Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:32, 2 September 2012

• WT:MOS

Template:MOS/R

For a list of suggested abbreviations for referring to style guides , see this page.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Don't retrieve sections from the archives

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

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

Thank you! ☺

Noetica 01:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Noetica 03:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Internal consistency v consistency across articles

Noetica removed these words – "though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole" – from this lead sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider three propositions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noetica 07:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noetica 01:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noetica 21:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noetica 21:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

♪

Noetica 04:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Noetica 22:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noetica 03:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noetica 22:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Noetica 23:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Noetica 03:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Break

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

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

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

SlimVirgin 16:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Additional discussion

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

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

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

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

Noetica 22:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of non-consensual edits concerning inter-article consistency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hyperlinks in quotations

As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.
Could someone explain this to me please? How does a (piped) link clutter a quotation? At worst, it changes the color of some words. The proposed remedies add much more clutter than that. Links do not really change the quotations much; the text remains the same after all. And how does it confuse the reader? Are readers really likely to think the original quotation contained links to Misplaced Pages articles? On the other hand, a reader might benefit from being pointed to an article that explains in details some concepts mentioned in a quotation. So why is linking from within quotes a bad thing? — Kpalion 21:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've always assumed the main problem is that it can impart meaning and explanation to words within the quote that we cannot know were meant by the original source. Words and phrases in different contexts can always have subtly different meanings of course. In effect, they can be seen as adding implicit commentary or didactic explanation directly within the quotation. N-HH talk/edits 21:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nicely put by N-HH. Tony (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

But then, almost everything we write in Misplaced Pages consists (in principle) of paraphrases and summaries of (reliable) external sources. Doesn't linking impart meaning and explanation to what cannot know was meant by the original source also when it is not a direct quote? — Kpalion 11:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There might be grounds for suggesting caution in such links, but I see no reason for the strength of the virtual prohibition as it stands. Most people who we are quoting are trying to communicate clearly (and we probably shouldn't be quoting them if they are not), and there is usually little doubt about who/what they are referring to. Suggest rephrase to something like Exercise caution in linking from within quotes, and never do so if it would mislead or confuse the reader, or if there is any realistic doubt about the intended reference of the person being quoted. Kevin McE (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would really change that much in terms of ultimate guidance - which, in part, is why I wouldn't have a problem with that wording. As for Kpalion's point, of course most WP content is paraphrased and summarised, and even interpreted/explained to some extent, both by narrative text and by linking. The point is that we don't pretend otherwise with that content. It is, in effect, Misplaced Pages speaking - and the editor who wrote that content knows what they meant and hence what they wish a link to point to. However, when we do quote a third party directly, and flag up that we are doing that by using inverted commas, we have to be careful we do exactly that and don't make the quotee say or imply more than they might have done or appear to be referring to something different; especially, for example, by using piped links from quotations. The very fact that many pages have disambiguation hatnotes also shows the potential problems here - for the sake of example, when someone in a quote refers, say, to "Germany", do they mean Germany or one of the first options listed here? N-HH talk/edits 13:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

All of which is reason for caution, not prohibition. If Roy Hodgson says, "The match against Germany will be a tricky challenge, but I'm sure my team can cope," can there really be any encyclopaedic argument against linking that to Germany? Kevin McE (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is the matter of the appallingly ungrammatical title of the linked article. --Trovatore (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There is actually a more serious objection even though I do very seriously object to the completely ungrammatical locution Germany team, it isn't really on point here, which is WP:EGG. A reader who sees Germany in blue is entitled to expect that the link points to Germany. If it points somewhere else, there need to be explicit cues in the text producing that expectation. This one is a little borderline — a reader who thinks about it will probably expect that this link points to the article on the German team, but it is not quite automatic. --Trovatore (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In which case the encyclopaedia would be doing such a naive reader a favour, by clarifying that Mr Hodgson does not intend sending 11 men to take on the entire nation of 80 million. This sort of objection would lead to the prohibition of any piped or disambiguated link, regardless of whether they are within a quote. Your other issue would apply to c200 national football teams, plus at least as many again of women's and underage teams, plus many hundreds of national teams in other sports. If you are serious about it, I'd suggest raising discussion in the first instance at WT:FOOTY. Kevin McE (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No one is going to think that a soccer team is being sent to confront an entire country; that isn't the point. There's a fundamental principle of interface design involved here, the least surprise principle. Users should be able to predict the topic that a link points to, without following the link or hovering over it. And if you see the word Germany in blue here, it is not really clear where it will point, because some editor might well have thought that this was a good opportunity to inform readers about good old Deutschland. (Such an editor would have been wrong, but not in a terribly unlikely way.)

