name or number a countable object. -Mardus /talk 16:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

A section about the correct usage of the definite article related to product names would point out that your position is incorrect. --Khajidha (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverted unclear "Lead" section addition

Someone added a section outlining some "rules" for the lead section, and it didn't really make that much sense to me, so I reverted it per WP:BRD. I don't think there's consensus to have this in there, and what is clear in it appears to be redundant with MOS:LEAD.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem, man. That someone is glad you think it was redundant. (Because if it is redudant to existing consensu, it has consensus.) Next time, please ping that someone, so that the someone can drop by.

Genuine Best Regards And Beyond,
SomeOne (Speak your mind!) 15:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No one owns pages alleged to be site-wide guidelines; edits to them are reviewed on their own merits. People editing pages like this are expected to watchlist them or to have no objections to WP:MERCILESS. Previous discussions at WT:MOS have indicated a general concern that singling out editors by name in objecting to guideline changes is unnecessary personalization under WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded and thus against ArbCom instructions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverted strange Microsoft-specific section addition

Someone added an non-neutral section of Microsoft-specific "rules" about MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:DATEVAR matters, without discussion, and I have reverted this per WP:BRD [13]. It appears to be a mixture of redundancy with those guidelines, just the author's personal opinions, and a lot of inclarity and rambling. It's also confusing date formatting with English language dialect; a change to one does not necessarily constitute or require a change to the other, and those guidelines operate somewhat independently. It's also unheard of and completely inappropriate for WP to treat Microsoft as magically special and requiring its own MoS rules.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC); revised to address discussion below, 11:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Largely off-topic material about personalities and tone in which editors are talking at each other instead of to each other

