Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Massive lost information

A massive chunk of information seems to have been carelessly lost in this edit. I am talking about the section on External Links in particular. This is referenced as [[WP:MOS#External Links]] from a number of places. E.g., the editing help, the external links page and so on. Given the amount of editing that has gone on, I'm not going to do an immediate revert to the version from November 24 before that edit, but I think it might be a good idea, at least until the material is moved elsewhere and/or correctly linked. Comments anyone? Mozzerati 10:01, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

The edit was to replace the Manual of Style with a shorter version that had been discussed beforehand. The references to that discussion should be somewhere in the archives (though, I'm afraid, I don't know where). From memory, I think the material on links got moved to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) on Maurreen's suggestion, though I stand to be corrected.

However, this Manual of Style is a living document, feel free to propose any changes you think are appropriate, jguk 19:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The earlier discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Draft trim (November 2004). Maurreen 22:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Numbers as words

I can't see any guide to when to write numbers as words. Am I missing something?

The style that I picked up somewhere is to always use numerals when a number is being referred to, such as he lived at No. 3, or It is at entry 8, but to use words otherwise, if the value is less than 13. Thus He had eight children, and She is 23 years old.

Comments? Philip J. Rayment 12:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Number names. older≠wiser 13:46, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I tend to follow AP and CP style, which is to write out anything less than 10, but to use numerals for 10 and upwards: three dogs, 10 children, but to use numerals when numbers are referred to, as you said: "He lived at No. 3". SlimVirgin 19:22, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I tend to prefer writing almost everything out as words. Since the style guide doesn't say we shouldn't write out "six million", I'll continue to do so. —Simetrical 20:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

jguk's changes

Maurren, where did you move this to? [1]. The reason I ask is that I felt Jeff Q's comment was worth keeping. SlimVirgin 10:31, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

It's all at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes). Sorry, I meant to note that and forgot. Maurreen 10:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

SI always ?

The statement requesting SI units seems a bit strong. While a good guideline for most cases, there are fields of study and practice where other units, whether from inertia or convenience, are widely used either alongside or in place of SI units. For example, in talking about distances within the solar system, millions of kilometers can be reported, but the astronomical unit is such a convenient yardstick that it, too, is widely used. The world petroleum industry works on barrels, not liters, and when talking about petroleum production, the barrel is the unit to discuss it in. Even in the most metrified of countries, the weather is reported in degrees Celsius rather than Kelvin.

There should be some statement that when common practice uses other-than-SI units, then those units are acceptable. (I see this analogous to the Jimmy Carter vs. James Earl Carter example. Shimmin 14:02, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think SI units have to always be used. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Style for numbers, weights, and measures. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 19:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This probably belongs at Wikipedia:Measurements Debate. —Simetrical (talk) 23:59, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Order Captions of Photographs

In what order should objects and subjects in a photograph be named? I suggest that in photographs depicting more than one significant individual arranged in rows, the people should be named left-to-right, top-to-bottom (for Left-to-right languages). If they are arranged in a circle, they should be named clockwise, starting at the top. If they are named in some other order, that order should be specified in the capton; for example "John (right) and Ann (left) in front of their house". The same rule seems to make sense for photographs of houses, geographical landmarks and other objects. Pgan002 05:44, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

I agree with your order, but do we need a rule for this? Maurreen 06:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have seen photos named in arbitrary order. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Einstein&oldid=9880762 . (Sorry, I don't know how to wiki-link to an old version of a page.) I think that if we care about the order, we should make our preference explicit. Pgan002 09:20, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

Political vs. Traditional correctness

(copied info from the Village pump)

This is a subject brought to my attention when I studied what I saw at Talk:Cowhand

I suggest that we need a talk in Wikipedia's manual of style about the kind of correctness being used in Wikipedia. A few possible choices include political and traditional. Any comments?? Georgia guy 16:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes. What the heck are your talking about? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:25, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Based on the discussion at Talk:Cowhand, I guess the question is about whether Wikipedia has an official stance on political correctness. Currently the answer is no, there's nothing mandating the use of "cowhand" or "salesperson" or their traditional counterparts. I think the identity section of the manual of style gives some good broad guidelines, and I don't think it's beneficial to make this more specific by providing lists of words and exact rules. Georgia guy if you want to start this discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, go right ahead. Rhobite 02:40, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows a "Neutral Point of View" policy. That means we do not embrace "political correctness", or indeed any other approach that supports one point of view over another. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, so we report. If people tend to use "salesperson" in a particular context, rather than "salesman", "saleswoman", "seller", "sales executive", or whatever, then "salesperson" is the term we would use. Also, when deciding what words we use, we should use forms that are most likely to be understood by as many people internationally as possible, jguk 15:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spelling and usage within quotations

Most of the rules in this guide would give way to the principle of accurate quotation. To take the example just above, if a written source says "He had 8 children" or "She is twenty-three years old", then the quotation should preserve the choice of the original. I'd like to warn overeager style mavens not to change quotations. Is there agreement with adding something like this (perhaps under the "Usage and spelling" heading, where it would come up most often): "When a written source is being directly quoted (as opposed to paraphrased), the quotation should conform exactly to the original text, even if the source does not follow the style prescribed by this manual." JamesMLane 08:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. Might also want to mention that it is perfectly OK to wikify within a direct quotation. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:46, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's usually preferable to stick to the original spelling and usage within quotations - but I would not have a hard and fast rule. Unless there are special reasons to keep the original style, correcting misspellings, improving punctuation and correcting grammar are all acceptable, jguk 20:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I lean toward agreement with Jguk on this. Maurreen 07:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. Correcting spelling and grammar seems wrong. It's meant to be a direct quote. (Of course, in quotes of speech, borderline rewriting is the norm, as any journalist probably knows. Spoken speech is messy in the extreme, and word-for-word transcripts look ugly and are often hard to understand.) —Simetrical 20:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to typographic tradition, a quotation or extract should never alter spelling, punctuation and the like. If such alterations are done it is no longer a quotation. –Peter J. Acklam 10:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you're worried about people thinking Wikipedians can't spell, judicious use of the word "sic" should help. It might help if the page at [[sic]] were adjusted to make it more friendly to this usage. HTH --Phil | Talk 13:26, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

By quoting typographical errors all you tend to be doing is perpetuating the typesetter's and/or proofreader's mistake. It is perfectly acceptable to correct these mistakes (indeed, it seems to me to be somewhat snobbish to retain them and then place sic after them to tell everyone how clever you are at realising it's an error). They also very often say absolutely nothing about the author (ie the person you are quoting). I'd suggest only retaining errors in quotations where the error is particularly important (such as "one small step for man"), rather than a pure and simple mistake.

Note that Hansard, the record of parliamentary proceedings regularly corrects errors so that the official report records what someone wanted to say, rather than what they may have said, jguk 13:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a transcript or report of an oral statement is on a different footing. My original proposal cravenly dodged that issue by referring to "a written source", by which I meant an original written source (not a written transcript of extemporaneous speech). In a quotation of a book, a magazine article, or even a website, when we say we're quoting a particular author, I see no reason why we should overrule that author on matters of spelling, punctuation, or grammar. I agree that wikifying within a quotation is OK. JamesMLane 14:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference here between preserving an author's chosen style (which IMO we should do), and correcting errors and updating spellings. A book of Shakespeare plays preserving the spelling of the first folios would look very odd indeed! jguk 15:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

However, should Wikipedia editors be making such "corrections" themselves or quoting emendations made by authoritative sources? older≠wiser 15:45, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with JML. Oral transcripts are different from published texts or manuscripts. In an institution other than Wikipedia, it *might* be acceptable to make minor corrections to texts when there is a consistent understanding and application of what is considered "minor" corrections. In a place like Wikipedia, making an allowance for minor corrections opens the door to potential abuse as to precisely what is or is not "minor". I'd much prefer a hard rule about quoting verbatim from written sources. As for oral sources, I don't think it is generally appropriate for Wikipedia to include "original" transcriptions--I think in nearly all cases we'd only be quoting transcription published by someone else and so we should reproduce the quote from that source exactly. On second thought, I guess there may need to be some leeway in transcribing video news sources. older≠wiser 14:27, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Oral transcripts are definitely different. Ask any journalist—things people say are usually all but rewritten. People tend to speak in a much less clear and more fractured way than they write, so writing down every pause, stumble, and misspeaking looks very odd. —Simetrical (talk) 18:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

British English / American English

We (jguk and I) talked about this on IRC, and we agreed that the most fair way to deal with the English spelling/punctuation differences:

British English for British/Commonwealth topics (the countries where British English is used, taught, and translated to)
American English for topics on the Americas (the countries where ~~British~~ American English is used, taught, and translated to).
Australian English for topics on Australia (the countries where Australian English is used, taught, and translated to).
- And so on.

Topics not relating to either should be "first-come-first-used"—that is, the original style of the first major contributor should be kept. Neutrality^talk 06:22, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Um...hasn't this been established policy for a very long time? -- Cyrius|✎ 06:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought so, but according to the MoS, it's not. I'm trying to codify this policy as a matter of common sense and decorum. Neutrality^talk 06:30, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

How do you define "topics"? Does something like Family Guy count as an American topic because it was created in America? Is Edward Elgar a British topic because he was born and lived in England? – flamurai (t) 06:28, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes and yes. Common sense, really. Neutrality^talk 06:30, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I definitely thought this was already in the MOS, but I can't seem to find it now, either. Because of that, I thought maybe you were loosening the policy with a stricter definition of "topics". – flamurai (t) 06:34, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I knew it was written down somewhere: Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ#Should I use American English or British English?. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But what it says isn't accurate, Cyrius. It says: "The official policy is to use British (AKA "Commonwealth") spelling when writing about British (or Commonwealth) topics, and American for American topics." Where does it say that is official policy? SlimVirgin 06:41, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

It's also been in the MoS. I went to the bottom of the first page of history, being too lazy to hit "Next", and found the December 7, 2004 version with this text:

Articles which focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally aim to conform to the spelling of that country (for instance the British "Labour Party"). A reference to "the American labour movement" (with a U) or to "Anglicization" (with a Z) may be jarring. However, a reference to "the American labour movement" would be okay on New Labour.