Piped links are, indeed, very often problematic, and should be used as sparingly as possible, Links that would otherwise go to disambig pages are one example where they are almost unavoidable, but care needs to be taken to make it as clear as conveniently possible, from the text alone, where the link points (without of course performing awkward contortions or using self-referential language). This kind of care is almost impossible to get into a direct quote. --Trovatore (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Punctuation of initials in names

An editor moved the article E. L. James, about the British author, to EL James, with the rationale that "None of the use the full stops and neither do most of the British media. 'Initial. Initial. Surname' is outdated in the UK". I moved it back because (as I explained on the Talk page) I looked at 3 UK sources and 3 US sources, and in both groups 2 out of 3 seemed to use the periods. It's true, however, that James' own website and the covers of her books uses "E L James."

Is there a relevant guideline here that would affect whether periods, or spaces, should be used? Or does it come down to the usual guidance about what's used more often in reliable sources and/or what the subject uses in referring to herself? Thanks for any guidance. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

U.S. English tends to prefer periods in initials and abbreviations (U.S., Dr. Smith, Ph.D.) when British English does not (US, Dr Smith). This might be an ENGVAR issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (people)#Middle names and abbreviated names (version of 00:32, 24 July 2012) and Harry S. Truman#Personal life (version of 23:03, 21 August 2012).

—Wavelength (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

British English makes a bit of an exception for abbreviating names - see for instance P. D. James or J. K. Rowling or A. J. P. Taylor. However initialisms in general are much rarer here than in the States so practice can vary a bit. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Number sign

The MOS says:

• Avoid using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign, or pound sign) when referring to numbers or rankings. Instead use the word "number", or the abbreviation "No." The abbreviation is identical in singular and plural. For example:

Incorrect:	Her album reached #1 in the UK album charts.
Correct:	Her album reached No. 1 in the UK album charts.

An exception is issue numbers of comic books, which unlike for other periodicals are given in general text in the form #1, unless a volume is also given, like Volume 2, Number 7 or Vol. 2, No. 7.

• Use {{Abbr|Vol.|Volume}} and either {{Abbr|No.|Number}} or {{Abbr|#|Number}}.
• Do not use the symbol №.

Can we expand this section to include the reason # is considered wrong in Misplaced Pages?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I also wouldn't mind knowing what's wrong with the numero sign. — Jon C. 15:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe WP:TECHNICAL is the issue. Many older people don't know what a # is. Regards, Sun Creator 15:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Its certainly seems pretty informal for an encyclopedia (particularly for a Brit like myself). In the example given - i.e. normal text, there is absolutely no reason why any abbreviation should be used - use the unabbreviated word instead.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Tarpan

As far as I can tell from MOS:CAPS and WP:FAUNA, "tarpan" oughtn't be capitalised (except at the beginning of a sentence etc.), as is currently the case at Aurochs. See also e.g. , p. 2; , p. 2, for examples of its lower-case usage.

Although, on a related note, Golden Eagle is capitalised throughout (cf. e.g. ; ), whilst Eurasian Wolf seems to switch capitalisation style after the first sentence. Yet with Great Auk, capitalised here, capitalisation in external sources seems to vary (; ).