@SMcCandlish: Hello. I support your right to BRD in conjunction with 1RR. But there are three issues: First, you are being very harsh here; unnecessarily so. The person whom you are abusing is the original author of this page at the time it was just an essay, and he succeded in prompting it to a MoS only by demonstration good sense in detecting community consensus. (It is strange though: I usually chastise this editor for abusing others, now I am doing there reverse. ;) But bad behaviors don't excuse other bad behavior.) Second, you also reverted something else too; something that you have not addressed neither here, nor in your edit summary. In the matter of the article namespace or less significant areas, I politely ask the reverter to give an ex post facto explanation, even if it means giving them chance to fake it. Third, Wikipedia already has Linux-specific rules. I have nothing against a Microsoft-specific note in "Avoid common mistakes", if the nature is truly a common mistake. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC) P.S. I am afraid I had no choice but to revert your contribution to this MoS. The complete opposite of the examples you had given were correct, i.e. ".Net" is incorrect; "the .Net framework" is incorrect; "the .Net" is correct (but means something entirely different). Now, ".NET Framework" is correct ("Framework" is part of the title) and "the .NET Framework" is incorrect. Finally, "the .NET Framwork software framework" is a very poor writer's idea of being correct. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC) In the same order: Trying to personalize this matter – after I went out of my way to de-personalize it and address the content on its own merits/faults – is not helpful. See also WP:VESTED, WP:OWN, WP:MERCILESS. Who in particular wrote unhelpful material is, well, immaterial. It's also unproductive to raise such a hand-waving objection without actually objecting to anything substantive; please show how the material in question was: neutral and non-UNDUE in approach; not redundant with existing guidelines; objectively factual or representative of consensus editorial judgement; clear and precise; concise; not commingling severable ENGVAR and DATEVAR concerns; representative (in being so company-specific) of normal WP guideline wording and focus. (That presents all my own concerns in their original order.) Finally (with regard to your no. 1), this isn't the place for you to editorialize about other editors' personalities and what you habitually like to do about them. Um, no. See thread immediately above this one. I opened separate threads for the separate blocks of iffy material added by the same person back-to-back. There is no rule anywhere that one must undo unhelpful edits one at a time, piecemeal. Please review what you wrote (and how) in your point 2, then what you wrote in point 1, then WP:KETTLE. Linux is not an organization, and the Microsoft-specific material at issue here isn't about OS- or vendor-specific common mistakes; it was an (incorrect) interpretation of ENGVAR and DATEVAR trying to settle one tiny, localized content dispute (not what our guidelines are for) that shouldn't have happened in the first place (already covered by site-wide rules). But we do not have such a subsection on common mistakes with regard to Linux, anyway; we have one on Linux vs. GNU/Linux terminology (a WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#ADVOCACY and WP:COMMONNAME matter, not actually a "mistake" at all), just as we have a subsection on confusing use of "service pack" (a Microsoft term) but also covering "service release" (not an MS term); the (perhaps poorly named) "Common errors" section is not arranged by OS or organization. Same goes for the "Command-line elements" section; where it addresses Unix/Linux shells it also address Microsoft's Windows PowerShell in the same paragraph. I.e., it is providing general common-sense advice, not nitpicking about a specific vendor or platform. ("P.S."): The .NET-related material isn't relevant to this thread, and trying to shoehorn it in here has the appearance of further personalizing this as some kind of "pissing match". (Why?) I didn't add that material in the first place at all; an anonymous IP did [14]. I just added a footnote to it (to avoid beginning sentences with a "." character, with a cross-reference to the guideline on how to start sentences). Please review diffs more carefully before making assumptions and accusations. Most of the concerns you raised about that material are instantly resolved by just correcting the spelling to ".NET" [15]. [Actually, on a re-look, it appears to also need a capital F on "framework".] Given the obviousness and simplicity of that patch, your "I had no choice but to revert" is clearly not a plausible statement. I have no objection to the removal of the entire example block, however, since I don't think it really tells us anything new [16]. If I'd noticed any "the .NET Framework software framework" anywhere, I would have fixed that myself, but it does not appear in the material in question or at .NET Framework, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Same goes for "Framwork". Where are you getting this stuff from? The idea that "the .NET Framework" is incorrect is provably counterfactual [17][18][19]; if you somehow still disagree, take that up at Talk:.NET Framework. Similarly, it's clearly not true that ".NET" (or .Net or .net for some things with similar names) is wrong; it's usually used as an adjective ("modern .NET features", "any .NET runtime technologies"), though also (as stated at .net (disambiguation)) used as a short-hand noun ("redesigned version of .NET that is ...", "cross-platform support for .NET", "the first beta versions of .NET 1.0 were released"); all these examples are from .NET Framework, so that article's talk page is again the venue for any iffy complaints about that. And "the .NET" by itself (in any capitalization) isn't normally used for anything at all listed at .net (disambiguation) (only as the first part of a longer phrase in which that's used adjectivally). In short, WP doesn't need you or anyone else to act as the self-appointed Editing Police, especially with a finger-pointing approach that's factually off-base at almost every turn, and non-substantive or off-topic when it's not plain wrong. Can we get back to the substance of the Microsoft-specific material that was added (the actual topic of this section) and whether we want to retain something from it? I submit that we do not, unless a) something in it can be identified as a consensus principle that is missing from guidelines (either missing from MoS generally, or in dire need pf being summarized from other guidelines in this one, as a MOS:SUMMARY-style matter with a cross-reference to the main guideline[s] on the matter); and b) it can be generalized, with Microsoft being one of multiple examples; and c) it can be done without conflicting with the wording and established interpretation of site-wide, non-topical guidelines like ENGVAR and DATEVAR. The material I reverted failed all three tests.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  13:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC) 1. Our fundamental policy, Civility, has many aspects: Politeness, friendship, respect, gratitude, cooperation, responsibility and due credit. I only told you about the history of our friend, so that you know what degrees of each you should use. You just used three-blue links as a mace to beat them away. 2. Content removal without explanation is vandalism. So, yes, you are obliged to explain. Also, you mentioned BRD. If don't discuss it, then you are not doing BRD. 3. Well, as far as you stick to this explanation only, I am fine. 4. "The .NET-related material isn't relevant to this thread". Then I will refrain from discussing it here. "WP doesn't need you or anyone else to act as the self-appointed Editing Police". Thanks for the personal attack. I'll try my best to forget it. "Can we get back to the substance [...]?" No. I was not here to talk about the substance in the first place. Your dispute is with FleetCommand, not me. I came here to prevent a war from sparking between two people whom I considered friends. Clearly I failed and probably lost a friend too. I will get out of your hair and let your coup d'tat of taking over the ownership of this page to proceed as planned. Hearbroken, Codename Failure (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Off-topic. If you want to make an editor behavior case about me or about FleetCommand, use WP:ANI or another noticeboard. Utterly off-base in every respect. I'm not sure why it's still unclear to you that the non-Microsoft material in the same revert is discussed in the thread above this one, after that's already been explained. I'm not sure what that means. You're not "fine" if I have an additional rationale to add? What if someone else does? Yes, instead you've been editwarring about it at .NET Framework all the way to 3RR level, despite trying to get you to discuss the matter in two different talk pages. I think you know how that ends. As for the WP:POVFORK of MOS:COMP from the main MoS, I'll address that in an RfC shortly. You need to actually read WP:NPA and think about what it says, not what you maybe wish it said. I've taken the general WP:KETTLE concern to your user talk page. "I was not here to talk about the substance in the first place." You said it, not me. See WP:TALK; this page exists for discussion of improvement and implementation of the guideline page to which it is attached, not attempts to resolve interpersonal disputes or change people. I have no idea why you'd make bogus WP:VANDAL and WP:OWN accusations against someone you're trying to be friends with, but I'll just chalk this up to a bad mood or something and not take it personally. PS: As far as I can tell, I've simply wandered into the crossfire of a long-standing personality dispute between Codename Lisa and FleetCommand, and I really have no interest in it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  15:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

"Definite article" section proposed for revision

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

The WT:MOSCOMP#Definite article section is proposed, here, to be substantially revised for better agreement with RS practice, linguistics, and MoS norms.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Merging MOS:COMPSCI#Style and salvageable parts of MOS:COMP into a real guideline

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see proposal at at WT:MOSCOMPSCI, pursuant to the direction the discussion mentioned above has turned.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

MoS and syntax highlighting

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Misuse of code syntax highlighting.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Why please?

I deleted one occurrence of the word "please" that seemed superfluous. Then I noticed that throughout the article some instructions are prefaced by the word "please" and others not. What is the intended distinction? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Possibly a tongue-in-cheek reference to a whimsical language. In any case, I strongly agree the use of "please" is not stylistically appropriate for a MOS page (consulting my inner meta-MOS) and I have removed it. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RfC: Proper and improper use of monospace

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RfC: Proper and improper use of monospace. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 17:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

"Internet" vs. "internet"

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Internet#Request for comment: should "internet" be capitalized as a proper noun?
There's some debate there about the difference between "the Internet" and "an internet", about what a proper name is, and about whether news style guides (cf. WP:NOT#NEWS policy) should be considered reliable for how to write about technical topics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Helpful links to current PAG summarizing this essay

I think these policies & guidelines pretty much cover the entire content of this essay!

• WP:COMMONNAME
• WP:REALTIME
• WP:NOTDICTIONARY
• WP:RS
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Verb tense
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting

Essays:

• Wikipedia:Software screenshots
• Wikipedia:Example cruft#Writing about examples of the phenomenon

— Frostly (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)