By the way, in your proposed policy, I assume the second bulleted point was cut-and-pasted and you forgot to change "British" to "American". JamesMLane 06:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've always taken "American for American topics" in the MoS as meaning "United States topics", not those "topics relating to the entire continent(s) from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego". I oppose most strenuously any Monroe-doctrine diktat whereby we Latin Americans would be denied the right (enjoyed by the Europeans and Asians, it would appear -- no one seems to be proposing UK English for the whole of Europe) to choose between 'color' and 'colour' or to write about a 'Guatemalan government programme'. This is an unacceptable proposal. "The Americas" should read "the United States", which would be unobjectionable. –Hajor 14:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you about what the policy's always meant. That's why I thought maybe Neutrality was proposing the Monroe Doctrine rule (good name for it). That might make sense if applied globally, i.e., that all articles on European topics should indeed use British English. My preference, though, is to keep it as you say -- that whoever starts an article can refer to a "Guatemala government program" or "programme", and the same with the French government. JamesMLane 19:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Ben's misunderstood "American" here. "American" (without further qualification) means "of or pertaining to the United States of America, or a citizen of the United States of America". "American English" clearly does not include Canadian English, Belizean English, Guyanese English, Falkland Island English, etc. etc.

FYI, the genesis of the recent discussions is a revert war on History of Russia regarding punctuation. One side is trying to enforce the Manual of Style as it currently stands, the other side is trying to enforce standard American style punctuation, jguk 19:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Naughty, naughty on History of Russia: the MoS seems pretty clear on that point. As for the possibility of confusion regarding the "AE for American topics" note on Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ, perhaps we should tweak the wording and say "U.S. topics", "topics relating to the United States"? –Hajor 21:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This gets difficult when there's any ambiguity, which there often will be. For example, I was recently asked to change an article I'd written on philosopher Bernard Williams. I wrote in AE, and was asked to change it to BE, because he was born in the UK. However, though he was born and worked for many years in the UK, he also worked for many years (though not as many) in the U.S., sold more of his books in the U.S., and they were written in AE, and so on. He also had no sense of himself as tied to any one nationality, so to make a switch to BE felt a little false. I'm in the process of writing about Ernest Gellner, who spent his entire academic career in the UK apart from a couple of years before he died, but who was born in Paris and regarded himself as Czech because his family was. So would that have to be written in BE? I think I prefer the first major contributer policy. By and large, that will amount to the same policy that you've proposed because subjects that are indisputably and only British are likely to be written by Brits. Also, your policy is going to mean people will have to investigate the style used in any given country before they can write a subject related to it. SlimVirgin 06:41, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think Ben (Neutrality) and I were discussing things in a slightly wider context. IMO, we should accept any form of standard English in an article as long as it is used consistently throughout. No exceptions at all (not for punctuation, nor for "U.S." or "US" being used depending on what form of standard English is used - nor any other exceptions).

However, where an article relates to a topic that is specific to one part of the English-speaking world, the standard form of English used in that part of the world would usually be preferred.

I think the difficulties highlighted by SlimVirgin are likely to be restricted to a small number of articles. Far fewer than what we currently have disputes on. Plus, when writing it's easier to write in a style of English you are familiar with, rather than remember the exceptions to the rules in the MOS, jguk 06:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re your last point: Not necessarily. It just gives someone the right to come along and change it later. It's similar to how we say to new writers not to worry about style, formatting, etc. since someone will come along and fix it. That's the beauty of the wiki. – flamurai (t) 06:53, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on everything but the example of "U.S." vs. "US." I think we should used the preferred manner of abbreviation—after all, there is no compelling reason to remove the periods (full stops). See JamesMLane's comments above. Neutrality^talk 06:59, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I prefer "no exceptions". After all, why in a BE article where every other two letter abbreviation omits stops would you wish to suddenly use an abbreviation with stops? Besides, no exceptions leaves only one future debating point: SV's point as to how we decide that an article is on a subject that is particularly associated with one part of the English-speaking world, jguk 07:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to declare everyone officially blind. The page long "Usage and spelling" section of the MoS is all about AE vs BE. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ben and I started discussing this as there are exceptions to the rule that any standard form of English is acceptable. Ben has his bugbears, I have mine. I don't see why we don't just get rid of the exceptions, it would make things a lot less argumentative all round (and I don't mean just between Ben and me), jguk 07:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Cyrius, not everyone is blind. I quoted the key part of the relevant passage! When I first saw this entry, I thought perhaps the issue being raised concerned non-English-speaking countries. My understanding is that English speakers in the Western Hemisphere plus Japan and Liberia are influenced by American sources and use American English, while all others are more likely to use Commonwealth English. On that theory, if someone creates an article about a notable person in the history of Bolivia or Botswana, it could be argued that the first-come-first-served rule applies, or it could be argued that the article should conform to the style of English that's more prevalent in the subject's country. The rule as Neutrality proposed it, assuming that the second line is supposed to refer to "American English", seems to take the former position for the Eastern Hemisphere and the latter position for the Western, which seems wrong. JamesMLane 07:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I still don't understand what we're all discussing here. Neutrality opened the discussion with a proposal which is, as far as I can tell, what the MoS already says. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

LOL There's always chaos when this subject's discussed. ;-) SlimVirgin 19:30, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

James, you might be interested in the following text from American and British English differences: "Most European countries, countries of the Commonwealth, and former British colonies like Hong Kong, follow the same convention as the British, although Russia, some countries of East Europe, and Japan follow the American convention." Neutrality^talk 02:43, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I thought there were certain things that had to be used, like U.S. instead of US, in order for certains links to work, is that right? Also, if AE abbreviates it that way, shouldn't that be respected? I think all these issues have been discussed on previous MoS talk pages. SlimVirgin 07:12, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

On your first sentence, as far as I am aware it is not right - certainly in my time on WP no-one's been able to explain the point. On your second sentence, AmE terminology and usage should, IMO, be fully respected in articles written in AmE (though I would ask that people don't go so overboard with Americanisms so that the article is unintelligible to others - and that where terms are confusing to those unfamiliar with AmE that they are explained). Similiarly, BE terminology and usage should be fully respected in articles written in BE (similarly, subject to not going overboard and making explanations where relevant), similarly with Indian English, New Zealand English, Botswanan English, etc. jguk 09:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether I'm right about the first point. I just keep seeing people make that point, but I'm not even sure I understand it. I agree with your second point. My understanding of the MoS is that, in an article about a topic that is specific to Britain e.g. British Labour Party, BE should be used, and the same with other countries. That's fair enough (though September 11, 2001 attacks was in British English at one point, now mostly changed, though it's retained al-Qaida, which I believe is the British transliteration). But I don't think the world should be split up by counting Commonwealth countries as falling under BE. Canada and Australia don't, for example. And I also think we should retain a narrow definition of "topic specific to," otherwise just because someone was born in Britain or lived there a long time will end up meaning they must be written about in BE. So I think we should retain the first major contributer policy as the guiding principle. What we should aim for is not to be provincial, and not to assume there are only two types of English, AE and BE. There are dozens of countries where English is a first or second language, and we should let people use whichever style they want to so long as (a) there are no inconsistencies within the article, and (b) as you say, jguk, the English should be comprehensible to all English speakers, so we shouldn't ever use Americanisms unless they're widely understood or we explain them; same with Britishisms and so on. SlimVirgin 19:30, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Cyrius: Neutrality's proposal is already in the style guide. Maurreen 02:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say again what I already said above: Neutrality's proposal says "American English for topics on the Americas". Where does that appear in the style guide? –Hajor 02:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, the style guide doesn't say exactly what Neutrality said. About style for topics on the Americas, I don't feel strongly either way. My point was that the proposal is essentially the same as is now in the style guide, so the proposed wording would have little or no practical effect. Maurreen 14:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Maurreen. Actually, if you take a closer look, Neutrality's proposal addresses both spelling and punctuation. What the MoS says is, "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country." The guideline for punctuation (specifically, preferring ". over ." -- having seen History of Russia, I presume that's the issue in question) is separate and non-region-specific (at one point it spoke of "splitting the difference" between U.S. and UK usage, but I can't see that phrase there any more, which is a shame). As I read it, the proposal at the top (even ignoring the Americas/USA issue) does imply a fundamental and far-reaching change to what's already in the Style Guide and to how we've traditionally done things round here. –Hajor 15:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reading this discussion reminds me of looking a Microsoft word processor. As I understand it from reading other discussions on this page, there are some words used in Canada which are derived from American spelling and many from the old standard. In the rest of the commonwealth how significant are the differences? I saw one the other day of South Africa "Spioenkop" and "Spion Kop" but that is very much the exception to the rule. It seems to me that thanks to TV the Internet etc commonwealth English is no longer diverging but converging. Aside from some words from arising under American influence, it is next to impossible to tell from which country a new word comes from when it enters the language because the spelling in all the rest is so similar. Written grammar in all the commonwealth countries seems to me to be so similar, that differences which may be the result of specific national education systems, are also within the acceptable standards of all countries.

We all know that there are hundreds of accents and dialects in spoken English but are there more than two dialects of formal English? Irish/Hiberno English page says "The standard spelling and grammar are the same as British English". It goes on to describe differences in spoken English, which would be repeated with similar levels of divergence in any English speaking area. A better short hand label than "Commonwealth English" is needed if Irish and British English are to be included in these pages as one formal written language standard, but that does not get away from the fact then any diffrences between them is a case of style (with both countries knowing where the style lies ;-o ) not substance. The Australian page says, it uses "truck instead of lorry, and freeway is the most common word for a high-speed road, though motorway and highway are acceptable." Truck and lorry are used interchangably in Britain and freeway is hardly enough to justify that they are distinct languages. There are differences in some other words for example in New Zealand the work pants is used instead of trousers but these differences are not enough in my opinion to say that they are different formal written languages. Will someone please explain to me what are the significant differences between formal written UK, NZ, Aus and SA English which, if only we can come up with a neutral name, stops these formal written Englishes (yuck) being grouped together and described as the same formal written English?

BTW I noted on the Theater page that "Theatre" is used in the industry in America, which is the same in Britain for "programme" which is used for radio, TV, and in a theatre, while "program" is used for a "computer program". As for the European Union all documents in English are in "Irish/British English" (Ireland was the only country which turned down the chance to have every document translated into its own language, so missing out on employing half the Gaeltacht region in Brussels as well paid translators) eg "European Central Bank". Philip Baird Shearer 15:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Italics for quotations

The MOS is not explicit about whether quotations may, or should, be italicized. It would make sense to italicize quotations about one sentence or longer, embedded in the paragraph, and maybe even indented quotations. Pgan002 05:25, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

I disagree. Embedded quotations shouldn't be italicized. Block quotations could be italicized, but that should be done through the site's stylesheets rather than markup. What we could add to the MOS is a suggestion of when to switch from embedded quotes to block quotes so long quotes aren't embedded in the text. – flamurai^TM 05:46, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

I am not an expert on punctuation; this is just what seems to me to be easiest to read, because italicised text stands out and there is less danger that the reader will miss the end of the quotation. Is there a convention outside WP about this? If it is universally accepted, we should go with it. Either way, this should be made explicit in the MOS. So should when to use embedded quotation, and when block. Pgan002 09:32, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

The MOS is for the most part laissez faire on the subject of when to italicise, but in this case I think we have to go with a solid no. I have never seen a quotation italicized in any form. Embedded quotations have quotation marks, and indented quotations are identified by context. --Sean Kelly 12:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Sean Kelly. Quotations should be italicized only for emphasis, which we would almost never do. JamesMLane 12:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The best way to distinguish quotations is by using the <blockquote> tag, which was designed for this purpose, and is purposefully allowed in Wikitext. The use of italics is best reserved for the source of the quotation, for example:

"There were a lot of people doing a lot of things…"—Some Book or Other by Some Author

HTH --Phil | Talk 13:20, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Except that since we're on a wiki, there is a shortcut for the blockquote tag, namely the colon. If you want to indent a quotation, just precede it with a colon, just like we're all doing in this conversation. The source code ends up the same in the end. --Sean Kelly 16:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, no. The HTML produced by a colon is different from that produced by blockquote tags. They may appear similar within the presentation of the current skins and wikiparser, but when using blockquote it is possible to modify the presentation for such quotes in the CSS in a way that is not for colon indentations. Specifically, using a colon produces indentation through nested <dl><dd> content </dd></dl> HTML tags while <blockquote> is a standard HTML tag. older≠wiser 16:43, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

…and more specifically, <blockquote> affects both left and right margins, whilst using colons only affects the left margin. --Phil | Talk 18:09, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Oops, you're completely right. --Sean Kelly

For the benefit of those of us who are computer illiterate -- would somebody dumb this down and explain the advantages/disadvantages of each method of indenting a long quotation? If the knowledgeable people are in agreement about which way we should do it, I'll happily fall into line. JamesMLane 21:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Blockquote" is better HTML. It is a tag specifically intended for quotes. It's very easy to control visual presentation (which is distinct from HTML labeling) with "blockquote" because we can change the style settings across the entire site (or depending on individual user preference). If we decided that all quotes should be in italics, we can put all blockquotes in italics (or you can, in your own personal style sheet). The only disadvantage, as far as I can tell, is that it doesn't look like wiki markup.

Using the : indent is easy for people to remember, but it's very bad HTML. (The code that it produces is intended to be used for specific kinds of lists.) Because it is not as explicit as to function (that is, we always use "blockquote" for quotes; we sometimes use the colon indent for other things, like talk pages), it's more difficult to control visual presentation of quotes that are marked with ":". (In general, it is better not to try to get the HTML to control visual style. That's what style sheets are for.) The advantage is that it's a little easier to type and for people to learn and it looks like wiki markup. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For comparison's sake, here are two blocks of text. The first uses the colon markup, and the second uses <blockquote>.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Note in particular the right margin. This effect, needless to say, is increased substantially when the tags are nested—some of the comments in this heading are indented six times over, which would look like this with <blockquote>:

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Also, take a look at the edit window for this. Note that the tag produces two line breaks, so you have to place your text right after the tag rather than adding line breaks in the edit window to get it to show up normally when viewed. It is true that the colon markup is pretty bad HTML, though—is there currently any way to get blocks of text indented with style sheets or something? —Simetrical (talk) 18:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comparisions. However, it's hard to imagine a situation where it would be necessary to nest so many levels of blockquotes within an article. If one simply wanted to indent the blockquote further, putting one or more colons would do the trick

With colon indent. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Withou colon indent. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

For discussions on the talk page, colons are OK (though i would welcome a more robust discussion mechanism). older ≠ wiser 19:10, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

This thread started with Pgan002's observation that the MoS was "not explicit about whether quotations may, or should, be italicized." Pgan leaned toward italicizing but was apparently willing to go along with not italicizing, which was everyone else's preference. On that basis, I'm changing the MoS passage that now reads "Since quotations are already marked by quotation marks or indentations, they need not be put into italics." I'll make it more explicit by changing "need not" to "should not". I'll leave it to others to decide whether the MoS should mention the availability of the <blockquote> tag (right now it doesn't), or even go beyond mentioning it and characterize it as preferred. JamesMLane 02:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the previous version of the MOS was ok on this - we shouldn't force unnatural styles on articles. Style and punctuation should be chosen so as to make an article as clear as possible, so a one-style-fits-all approach just doesn't work, jguk 08:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, it appears that you are going against the majority. Maurreen 10:04, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Maurreen on this --Sean Kelly 21:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that articles should be clear. Standardization can further that goal. If some editors italicize to mean "this point is being emphasized" and others italicize to mean "this is an indented quotation", then the reader who encounters a particular set of italics doesn't know what it's supposed to mean. JamesMLane 10:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not an "unnatural style". What's "unnatural" is specificifying a quote like

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

Plus, the MoS is a guideline in the first place, and there are very, very few cases where it's necessary to break that rule. – flamurai (t) 13:24, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

The wording that I reverted was too insistent. There's one thing about having something that worded as a guideline ("Usually quotations are dealt with....") and something that allows for no leeway, regardless of circumstance ("Quotations must always be dealt with by..."). I think the latter approach is far too prescriptive and may, on some occasions, make articles confusing. Whilst I don't see a need for any change to the policy here, I would not oppose wording that makes it clear that it is a guideline (that can clearly be breached when appropriate to do so), jguk 22:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The wording that you quote ("Quotations must always be dealt with by...") is indeed insistent. It doesn't happen to be the actual wording that anyone inserted in the article, though. What you reverted was my wording that said that quotations "should not be put into italics". That doesn't say "always" or "never". I think it meets your suggestion for appropriate guideline language. The current "need not" will be read by some people as merely assuring them that they're not required to make the extra effort to give it this nice little touch, so they'll still go ahead and italicize when there's no reason to. I worry that something like "they should not be put into italics except, as with any other text, for emphasis" will unduly encourage such emphasis. I sometimes use italics in a brief, when I'm arguing one side of an issue and I want to emphasize a helpful point, but that's usually not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. Even in a brief, I'd almost never italicize an entire quotation. Incidentally, you also reverted my addition of "Indented quotations should not also be marked by quotation marks." Do you have a problem with that guideline? JamesMLane 23:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, it's just occurred to me what's happening here, and it's only just come to me after months of looking at this page! In the UK, "should" in the context of what you added means there is a compulsion. That is, "should not be put into italics" is synonymous with "should never be put into italics". I think I'm right in saying that "should" doesn't tend to have that meaning in American English.

Maybe replace "should not be put into italics" with "are not usually put into italics"? I think a similar point arises for the rest of your proposed amendments that include the word "should" and suitable adjustments should (compulsion) be made to them. Kind regards, jguk 23:52, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand the word should in this contextin the same way as jguk, would "ought" be a less ambiguous word? Philip Baird Shearer 01:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we're agreed that quotations "are not usually put into italics", then I'd be comfortable with "should" in either sense of the word, or with "ought". An alternative would be to give more detail about the "not usually" standard:

Use quotation marks or indentations to distinguish quotations from other text. Do not italicize quotations unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.).

Thus, in the article Dulce Et Decorum Est, I would italicize the quotation from Horace, because it's in Latin. Finding it not italicized now, I'm off to change it. JamesMLane 10:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've substituted the foregoing alternative on the subject of italicizing quotations. JamesMLane 20:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Style guide table of contents

The style guide table of contents has some weird extra spaces and I don't know why. Maurreen 02:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's the same with all table of contents. It's been doing this every once in a while for the past few days. Don't know what they're doing with the software. – flamurai (t) 12:35, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Simplified classical music titles

The main issue I wanted to solve with my lengthy classical music titles diatribe a while back is the incorrect italicization of titles of classical music pieces named by form (generic titles).

If no one objects, I would like to add the following item to the list after, "There are a few cases in which the title should be in neither italics nor quotation marks:"

Classical music pieces named by form (examples: Symphony No. 2, Violin Concerto)

I would also like to alter a sentence in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles), specifically changing:

Use italics for the title or name of books, court cases, movies, albums, TV series, magazines, ships, computer games, and major orchestral works.

to

Use italics for the title or name of books, court cases, movies, albums, TV series, magazines, ships, computer games, and given titles of classical music pieces (but not those named by form).

(or something similar... if anyone has a better way to phrase it without the parenthetical).

Any objections? Affirmations?

– flamurai (t) 20:36, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

A couple small tweaks: I'd like to suggest putting the list in alphabetical order and linking to more information on the distinction for classical music. Maurreen 20:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I started a draft music MoS at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music). Now that I have a better grasp of WP policy, I greatly slackened the guidelines from my original proposal. I would like to get comments on this. – flamurai (t) 10:39, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

EU

I removed that when writing about the EU, we should use BE, as the EU is not a "topic specific to a particular country." That looks like an attempt to impose BE on a bunch of countries where English is not the first language and where spellings of English words vary. Please let's not impose too much rigidity on editors regarding what type of English they have to use. The main thing is that it should be consistent within articles. SlimVirgin 03:53, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. Surely what the recently removed guideline meant was that UK/Irish conventions should be used when writing about the institutions of the EU, certainly not when writing about every person, place, or thing in the non-anglophone member states. Thus: an article about DG XVII -- yes, standard English spelling as expected by the EU mandarins (ie, -isation and honour); an article about an Estonian poet or an Portuguese fishing village -- absolutely no heavy-handed across-the-board rule setting, first major contributor rule applies (see my remarks on LatAm above). So maybe we could resintate that comment, specifying "the institutions of the EU"? –Hajor 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that wording. So long as someone wanting to write about some general EU-related topic isn't restricted. I just noticed your -isation though; -ization is also acceptable as BE. SlimVirgin 05:26, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

~~FYI, British English says -ize is used mostly by the EU.~~ But I don't mean by this that people ought to be forced to use that; just that they also shouldn't be forced to use -ise. The less rigidity the better. SlimVirgin 05:50, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Correcting the above; I misread the article. It's the UN not the EU that uses -ize. SlimVirgin 05:53, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

UN English actually manages to strike a pretty happy balance, most of the time. (Maybe Wikipedia should adopt it as its standard? Lot less squabbling...) Re -ise & -ize both being acceptable in BE -- absolutely, except that BE has, for the past 20 yrs or so, been pushed headlong down the -ise road by computer spelling software that doesn't allow the alternative -ize forms. To the point now where ise/ize is used as one of the top shibboleths to distinguish between BE & AE (try mixing 'organization' and 'colour' in an article here, and they'll tell you you're being inconsistent) when actually, a generation ago, it was one of the areas where the two were converging. Thank you, Mr. Gates & friends. –Hajor 06:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. We've had our linguistic history rewritten by the evil Microsoft. I often slip -ize words into articles with BE though, as a little act of defiance, though I won't say where, in case others go on a hunt-and-destroy mission. ;-) SlimVirgin 06:20, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's time to end the nonsense of BE English dictionaries only showing the "ize" forms, while the British govt., Irish govt. and EU institutions use the "ise" form (which is more common now in general BE usage).

As regards EU related topics, I would suggest that BE is most certainly used for articles on the EU itself. But I would also suggest BE is used for any European topics - as the official form of English in the European Union is that used by Britain and Ireland (where it is a/the first language). It would be quite grating to see European topics (from any nation therein) written in an American format.

zoney ♣ talk 11:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the subject ought to have something to do with the EU. At the very least that the country was a member of the EC after Britain and Ireland Joined in 1973(?). But as was said before about "across-the-board", I think that if an American has an interest in an obscure Italian sprots car, then just because it was made in the EU the rule should not be interpreted to mean that it has to have a "boot (trunk)" instead of "trunk (boot)". Philip Baird Shearer 08:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is verging on an extreme and bizarre form of nationalism. Why on earth would any subject about Europe have to be in British English? And not all non-British forms of English are American-format. Zoney, why would you find it "grating" to see Germany written about with the word color in it, instead of colour? That makes no sense to me at all. SlimVirgin 08:48, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

SV what is wrong witht the wording "EU treaties, institutions and directives": British/Irish English? Philip Baird Shearer 10:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that if we're writing an article that is specificially about (actually about, not just involving) an EU institution or treaty, it does no harm for the article to be in British English (why Irish though: is it different?). But I would want some kind of clear wording or disclaimer to make sure it didn't extend beyond that, and it shouldn't include articles related to the European Union in general, or to countries belonging to the European Union. SlimVirgin 10:48, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

No, Irish is the same, British/Irish English is the politically correct EU term. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:59, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

What is the difference between "article on EU treaties, institutions and directives" and all the other examples in that section? Why is a "clear wording or disclaimer" needed for "article on EU treaties, institutions and directives" and not for "article on Ayers Rock" or "article on the American Civil War"? Philip Baird Shearer 16:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disputed sentences

There's been no further discussion regarding the disputed sentences (in bold below). We should discuss whether to have them in or out (neither are in at present); and if in, how expressed. They're both in the usage and spelling section:

(1) Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country. Disputed sentence: Note however: A person does not count as a "topic specific to" a country.

(2) Article on European Union treaties, institutions and directives: British and Irish usage and spelling

My concern with (1) is that we shouldn't get into a situation where people are "owned" by certain countries that they have been born in or lived in. When dealing with people, the first-major-contributer rule should apply. An exception might be if the person is a current political office holder, but there's probably no need to spell that out, as the office would count as an institution belonging to that country e.g. George Bush qua president of the U.S. But I'd hate to see us have to write about e.g. Robert Burns in British English just because he happened to live in the UK, particularly as his writing is not in British English and he didn't regard himself as British. People of artistic and literary merit belong to the world, not to any specfic country and to conclude otherwise is to succumb to provincialism and nationalism. Would Benjamin Zephaniah have to be written about in British English, where he was raised, or in Jamaican English, where he was born? Do we have to count the number of years someone has lived or worked in a country? For these reasons, I would very much like to see a clear disclaimer that people may be written about in any style. What do others think?

Re: (2) This seems like another attempt to extend British English beyond its borders. Like (1) above, here's no need for it. It's instruction creep. SlimVirgin 03:31, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Philip, we can have both disputed sentences in or out of the article while we discuss them. I don't mind which so long as we're consistent. Please say what you think about them if you have a view. SlimVirgin 08:10, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Article on European Union treaties, institutions and directives: British and Irish usage and spelling

Can one remotely suggest that it would not be absurd to write about these topics in for example, US English. The EU on its website for example describes itself as an "organisation". Colour is the norm in EU-speak, not colour.

As I mentioned above, I would suggest that the "official" English for the entire EU is UK/IRL English. I don't see anything wrong with wanting not to use US English for topics pertaining to any EU countries.

zoney ♣ talk 11:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's the "topics pertaining to" business that too's vague. Why should an article about Germany be in any particular form of English? SlimVirgin 11:47, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

That's not vague at all. It means any article about an EU country, or related to it (history, people, customs, etc.)

An article about Germany should not be in US English, as it is unreasonable that Wikipedia should default to that. The nearest form of English that Wikipedia should jump to for EU countries is that used by the European Union, and its two countries who use English as a primary language - Britain and Ireland. Why on earth should it default to a form of English official only half-way round the globe?

I'm making the point that there is more valid reason for not using US English for topics related to any EU country, than there is for using US English for them. zoney ♣ talk 12:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It shouldn't default to any style of English, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop assuming that anything that isn't British English must be American English, because that ignores all the other countries that have their own style and dialect. The rule should be the first-major-contributer, then there is no default. But it's not acceptable to say articles about Germany must be written in BE; in fact, it's absurd. SlimVirgin 12:46, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

US spelling reform is the main factor in separating English varieties. There is not as great an issue with other regions as with US vs. Rest of World. US spelling is used elsewhere of course, but it remains US spelling. There are of course assorted grammatical, typographic and vocabulary issues - it's a gross simplification to bring it down to spelling. But I feel quite justified in discussing US versus non-US. Also I disagree with renaming English as British English (as it is used in many other countries, albeit with minor local tweaks) or International English (as of course, it is not universal/"international").

Evidently we have diametrically opposed views, as each of us has described the other's position as "absurd". I doubt it would be of much use for us to attempt to convince each other of the validity of our positions, although no doubt each of us feels justified in presenting our position to other editors (although until such time as there is further input from others, there is probably not much point in further rants for/against either position). zoney ♣ talk 13:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Option (2) UK/Irish English is what the EU uses. for all these documents. It is not "~~This seems like~~ another attempt to extend British English beyond its borders." It is to use the English which is used by the institution and the native speakers within that institution use and all documents which come out of that institution. If I was to write a piece on the US constitution I would not be surprised if someone changed all my spellings from au/ie/nz/sa/uk spellings to American. BTW EU directive should be expanded to "EU regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions". Philip Baird Shearer 17:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Look, this doesn't have consensus and it wasn't discussed first. I say it should be removed until consensus is developed on the talk page. Maurreen 08:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The examples were inserted on 7th and various modifications were made to the list between then and the 15 Feb when SV removed EU. If it had been removed in the first day or so then I agree it should be discuss it before putting it back. But if over a week is not long enough, how long does an item have to be on the page before removing it should be discussed?

Zoney would like a broader definition of EU, but as he seems to be the only one arguing like that, he seems to be willing to have a fall back position of EU institutions (rather than nothing). As in this case no one seems to be arguing that topics about the institutions of the EU should not be in Irish English, why delete the whole bullet point? As all that is in dispute is the scope of what should be covered by the term EU institutions, surly this can better be handled by editing it and discussion rather than deletion of the bp? Philip Baird Shearer 15:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

People are not topics

Hi, SlimVirgin. Re your addition of "A person does not count as a "topic specific to" a country" -- I see where you're coming from, with your comments above about Williams and Gellner, but I think the general rule *should* be that U.S. writers and presidents get U.S. English and that UK authors and MPs get the UK flavour. There'll be cases where it's not so black-and-white -- Gellner, probably, though not Williams, I think -- and that's where "first major contributor" kicks in. Can we have a go at rewording that addition? –Hajor 04:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Hajor, I have no problem rewording it. I can see why you'd want someone who held office in a particular country to be written about in that country's dialect. An article about George Bush would look odd in British English. But then that's in part the office, not just the person, that's being written about, and the office is a "topic specific to a country." What I'd like to avoid is a territoriality about people as individuals. Just because someone is born in America shouldn't mean that a British editor is forced to write about that person in American English. If the British editor is the first to have thought of the article on that person, then s/he should be allowed to write in whatever style s/he chooses, in my view. I see the alternative as terribly provincial, which Wikipedia should be at pains to avoid. And it gets complicated, as I mentioned before with the example of Williams, who I'm pretty sure would have been astonished to learn he had to be written about in British English. Countries and languages don't "own" people. SlimVirgin 04:15, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, Hajor and I were discussing how to reword the "people are not topics" issue. Could you join in this discussion instead of deleting it entirely? I'm certainly happy to see people who hold office, like your George Bush example, be written about in the style of the country they hold office in. I just want to avoid a general philosophy of people being "owned" by certain countries; and also how do we judge: is it place of birth, how long they've resided? I'd like to suggest sticking to the idea of holding or having held office; or being in some other way inextricably linked to a country e.g. Shakespeare linked to UK or Robert Frost to U.S. But if the word "inextricably" doesn't apply, then the first-major-contributer rule should determine style. SlimVirgin 07:28, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to participate in the discussion - I haven't time to go into details now as I need to leave for work in quarter of an hour. In broad terms, I would choose a form of standard English used in an English-speaking place to which that person would be considered domiciled (though I will need to explain this for those not clear on what "domicile" means). I should be grateful if you would keep the proposed revision out of the MOS until a revision has been agreed upon. Kind regards, jguk 07:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, you've reverted again, LOL. You make very radical changes when you want to, but revert anyone else who does the same. I'm not having a go at you, just smiling a little, and I won't revert the revert. I'm already sensing problems with determining where a person is domiciled. Are we going to have find out which country they pay their taxes to? And Bernard Williams: living in the U.S. but domiciled in the UK? Difficult. SlimVirgin 07:55, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it will be easy to write a specific wording for the policy. I wonder if it might be best to have a subpage showing how the policy gets applied in practice. Anyway, I've started Wikipedia:Manual of Style (guidance) and noted how I think the current policy should be interpreted. Please let me know if you agree with me and add further examples, jguk 18:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would think "inextricably linked to a country" would apply to most single-nationality persons written about in Wikipedia (as they would have to have some level of fame/recognition). I think it is perfectly fair that any "famous" American is written about in US English, and others are not (and written in whatever form is appropriate). I suggest that this is the only proper course of action for Wikipedia, if it is to remain locale-fair.

The issue of people who have links with several nations (or more particularly, the US and somewhere else), with no one obvious link taking precedence, is a red herring - it's a minor issue (the vast majority of personalities don't fall into this category) that can be dealt with based on other guidelines here.

zoney ♣ talk 19:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well said. I concur completely. – flamurai (t) 20:11, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Zoney, it depends how you define famous. The article that got me thinking about this is Bernard Williams, who wasn't famous but was known within academic circles. He was born in the UK; lived for many years in the UK and in America; worked in both countries; though for longer in the UK; was working and living in the U.S. when he died; and sold most of his books in the U.S. I wrote his page in U.S. English. I was asked to change it to British English by User:Albion, who I believe was a sock for User:Jguk. Apologies if I'm wrong about that. I feel it's nationalistic to act like that about an academic who I know saw himself as an internationalist, so it's this kind of example that I'd like to see excluded from any guideline. SlimVirgin 08:16, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

SV, I have no sockpuppets. I have a username change request pending to re-attribute a number of edits under an old name to jguk, and there is a link to my contributions under that old name on my userpage, jguk 12:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An unfortunate case, but I would suggest that this is the exception rather than the norm. Although I think a strong argument could be made for using non-US English in the specific case above. Essentially any such cases will require consensus on their talk page. I do not consider that we can impose arbitrary rules for such cases just to avoid people having to come to a calm agreement. zoney ♣ talk 10:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that Bernard Williams was an exception. It's very common for people to move around the world, which is why I find this nationalistic tone so inappropriate, particularly for Wikipedia, and actually almost offensive. I've lived all over the world, in English and non-English speaking countries, and I can't stand any form of nationalism or provincialism, so that's where I'm coming from with this. Wikipedians should be allowed to express themselves in whichever style of English they find most comfortable, so long as they cite sources, check their facts, and don't write personal essays. Apart from that we shouldn't be restricting people, and this idea that certain persons belong to certain countries is appalling. You should bear in mind the MoS isn't policy, so people are free to ignore it, and if you make it absurd, they will. SlimVirgin 10:54, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I like the subpage, jguk. The MoS consists mostly of standards, not rules, so it's a good idea to have a casebook like that to assist people in applying the standards. – flamurai (t) 20:14, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that choosing US English where not appropriate *is* seen as nationalistic (it's a lot more linked to just the US than any other form of English is to *just* the UK)! zoney ♣ talk 20:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The addition does not have consensus and was not discussed first. I say it should stay out of the style guide until consensus develops. Maurreen 08:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zoney, when a person writes in Canadian English, they're not using American English, even though that's what it might look like to you. I'm asking you to accept that there are a wide variety of styles of English, not just BE versus AE. I think the idea that people belong to certain countries is unacceptably nationalistic, so I would like to include a rider to that section that this is not what is meant by a "topic specific to". I'm not suggesting an addition, simply a clarification of what is already there. I've given you examples of how confusing the person=country guideline would become, and I can give you more. It would lead to nothing but arguments, so all I'm suggesting is that we make it explicit that the first-major-contributer rule apply to people unless they hold office. That currently is the case, but I would like to clarify it. SlimVirgin 08:20, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I have already explained why I insist on focussing on the US/UK distinction. Separating out Canadian English is akin to focussing on a distinction between British and Irish English. While the distinctions exist and are valid - they are not primary to the disagreements on Wikipedia.

And no, I do not agree that we specifically limit people articles to the first-major-contributor rule. It would be wholly unacceptable to FORCE articles on British, Irish, etc. personalities, many with no links to the US, or few, to be written in US English just because the first major contributor used that form.

I tire of your repeated cry of "nationalism". It really is a bit rich, just because I am not content to let one form of English spread even further on Wikipedia. My objection to that, is that is not neutral, it does not live up to the aspirations of NPOV to use US English where not appropriate. Now, we certainly disagree on where is appropriate - but please refrain from the almost personal attack of accusing me of rabid nationalism.

zoney ♣ talk 11:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

U.N. style

Hajor, you mentioned the U.N. as a possible model. I'd like to learn more. Do you know of any U.N. style references, especially online? Maurreen 07:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure. It's probably too close to the UK/EU to be a validly neutral mid-Atlantic option, though. Basically, preference goes to the first option listed in the Concise Oxford -- thus, judgement, adviser, labour, realizes and organizations and all (but analyses & dialyses); more frequent hyphenation than you'd normally see in AE; dd mmm yyyy; quote marks within punctuaction -- heck, it's BE with zees, ok? Haven't got a link to the UN style guide, but the ITU's is here (warning! link to MS Word doc file). –Hajor 15:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added it to the Style guide article. Would be good for that article to link to a Canadian style guide also. Maurreen 06:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is the style guide of the International Red Cross Federation: [2], if anyone's interested in that. Flo 03:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Policy or a guideline

Is the MoS actually policy, as I understood it was not. If it is policy, then how can it be changed by only one or two editors? What is the policy about changing policy, does anyone know? SlimVirgin 11:52, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

It's official policy, as can be seen from the page's categorisation. Changes made to the project page that other editors disagree with quickly get reverted and discussed on this talk page, jguk 13:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I recall, this was not policy. Did I misunderstand that or has there been a change? If it's policy, then isn't there a procedure that needs to be gone through to make changes? SlimVirgin 13:16, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, it was you who added that policy category to the page on October 31, 2004. So how did you know it was policy? SlimVirgin 13:29, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Suggesting that the MoS is not policy (regardless of the actual history) is somewhat likely to unleash a can of worms. The MoS is frequently referred to as authoritative in order to quell arguments. Some agreements may unravel if we were to decide this document is a guideline only. In reality I think the MoS is mostly regarded as policy, except in such circumstances as where it suits people to ignore it and have special cases. But removing at least the guise of authority from it would lead to many more "special cases" where people do not go by the "guidelines". zoney ♣ talk 13:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But Jguk calling it policy doesn't make it policy. Either we have a case here of a guideline which anyone may edit, because it doesn't matter much; or we have a case of a policy which, while not binding on editors, does incline them toward certain positions, in which case we shouldn't be changing it without a broader consensus. I don't mind one way or the other; I'd just like to know which it is. When I asked Jguk how he knew it was policy, he referred me to the page's category. Yet when I looked to see who had added the category, it was Jguk. SlimVirgin 13:50, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

It says on the policy page that the Manual of Style is a guideline. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. It has the same status as, for example, Wikipedia:Cite sources. SlimVirgin 13:59, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

This absolutely cannot be a policy. If it were a policy, the arbcom would get to cite people for comma splices. Bad. Snowspinner 14:03, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Zoney and Snowspinner, I've removed the policy category and made the sentence that says it's policy invisible. Jguk needs to say on what basis he added the category. I'll see whether there's something in the talk archives about it. SlimVirgin 14:07, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is better described as a guideline rather than policy. It is intended to promote a uniform style, but there are no consequences for disregarding the MoS. Of course, in the case of an edit war over a stylistic matter, the MoS would (should) have significant precedence in deciding the matter, but even then is not 100% authoritative as necessary exceptions and qualifications to the MoS continue to emerge. older ≠ wiser 14:33, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is better described as a guideline rather than policy. But changing his page is not like changing most articles, because it is used and abused on a daily basis in many arguments over style all over Wikipedia. If it is going to be changed there should be a consensus before it is changed. For example SlimVirgin deleted the EU entry long before there was agreement to do so. And despite a revert (which shows there is no consensus) she had deleted it again. If people do that, then this page becomes unstable and can not be used as a reference on other page in style arguments, because it will not be stable enough to be used for that. Philip Baird Shearer 17:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is important that much of the policy is expressed as a guideline - "Usually use..." rather than "You must use...", as clearly it is undesirable to be too dogmatic on many points covered by the page. However, it is not sensible to have a Manual of Style that is not policy. If we stated that the page is not policy - copyeditors would get constantly reverted on the grounds that the edits are not necessary. UK v US English revert wars will rule supreme - with one editor arguing for consistency with the MOS, others that this is irrelevant as it has no grounding in policy. Much of the standardisation in Wikipedia that the MOS has helped to foster could be undone.

This page has been de facto policy for as long as I remember, and it is best recognised as such. As I noted at the started, it is easy enough to identify which bits of the policy are more rigid than others, jguk 19:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are out of line calling this policy, and Philip, do NOT revert again. Jguk, you took it upon yourself to insert this into the policy category, then when I asked you for evidence, you cited that category. That is dishonest. It is listed as a guideline, not official policy, not semi-policy, not any kind of policy.

A very small number of men seem to have taken ownership of this page and that can't be allowed to continue. For one thing, there's no point in trying to insert your own idiosyncratic views here, because all that will happen is that editors will regard the MoS as irrelevant, so it has to conform to some extent with accepted practise. I am asking these men to stop being bullies, and to allow other people to take part in editing this page. If you want the MoS to become policy, you will have to seek a broader consensus. SlimVirgin 00:47, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Of men [my emphasis]

Umm, whut? What on Earth does one's sex have to do with this?

One might quite easily construe that as a suggestion of anti-feminism, which is more than a little offensive.

James F. (talk) 01:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your edit's much better, James, thank you. I don't know whether the sex is relevant or not. I know only that there are two male editors who appear (stress on "appear") to be standing guard over this article, and as a woman whose edits keep being reverted, I don't like it. I stressed that they are men because I know that Maurreen has paid close attention to this page too, but she hasn't acted like a bully. SlimVirgin 05:56, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Since Maurreen's now let you know that it was Dcoetzee and not me that first made reference to this page being "policy", I'm sure you'll apologise for your earlier invective as well as your earlier accusation that I use sockpuppets.

I would stress, however, that Dcoetzee was right. Denying that the MOS is a policy means that its whole text is essentially worthless in edit wars. There would be no reason why we shouldn't convert George W Bush to International English (after all, he is an International figure); or why articles should not adopt styles completely at variance to the MOS.

Essentially, this page quite simply will not work as a guideline. It must be policy. Where elements of it are guidelines as opposed to rigid instructions, the language does and should make clear that that's the case. But we need statements about permitting the usage of any style of English, and preferring local usage over foreign usage - these are rules that have been developed to reduce edit wars. It has been accepted since Dcoetzee's edits (and implicitly before) that this page is policy - it would be folly in the extreme to change this, jguk 07:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't care whether the style guide is called policy or guideline or eropgfi abuweo.

But my understanding is that it has generally been the custom for at least the style guide (if not much of the "Wikipedia" namespace generally) to discuss substantive changes first. For one thing, that should avoid back and forth reversions. Etc.

Also, the discouragement of substantive changes without discussion has been visible on the talk page for at least a few months. I ask that it be left there and that people follow it. Maurreen 07:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, when you say "it has been accepted . . . that this page is policy," you mean it's been accepted by a very small number of people. Two or three people can't make a page policy. The page also says editors don't have to stick to the suggestions it makes, so calling it policy would contradict that. I knew it was Dcoetzee who made the change to the text, but it was you who added the category, yet when I asked you how you knew it was policy, you referred me to the category as though it was independent evidence. As for User:Albion, if that was not you, then I do apologize. I believed it was you because his only edits were to Bernard Williams, changing it from American to British English, and he referred to a guideline that articles about a person should be in the English of that person's country, even though that's not what the MoS says; but even though he got it wrong, he clearly wasn't a new user.

As for the EU addition, I understand that was not discussed before being added. A couple of editors here seem to take the view that they may add things without discussion, but others may not. I ask only that this attitude change. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 07:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

It's always best to assume good faith, the assumption is usually correct. I don't remember all my edits, least of all the minor categorisation edits that are in line with what a page says.

It is a long established principle of Wikipedia that anyone can edit a page, there is no reason why this principle should not apply to this page. It is only where others disagree with an edit that it needs to be talked about. I see nothing wrong with people directly amending the page without discussing a change. Of course, if someone disagrees with that change, the edit will be reverted and should then be discussed on the talk page before being re-inserted. This is what happens with every other Wikipedia page, there's no reason for an exception here.

This page has been accepted as de facto policy by most Wikipedians for a long time. No doubt that is why Dcoetzee's amendment and my categorisation in line with that amendment attracted no discussion whatsoever (as far as I recall) either at the time, or for four or five months thereafter. Much of what is in the MOS is generally accepted throughout Wikipedia (particularly on the US vs International English split) - and this makes it policy by acclamation. As Zoney noted above, recognition of this page as policy has eased or prevented many an edit war. Denying this page is policy will merely fuel edit wars.

As I note above, whilst the page itself is and should be policy, much of its contents is phrased as a guideline. There is no contradiction here. I would suggest we leave the page classified as a "policy" and, if you consider some bits of it to be too rigidly worded, we see whether more flexible wording can be used in its place. That way, we get the best of both worlds. Kind regards, jguk 08:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that simply deciding here to call it policy doesn't make it so. I suspect the only reason you've not been challenged before is that most editors don't read this page, but if it ever came to a mediation or arbitration case over a style issue, then this page not being policy would come to light. If you want to make it policy, I'd have no objection, but then we'd have to get a wider consensus from the community, and I'd be surprised if we'd get it because people would see it as instruction creep. Just because something is only a guideline doesn't mean it doesn't have force. Wikipedia:Cite sources is only a guideline, for example, but most people will supply a reference if challenged. Which parts were you thinking of wording in a more flexible way? SlimVirgin 08:28, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is well-established and frequently thought of as policy - it is already policy by acclamation. Also the page just wouldn't work if it were not policy. Since you have no objection to it being policy, we should just reinstate the words saying it is a policy.

The only comments saying against this page being called "policy" are based on a fallacy that the only policies Wikipedia should have are ones on behaviour. Since that is a palpable nonsense, shall we stop making a mountain out of a molehill, put the page back where it was before you removed the info that it was policy and get back to writing good articles? I'm off to edit Brian Close right now:) jguk 19:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It isn't true that the only policies are, or should be, about behavior and no one has argued that. The two major policies are NPOV and No original research, both about content. The MoS is not policy, never was, and is not regarded as such by acclamation. SlimVirgin 21:50, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

An idea

Maybe we can break the impasse by referring to this page as "official style"? Then we advise the reader that "this page is official style. Whilst we prefer you to edit using this style, don't worry, nothing will happen to you if you don't, and the content of your contributions is more important than whether you take note of this page or not. However, in time, copyediting Wikipedians will edit articles to comply with the Wikipedia official style. Please accept this as a good way to improve readability of Wikipedia as a whole - and, in particular, you should not revert them".

I think a compromise on "official style" may both satisfy the requirements that this page has to be adhered to, whilst also making it clear that non-compliance is not a behavioural issue that could get you banned, jguk 22:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Two thoughts: first, we'd have to seek broader consensus than just the editors on this page to call it "official" whether the next word is style or policy, and secondly, it probably isn't true that copyediting Wikipedians will edit articles to comply with it, because some copyediting Wikipedians don't agree with its contents. Can I ask: why are you so keen that it shouldn't be a guideline? As I said previously, guidelines do have some influence. SlimVirgin 23:03, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how Wikipedia policy is made. It is a somewhat murky custom ("procedure" is going too far). Generally it is what Wikipedians accept it to be. Policy can be made by general acceptance of a principle - indeed, whilst some policies, such as the 3RR, have become accepted only after a vote, most have not. In this case, Wikipedians do generally accept the Manual of Style as a point of reference for style and accept what it says. Also, there was no dispute when the Manual was amended to explicitly state that it is policy. (The text of the manual strongly implied that it had authority before then.) The conclusion is simple: it is policy. Your removing of the references to it being policy have not achieved consensus (and also you seem to be willing to support it having official status), and I therefore intend to replace the references to it being so. If you wish to bring a poll to declassify it as policy, or make a formal proposal that the Manual of Style ceases to have any official status, then do so. But IMO that would be very unwise, fuel edit wars, and distract many people from more productive development of Wikipedia, jguk 09:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"International English"

jguk, if you want to use "International English" what dictionary, stylebook, etc., do you have in mind? Maurreen 08:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't wish to. I was merely illustrating that it would be a bad idea for the rules on usage outlined on this page to be described as anything other than "policy". Edit wars will reign if we suddenly come out and say there's no policy about using American English for American topics, British English for British topics, Indian English for Indian topis, etc. jguk 08:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But we don't have to come out and say it, as such i.e. make an announcement. And as I said above, guidelines do have some force. SlimVirgin 08:30, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

If it's decided that this page is not policy, it would only be proper to announce it big and often in order to dispel most Wikipedians' misconception that it is policy, jguk 19:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that most Wikipedians think this page is policy. I'd guess that most don't know it exists, and we haven't decided it's not policy. It just isn't, and it never was. SlimVirgin 22:03, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

A large proportion of the "Welcoming committee", maybe most, refer to this page when welcoming new Wikipedians. Plus, I have seen many Wikipedians who have never edited the page or commented on this talk page who have referred to this page. I think this page is, and has been accepted as, policy - however, please note my suggestion above about referring to this page (and by extension all MOS pages) as "official style", jguk 23:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). It's a reference page I created, like Wikipedia:Manual of Style (guidance) Nobbie 11:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Page split?

This page is now about 46 kb. I suggest that the sections on national varieties of English be split to a different page. Maurreen 08:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we do need a reorganisation of some description, but can we wait a week or so until the above discussions have been resolved? Thanks, jguk 08:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We are not understanding each other. Never mind. Maurreen 17:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

International organizations

If the style guide is going to mandate what national varieties of English are appropriate for the European Union, then to be parallel, it would also mandate what national varieties of English are appropriate for the Organization of American States, etc. Is that desired? Maurreen 17:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is it desired? Do as you wish. Probably they can just be left up to the default US/UK English rules. Is there some manner of disagreement over the "Organization of American States"?

The European Union is an individual case as far as I'm concerned. Certainly for the EU it is helpful to have guidelines included in this document. There are a lot of US English editors out there, so it happens more frequently that a pointer is needed to send them to when US English is inserted into articles where it shouldn't be.

To explain my outspoken comments/requests on this subject - without active measures, it is quite likely that US English would expand to encompass many more articles than it is permitted under the rules here. I do not consider that appropriate for an allegedly unbiased international encyclopaedia (oops, I mean encyclopedia).

zoney ♣ talk 20:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Maurreen floats an interesting idea, but a flawed one, I think. Here's a couple of my ideas:

The draconian idea of BE (UK/Irl/EU Eng) for ~~European~~ European Union people, places, books, animals, et al. is as unfair, as impractical, and as unworkable as the proposal for AE (USA Eng) for all things 'twixt Cape Horn and the Seward Peninsula floated last week by User:Neutrality. It really does smack of the Great Powers meeting at Potsdam or Yalta and dividing the world up among themselves. It isn't fair to people in Paris who prefer AE, or to people in Buenos Aires who prefer BE.
Leaving that to one side, it's a little disingenuous to compare the EU to the OAS. Let's wait until the OAS has a common currency and open borders, then we'll talk. (However, using the preferred in-house style of AE for articles about the insitutions of the OAS seems entirely sensible, and -- I think -- it's something I've always done.)
I would expect the Caribbean states get a waiver to use Caricom English. [3]
All the EU and OAS countries are members of the United Nations. Surely that should trump both the EU and the OAS, so let's stop this squabbling and follow the ITU style guide cited above.

First major edit (and perhaps with a remmed-out flag at the top to try and halt incremental dialect creep). That's the fairest way to do this. –Hajor 21:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree as regards your first point. My suggestion is not regarding "Europe", but rather the "European Union". I can see how others may still disagree, but it has much more footing than the "Americas" proposal. I do not think my suggestion deserves such immediate dismissal or rubbishing.

I will repeat - the European Union uses "British/Irish" English officially. As such, that is somewhat of a pseudo-official form of English for countries in the EU. I'll also point out that using US (or whatever - Canadian, Australian, etc.) English for countries halfway round the world whose closest neighbours are Britain and Ireland makes little to no sense.

The fact I am not being backed up in my request merely indicates a lack of attention to this page, and the majority bias of highly active Wikipedians here. Needless to say I have not raised this issue on the UK or Irish notice boards as I feel that would play into the hands of those who wish to cast this as a "nationalistic" argument.

zoney ♣ talk 21:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If "European Union" is taken to mean the actual institution and machinations thereof - the judicature, bureaucracy and parliament, then I agree with Zoney that UK/Irish English is the most appropriate form of standard English to use. After all, that is the form of standard English that is the official policy of that institution. If "European Union" is to mean the countries that make up the European Union, then I must disagree. Apart from Ireland, the UK and its dependencies and Malta, and probably Cyprus too, there should be no Wikipedia preference between different forms of standard English, jguk 21:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, with your permission, I'll change "European" in my comment above to "EU" and apologise for my sloppy writing. Your point about the "European Union using British/Irish English officially" is also valid, but I take it as meaning that the *institutions* of the EU use B/I Eng. It strikes me as something of a stretch to want to construe that as in some way meaning that B/I Eng has any sort of official status domestically within the individual member states. Sorry if I appeared to be rubbishing your ideas; I wrote that reply in response to Maurreen's, only you got in ahead of me. –Hajor 21:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the UK so-called "dependencies" being slipped in, and Malta and Cyprus? Objection. Also, as the EU claim was inserted without discussion, I'm removing it again until the wording is agreed upon. Similarly, with my insertion that "people are not topics". We can't have different rules for different editors. SlimVirgin 22:02, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough - I shouldn't have used shorthand. The only dependencies I mean here are the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey and Gibraltar. Malta has English as an official language - so the current policy is that Maltese English should be used in articles about Malta. Cyprus is a Commonwealth country that has two British bases, and English is widely spoken, and there are a number of English-language Cypriot papers. I think it's fair to say that there is a standard form of English used in Cyprus, and therefore articles about Cyprus should conform to the standard form of English that is used there, jguk 22:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is the disputed claim:

article on European Union treaties, institutions and directives: British and Irish usage and spelling

I dispute this. The European Union does not belong to Britain and Ireland. Editors of all nationalities edit the English Wikipedia, including editors from continental Europe. They should be allowed to use whatever style of English they feel most comfortable with so long as it's consistent within an article. SlimVirgin 22:09, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, dispute it all you like. The EU as an institution uses British/Irish English, and it is completely counter-intuitive to use anything else for Wikipedia articles related to the EU itself. zoney ♣ talk 23:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am allowed to dispute edits, Zoney, as is anyone. The page says edits should not be made without discussion and are likely to be removed if they are, and the EU edit was made without discussion. Also, the EU uses BE only in the sense that the translators are British. If, as you say, it is completely counter-intuitive to use anything other than BE, then the editors who write these articles are likely to feel the same way, so there won't be a problem. My objection is simply that we shouldn't try to force it on anyone. There are quite a few continental European editors at Wikipedia. They have a hard enough time writing in a second or foreign language and don't need further obstacles in the form of having to watch which style of English they write in. I feel you're introducing a false principle that, if an insitution's documents are written in a certain style, that style must be followed by Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not tied to any other institution. We are free agents. When I write about the German parliament, I don't have to write in German. SlimVirgin 01:06, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Continental European editors will already have to contend with writing in British or US English - as they cannot mix and match inside a single article. Furthermore, editing existing articles is more common than new articles - so they are likely going to be having to recognise and conform to a set English format (Yes, it's not too major if they don't as other editors will fix it, but I am pointing out that bringing up the issue of continental Europe editors is fairly meaningless). zoney ♣ talk 10:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If "European Union" is taken to mean the actual institution and machinations thereof - the judicature, bureaucracy and parliament, then I agree with Zoney that UK/Irish English is the most appropriate form of standard English to use. Philip Baird Shearer 00:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the EU bullet point should be kept, because it makes sense. I'm not (yet) involved with the English Wikipedia (I'm from Germany), however I'm very interested in the English language (I was taught BrE at school and later learned AE during a stay in the US, therefore I'm used to both spellings). I came across this discussion and I think it's an important one. Articles focusing on the EU should be written in UK/Irish English, in my opinion. The official EU English is UK English. I don't know how any other spelling could be justified. UK English is the natural choice and wouldn't bother anyone. U.S. spelling probably would. As far as Europe as a continent is concerned, there shouldn't be any fixed English style. However, in Europe, there is a tendency in official settings to use British rather that U.S. spelling. For example, we have a Ministry of Defence in Germany (official translation). That may be due to the proximity of the UK/historical reasons...(?)

Concerning the point "people and English spellings", I think that in obvious cases, one spelling style should be preferred over the other, like Shakespeare and President Bush. In cases where it is not so clear, the "First editor"-rule should be observed, I think. Flo 05:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Flo, there is no "first editor" rule. This comment in the Manual of Style only applies "if all else fails", and after applying a number of other principles. Anyway, it would be best replaced by a rule not to change the standard form of English an article is written in "without good reason" (with the onus on someone changing the style to defend their edits if challenged), jguk 09:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

EU and OAS

This is my compromise proposal, a package deal:

Articles on European Union treaties, institutions and directives should use British and Irish usage and spelling.
Article on treaties, institutions and directives of the Organization for American States should not use British English.

The Organization for American States uses American English and it is based in the United States. Maurreen 05:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it is a good idea to list out lots of organisations and specify what form of English is used. The EU may be a specific exception (though I'm not sure we need to spell it out).

Incidentally, a quick surf of the OAS website shows that it does not use American English - it appears to use some form of Commonwealth/International English, with "labour" and "dialogue" preferred over "labor" and "dialog", and "transportation" over "transport", jguk 08:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to interject after the discussion has moved so far on, but it's an example of an interesting point (relevant to discussions further down the page). If asked about 'transportation' and 'transport', I'd have said unhesitatingly that the former was American English, the latter British English. I'm convinced that a good proportions of debates over U.S/U.K. English are in fact nothing of the sort; rather, people take their own idiolects (often including what are straightforwardly mistakes) to be standard for their national identity. (Early on in my Wikipedia editing career, before I registered, I saw a bad-tempered exchange between two editors over the supposed use of British English be defused by their discovery that they were in fact both American.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good points, Mel. And "dialogue" is also American. Maurreen 04:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the OAS website uses predominantly US spellings. It's true there are some exceptions (I don't know why), but if you search the website, you'll see that the vast majority of the site uses US spellings.

I agree with Maurreen. I think it would be acceptable to use BrE for the EU and AE for the OAS. Well, if you have a look at the Wikipedia articles EU/OAS, you'll see that this approach is already followed anyways. Flo 09:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the main, you are right, Flo - but we shouldn't have a more rigid policy for WP articles on the OAS than the one the OAS has. Best to keep silent on it, I think - and let any Canadians, say, who wish to write on the OAS to do so in Canadian English, jguk 10:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Concur. Canadian English should be equally appropriate for OAS. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:27, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Why should the EU be an exception? I agree that this is getting silly: to list certain institutions that must be written about in a certain style; to insist that Malta be written about in Maltese English. This is instruction creep and everyone will ignore it, so all we're doing here is ensuring that the MoS will remain an obscure page that people don't respect. Let's ditch the nationalistic attitudes, please. The first-major-contributer is a good rule, providing for freedom for editors but consistency within articles, and there's no reason to mess with it. SlimVirgin 21:44, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes there is reason to debate this. It is entirely unacceptable to write about the EU in US English, if Wikipedia is indeed to be English neutral. First-major-contributor is not good enough as far as EU topics are concerned. What I am arguing for is no different to insisting that UK topics are written in UK English, US topics in US English, etc. Insisting on that distinction (use the English appropriate to the topic), but not for the EU, is illogical. zoney ♣ talk 21:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My own preference it that first-major-contributer should apply across the board. These things all work out in the end, which is the point of the invisible-hand philosophy of Wikipedia. Most British topics will be written by Brits, so there's really no issue here. Tony Blair's article is not going to be overrun by colors or defenses. But if Blair was written about in American English, or Bush in British English, would it really matter? All it does is signal the preference or nationality of the first author. It doesn't mean it's hard to understand, which is all that matters. I can only repeat that my own position is that I am pretty much devoid of any nationalistic slant on any issue, and can never understand it when I encounter it. I don't think any Wikipedia guideline ought to encourage it. But fine, if others have agreed here that American articles must be written in American English, and British articles in British English, I probably can't change that, but it would be absurd to allow that to extend to other countries, as though we have any right to split the world into spheres of influence. SlimVirgin 22:50, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

But if Blair was written about in American English, or Bush in British English, would it really matter?

Yes. And I am not alone in this view. Otherwise we would not have any guidelines on the issue. I would suggest you are in an ill-equipped position to debate further guidelines if you do not accept the current ones that have been achieved by consensus. zoney ♣ talk 00:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm ill-equipped to debate because I disagree with you? That's a new one. ;-) SlimVirgin 00:09, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Why would it matter, Zoney, if Blair were written about in American English, and Bush in British English? SlimVirgin 00:11, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think there are two separate issues here. The first are countries. Earlier in this section SV said "I agree that this is getting silly: ~~to list certain institutions that must be written about in a certain style;~~ to insist that Malta be written about in Maltese English." Yet if US articles are in US English and UK articles in UK English etc, why not Maltese articles in Maltese English? Which BTW in its formal form will be the same as most other Commonwealth countries which all have their local idiocincracies but are all very similar.

The EU is not just a free trade area it also involves pooled sovereignty in a way that no equivalent multinational institution does. This is why I think that it is an exception, and articles about EU institutions and their verbiage they should be in Irish English. However if people want the comfort blanket of saying "for balance" the English used by any multinational institution should be the guide for articles about that institution, I would not object, although I think it unnecessary Philip Baird Shearer 23:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It involves a degree of cooperation. The members have not lost their sovereignty. SlimVirgin 00:09, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Not true. The member states have certainly transferred some of their sovereignty. For instance, European law takes precedence over national law so that where the two conflict national law is struck down. Also some European law can be made in European institutions and have the force of law in all the member states without further action from the member states, who do not have the right of veto, jguk 09:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's not a loss of sovereignty. The EU is an organization of sovereign states, who have agreed to some common laws and a common currency, but any country may pull out of it. They retain their sovereignty. SlimVirgin 10:31, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Clarifying my compromise proposal: It does not prohibit Canadian English for the OAS. It does not prohibit or even discourage any language native to the countries belonging.
Regardless of how exceptional the European Union is, I doubt its residents identify with it on a par with their identification with their own country. Maurreen 09:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. SlimVirgin 10:31, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Many people in Northen Ireland would identify with Ireland first, the EU second and not at all with the UK! In the UK, most people in Scotland are Scottish first, British second. It is the Scottish Nationalists policy to leave the UK but remain in the EU. Scotland can pull out of the UK more easily than the UK can pull out of the European Union. Just as with the US constitution, there currently no article of secession from the EU treaties or any agreed policy of how secession could be achieved. It has been added to the draft constitution [4], but there is no agreement yet to implement the EU DC. Philip Baird Shearer 15:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here are two HMG Northern Ireland Executive briefing papers on subsidiarity in the EU:

And a speech by Christopher Patten, the EU External Relations Commissioner "Sovereignty, democracy and constitutions finding the right formula"

Unless there are any credible arguments against it, I am going to reinstate the EU line:

- article on European Union treaties, institutions and directives: British and Irish usage and spelling

--Philip Baird Shearer 21:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you disagree with an argument does not mean it is not credible.

I say the EU and the Organization of American States should have parallel treatment. Maurreen 06:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seem very odd for articles on the EU to be in American English -- there are only two English-speaking countries in the EU (citizen of one, resident of the other, here; though in my experience, Sweden's a pretty close to being a third...), and English as an official working language of the EU, is decidedly British English. I don't know if it's necessary to make a hard and fast rule to this effect, but IMO it would be ridiculous to have a situation where someone deciding to write an article just north of the magic stub threshold on such a topic would bind all subsequent practice for all eternity, barring any possibility of compromise, logic, or emergent harmony with related articles, which is what some seem to be arguing for.

The OAS I can't speak to in any detail. Is it really a parallel case, or is this just transatlantic haggling in the spirit of Boeing vs. Airbus, and little bananas vs. big ones? I note that the majority of English-speaking countries in the OAS are... also British-English speaking. Does it have an official policy on working languages? Alai 08:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on this? "I note that the majority of English-speaking countries in the OAS are... also British-English speaking." Thanks. Maurreen 08:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to trawl through the list to give you stat, but all the English-speaking Commonwealth countries in the OAS speak "British" English, no? How many besides the US speak American English? Alai 09:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can understand arguments for the EU proposition. But I would like the proponents to try to have some empathy. In and of itself, broadening the reach of British English is no more or less appropriate than broadening the reach of American English (although "reach" might not be the best word here).

Arguments could be made for that, but I'd prefer not. In my view, people make too much issue of the various national varieties. Maurreen 08:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By "credible arguments", I meant an example of an authoritative person arguing that there is no pooled sovereignty in the EU. To repeat what said before:

The EU is not just a free trade area it also involves pooled sovereignty in a way that no equivalent multinational institution does. This is why I think that it is an exception, and articles about EU institutions and their verbiage should be in Irish English. However if people want the comfort blanket of saying "for balance" the English used by any multinational institution should be the guide for articles about that institution, I would not object, although I think it unnecessary. Philip Baird Shearer 11:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have wandered from Maurreen's proposal. I thought her proposal related only to articles about the EU or the OAS, not about member countries. Someone starting an article about a particular cathedral in France or about a notable Brazilian musician could still use whichever form of English he or she preferred. At least, that's the way I think it should be. Maurreen, is that what you intended? If so, and the proposal applies only to articles about those transnational entities, we can figure that there won't be all that many such articles. JamesMLane 14:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I said above:

article on European Union treaties, institutions and directives: British and Irish usage and spelling

I am not sure where you get the idea that this is about everything in the EU. Although User:Zoney would like it all, I think he will settle for this rather than nothing. Is that correct User:Zoney?. The sovereignty thing is to do with why the EU is diffrent from other International institutions like the OAS. It is not an attempt to say that all Italian car articles should be in Irish English! However an article on London, Dublin or Valletta should be in the local formal English. Not because they are in the EU but for the same reason that New York and Sydney should be.

I think that the EU is different from all other International institutions because of shared sovereignty and if the OAS is included then why not all international organisations like the Commonwealth of Nations and the UN? Both use English as a formal language and all articles could be written in Commonwealth and UN English.

I would like to replace "directives" with a word which means all verbage which spews out from the place: "EU regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions", but I am not sure which word to use. Has any one got any ideas? I interpret this clause to mean that if one is writing about the European Parliament when in Strasbourg then it should be in British/Irish English. But an article on Strasbourg Cathedral (to pick one not yet written) can be in AE or any other formal English dialect.

SlimVirgin wrote (08:48, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)): But I would want some kind of clear wording or disclaimer to make sure it didn't extend beyond that, and it shouldn't include articles related to the European Union in general, or to countries belonging to the European Union. and as I replied: What is the difference between "article on EU treaties, institutions and directives" and all the other examples in that section? Why is a "clear wording or disclaimer" needed for "article on EU treaties, institutions and directives" and not for "article on Ayers Rock" or "article on the American Civil War"? --Philip Baird Shearer 16:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Philip, how does this work for you? "... European Union institutions and documents ..." I think that would include all the verbiage in a concise wording. Maurreen 04:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is OK with me! Philip Baird Shearer 09:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wrapping this up

OK, just to make sure ... I think this is something probably at least acceptable to most of us. Are there any major objections or suggested wording tweaks to the following?

Articles on European Union institutions and documents should use British and Irish usage and spelling.
Article on institutions and documents of the Organization for American States should not use British English. Canadian English is fine for those articles. Maurreen 06:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the wording is fine. I'm not sure if these sentences are really needed in the Manual of Style, but IF it is decided to put them it, this wording is the only one I can imagine. Flo 07:08, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Flo, if you don't like them, please vote against rather than going along with it. SlimVirgin 07:35, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

There's a vote? Thought I was joking about that. Alai 08:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the latter is vaguely CogDissing, as it implies some large distinction between British and Canadian, and makes me automatically want to add "... and Jamaican, and Bahamian, and ...". Perhaps just saying "usage and spelling appropriate to one or more OAS member country", or something to that effect? Thus purely British tropes are by implication out, until Tony Blair negotiates that island (and change)'s accession... (Ideally one would presumably use as generally acceptable forms as possible, but the MoS already has such language, so needn't incorporate such a formula explicitly.) Alai 07:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is this indeed wrapped up, or to we need to check for consensus, formally vote, engage in an impromptu revert-war, or some other time-hono(u)red Wikipedian ritual practice to denote the happy event? Alai 07:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with it, as I've said several times. The second rule might clash with the "topic specific to" rule, because of Jamaica and other countries that follow BE. I don't think we have any right to split the world up in this way, and if you do it, you'll simply be making the MoS irrelevant, because people won't follow it. SlimVirgin 07:34, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Alai, I like your wording. But what is "CogDissing"? Maurreen 07:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry: causing cognitive dissonance. Alai 08:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Trying again

OK, how about this? Again, as a package deal?

Articles on European Union institutions and documents should use British and Irish usage and spelling.
Article on institutions and documents of the Organization for American States should use usage and spelling appropriate to one or more OAS member countries. Maurreen 07:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can we please handle it as a complete package in that case, and add this rider to the "topic specific to" section"-- "Note, however, that individuals who do not hold office do not count as a "topic specific to" a country." So the whole section would read, as follows:

Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country. Note, however, that individuals who do not hold office do not count as a "topic specific to" a country. For example:

- article on the American Civil War: U.S. usage and spelling
- article on Tolkien's Lord of the Rings: UK usage and spelling
- article on Ayers Rock: Australian usage and spelling
- article on the city of Montréal: Canadian usage and spelling
- article on European Union institutions and documents: UK usage and spelling.
- article on institutions and documents of the Organization of American States: usage and spelling appropriate to one or more OAS member countries. SlimVirgin 08:24, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Slim, but I don't see how your suggestion fits in with the other two. Maurreen 08:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm asking that we add the "persons are not topics" sentence as part of the package. That is, when editors write about an individual (so long as the person doesn't hold office), they can use whatever style of English they want, with the first-major-contributor to apply. Also note: I asked Filiocht to clarify whether s/he was in agreement with me about the dangers of creeping nationalism and too many rules. S/he has clarified but has done it below in the section about tags. However, I feel I can perhaps include Filiocht as a supporter against rigid rules. Read the post and see what you think. SlimVirgin 08:46, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

As I indicate below, I think this is an inordinate level of debate on a relatively trivial issue. Will insisting on a given dialect in a given article improve the factual accuracy or NPOV of that article? No. Will insisting on a rule tend to make some potential editors feel excluded? Yes. So where's the benifit to Wikipedia? I cannot see it. I write on Irish, British and American subjects in my own dialect of written English and no rules, tags, etc will make me equally literate in another dialect. If enforced (which I feel is unlikely) They'll either cause me to stop working on articles like, say The Cantos or I'll just ignore them. Filiocht 09:46, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of either, the 'packaging' seems very unnatural. I really don't see any relationship between the two. Are you suggesting there is one, or just horse-trading for a rider? ("... and the marriage of the Mayor of Plymouth be dissolved.") My difficulty with your suggestion is that you are suggesting a pretty rigid rule (total editorial freedom -- up to the point where it becomes arbitrarily preserved in aspic for all time), and one without any relationship with the article subject at all. (The text above also begs the question: so Lord of the Rings has to be in British English, but J.R.R. Tolkien can be (or could have been) in American?) Alai 09:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have explained why the EU is different from other international organisations because of pooled sovereignty. No one has yet produced an example of an authoritative person arguing that there is no pooled sovereignty in the EU. Because of this pooled sovereignty, if an article is about a nation which uses the local English, then the EU as a sort of nation, should be treated the same and the EU's English is British/Irish English. I am sure that no one who accepts the concept of a locale would argue the South African articles specifically on SA topics should not be written in SA English. I have chosen SA as an example, because it has 12 offical languages of which English performs a similar role as that in the EU. I do not see the EU as any different. Equally because the EU is not a full blown nation, I would not go so far as to insist that all articles about anyone or thing in the EU is in EU English because that is not a step, but a whole staircase too far.

Maurreen what makes the Organization of American States any different from the Commonwealth of Nations? Particularly as the OAS has member states which use a formal English which is closer to Irish English than US English? Are you saying that they should be written in OAS style English or American English? If American or Canadian English why not the English of Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, and Jamaica to list just the first 3 Commonwealth countries to join the OAS?
Maurreen if the OAS is in a designated English why should the same rules apply for the Commonwealth of Nations? What about the African Union what about the host of other International organizations which use English as an official language?

For this reason I think that the EU should be treated as a nation and not an international organization. Philip Baird Shearer 18:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Status of MoS

Jguk, do not change this back again to claiming it's policy. I have no objection to you seeking to make it policy, though there are a few things I'd want to see changed before I'd support it. The only thing I ask is that you seek a broader consensus. A small group of five or so editors can't make that decision on their own. And anyway, adding the category doesn't do it. It's not classed as policy on the policy page so it's still going to count as a guideline no matter what you call it on this page. SlimVirgin 10:28, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

MoS as policy

For a Manual of Style to work, it needs to be policy. That doesn't mean that you will get banned if you don't follow it (you can only get banned for behavioural issues). It does mean that if your edits are not in compliance with it, in due course copy-editing Wikipedians will alter them so that they do comply.

It needs to be policy for the following reasons:

(i) Disagreeing editors will edit against it, saying "it's not policy" if it is not policy - this is particularly true of the US v non-US English usage sections that we have!
(ii) If it's not policy, other editors will be free to develop and promote their own Wikipedia Style Guides - this would be unwelcome.
{iii) We have enough edit wars as it is - having this page as policy gets rid of some.
(iv) The goals of the Manual of Style - consistency and standardisation - cannot be met without it being policy.

Comments please? jguk 11:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the thing I don't understand about this conversation is the dictatorial desire to control how people write and to make it uniform across the whole encyclopedia. There's a lot of variation between articles in other areas: POVS, factual accuracy, whether sources are cited, grammar, quality of writing, image use, the way articles are structured. And yet when it comes to whether to write color or colour, you want absolute uniformity, with the world split into "with U/without U" spheres of influences, and wanting it to be policy, on a par with NPOV and no original research. If you read half the articles, and probably more than half, they contain serious errors of fact and grammar, both of which make Wikipedia look bad, and most don't have adequate references. Those errors are more important than whether we spell "recognize" with an s or a z. These tiny stylistic differences will never make us look bad, and probably won't even be noticed by many readers. And if they're noticed, all they communicate is that some of the authors of the article may have been British or American. But I don't see why that's a big deal.

Something that User:Albion, whoever he was, said to me regarding Bernard Williams was that it meant a lot to some people that articles related to the UK should be in British English, which is why I gave in. But I wonder why it should mean such a lot (and especially in articles not about the UK, but about Europe or whatever) and it would be good if someone could clearly explain it. Is it a fear that these spellings may die out otherwise? If I could understand it better, maybe I could get a handle on knowing how to approach the issue. SlimVirgin 12:02, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not getting into the "policy" debate. But ...

Some people do knowingly, deliberately and possibly vehemently go against the style guide regardless.
Other editors are free to develop other style guides. Maurreen 02:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)