Should we therefore edit these articles to enforce the lower-case capitalisation that MOS seems to imply? It Is Me Here 12:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If you read WP:FAUNA you'll see birds are an exception. That explains both Golden Eagle and Great Auk. Otherwise there is not much interest in making consistancy in animal subjects, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Animals/Draft_capitalization_guidelines. Articles should be internally consistant however. Regards, Sun Creator 15:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If you search my contributions for MOS:LIFE, you'll find I make such edits every once in a while. However, I wouldn't change Golden Eagle or Great Auk because they are birds. Perhaps you should reread what the guidelines you cited say about birds and some flying insects. Art LaPella (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, so I've edited Eurasian Wolf because of the internal consistency issue cited above, but left the rest of the articles if there is, as you say, a lack of interest in the consistency proposal. It Is Me Here 12:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Trivial spelling or typographical errors should be silently corrected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Vampyr

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

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

"To google" or "to Google"

There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Language#"To google" or "to Google"? (version of 19:08, 27 August 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Commas to delimit parenthetic material

The MoS says of using commas:

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

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

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

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

Capitalization and punctuation in verbal quotes

If the capitalization or punctuation of a verbal quote (as opposed to a literary quote) are incorrect in the original source, is it permitted to silently correct them? As an example, a book gives the following verbal quotation for Ms. X: "He's done this to me, He's screwed me!" If I wanted to use this quote in the article, could I change it to: "He's done this to me. He's screwed me!" (or perhaps "He's done this to me; he's screwed me!", or would I have to retain the error in the quote? Kaldari (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean when the Misplaced Pages article is quoting a video or what is very clearly a transcript of an out-loud interview? I would feel all right about fixing that specific cap problem. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Two different cases:

• Where quoting a video presents interpretational choices consistent with the same sound, it's generally acceptable to use the form most likely to have been intended by the speaker as long as it is consistent with the sound (where that is unclear a note should indicate the main choices that are likely).
• If a printed transcript of an out-loud interview is the source, some indication of correction (such as "(sic)") should be added by the Misplaced Pages editor making the change.

Any such indication can be discreet, such as in a citation's parenthetical annotation, unless the meaning is significantly affected, in which case the indication should be more prominent.

This is more of a scholarly standard, rather than what would be used in many newspapers, for example. Keeping annotations discreet meets the needs of both accuracy and unobtrusiveness.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC) (Corrected two misspellings and replaced one word: 15:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC))

Airports RM

Hello. There is currently an RM at Talk:Seattle–Tacoma International Airport on whether to use hyphens or dashes in airport names. You may be interested. Thanks, David1217 16:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

proposing on names

I propose to add briefly about names to the WP:MOS main page so editors can more easily find the relevant guidelines. It's not obvious that Biographies is relevant when we're not editing a biography, so the sidebar doesn't help. When I asked for help, someone found what I needed but first someone else said they didn't find it. So there's a need.

After the section Vocabulary, I propose to add a section, Names, approximately as follows:

• On naming articles, see WP Article Titles.
• On how to refer to people within articles, in both first and subsequent mentions, see WP:MOS Biographies.
• On how to refer to organizations within articles, in both first and subsequent mentions, see ... .
• On place names, see WP:MOS Proper Names (the Place Names section).
• On names of entire peoples and their languages, see WP:MOS Proper Names (the Peoples and Their Languages section).
• On other proper names, see WP:MOS Proper names.
• On using diacritical marks within names, see WP:MOS Proper names (the Diacritics section).

I'll wait a week for comment. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If someone can't find what Biographies says about people's names, how would they find a pointer buried deep in the Manual of Style page after "Vocabulary"? Or what if they are looking for something not on that list, which is far from exhaustive? I agree we need better directions, and therefore I have long urged more prominence for the search box at {{Style}} in the upper right corner. When I put "people's names" into that box, the Biographies page was the second suggestion. Also, there should be a better way to find things buried in subpages when using the Table of Contents. And we should have a more systematic relationship between subpage sections and how they are summarized on the main Manual of Style page – not some "summaries" as long as what they are supposed to summarize, while other subpages aren't mentioned at all. Art LaPella (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Most times when we mention someone's name it's not in a biography, so I wouldn't look in Biographies and probably most editors wouldn't, either. (In the search you tried in which Biographies came up second, it came up first for me, but still it wouldn't seem to apply when we're not editing a bio.)

The list can be lengthened, although probably not exhaustively.

Yours seem like good suggestions, but I'm not proposing a general overhaul for usability. Ideally, a template listing various items would be nice, but we'd want to add the template onto one page only, so we may as well just add what we want to the one page without creating a template, too.

Maybe a better solution is, in the See Also section, adding a subsection concentrating on pointers within the MoS.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC) (Corrected syntax: 15:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC))

See Also sounds more logical than putting it in the middle of the guidelines. Art LaPella (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

One simple strategy for determining the parts of the MOS most likely to be searched for (rather than the parts one individual has looked for lately) is to search this talk page and part of the last archive for links to specific parts (not to entire pages), which is evidence that readers might need to review them to understand the conversation. This procedure yields: WP:MOSNUM#Larger periods MOS:CAPS WP:FAUNA MOS:QUOTE MOS:DASH—repeatedly MOS:ENDASH MOS:EMDASH MOS:IDENTITY MOS:FOREIGN WP:OPENPARA WP:FULLNAME ] WP:Manual of Style/Music#Capitalization MOS:& ] MOS:HYPHEN WP:MOSNUM#Fractions WP:ENGVAR WP:COMMONALITY MOS:TIES. I also excluded WP:TITLE because that isn't part of MOS. In that list, only the link to WP:FULLNAME could have been found by the proposed list of pointers. So I think any pointers list should be re-oriented more like the list at {{Style}} and the Table of Contents to avoid being just one more item to lengthen the page. Art LaPella (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

On mentioning organizations, I plan to link to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Cue sports#Respect for official organization names. What it says seems sensible for all subjects, not just one branch of sport. I wonder if anyone knows of any other MoS provision on point. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It says "The article for an organization should use the most official name ..." which would presumably be the same as the article's title. So I think Misplaced Pages:Article titles is what you're looking for. Art LaPella (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the research. I'll work on this, which may take a week or so, depending on computer time.

Article titles use common names, not official names, when different.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Gendered nouns

I was bold and added some examples of gendered nouns to MOS:IDENTITY, as there's some confusion as to what it means. At The Wachowskis the previous name of a transitioning person, who was famous both before and after her transition, has been removed repeatedly on the grounds that it's an inappropriate "gendered noun" per the MOS. This is certainly not what's intended here.--Cúchullain /c 13:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

adding hyphens where sources don't use them

I have changed:

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

to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "Or in compounds where in the literature usually doesn't use a hyphen" ... no, this is well documented in RMs and the like. More often than not, the literature is inconsistent, especially where so-called experts in a field drop typography that's important for easy comprehension by non-experts. Tony (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Internal consistency versus consistency across articles

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines Misplaced Pages style and naming When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This sentence had been in the MoS for some time: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole." The whole sentence was removed relatively recently, then restored, then it was changed so that it read: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article."

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

Responses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noetica 08:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose removal by which I really mean "support re-insertion." Misplaced Pages is not like other encyclopedias. It requires on the unpaid service of editors from many disparate backgrounds and it has no chain of command. There's no one who can legitimately say, "Do it this way because I'm the boss and I've earned my authority." Inter- but not intra-article consistency strikes a balance between neatness and the diversity of opinion among our editors. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

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

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

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

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

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

, , ,

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

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

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

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

Noetica 08:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Important new RFC at WT:TITLE

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

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

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

Noetica 10:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

1. These matters have been addressed in rulings of the Arbitration Committee: see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Optional styles and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sortan#Preferred styles.

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment