Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 120

Archive 115

←

Archive 118

Archive 119

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

→

Archive 125

Dash or hyphen?

In "east-west position" (i.e. position along an east-to-west axis) and "north-south position" (i.e. position along a north-to-south axis), should those be hyphens or dashes? 81.159.109.69 (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

These are compound adjectives, so they should use hyphens. — Edokter (talk) — 14:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, an en dash: east–west and north–south. Please see the MoS section on dashes. Tony (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. There are three questions to be asked; so I will make a separate post of this.

1. Is this English usage?
   • No; Google books yields millions of scans for books with "east west", which will include both dashes and hyphens. Hyphenation appears more common even in well-typeset books, and in East-West dialogue or relations, where the modifier is a compound noun in apposition; in east-west direction or distance or position, where the modifier is a compound adjective, it is difficult to find an example.
2. Is there a rationale for this, such as support by a commonly accepted style guide? (Consensus would be preferable.)
   • Not at present. CMOS says The en dash can be used in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of its elements consists of an open compound or when both elements consist of hyphenated compounds (see 7.78). This editorial nicety may go unnoticed by the majority of readers; nonetheless, it is intended to signal a more comprehensive link than a hyphen would. It should be used sparingly, and only when a more elegant solution is unavailable. (§6.80, bold added) If other style guides are more permissive, let us see them.
   • This is permission under two conditions, one of which is false here, and the other of which is extremely restrictive; other style guides are likely to be similar. East—West may be a compound noun (from the East and the West), but that's not what the original post asked.
3. Is it consensus?
   • Well, no.
   • There's no evidence that ENDASH is consensus. (Where's the discussion?)
   • ENDASH does not even give the grudging permission for a dash here that CMOS does.

That's zero for three. A requirement of a dash here is not ENDASH; it would in any case be Original Research - and, as far as I tell, erroneous original research. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with others that OR does not enter into it. It might be right, wrong or debatable, in common meaning of those terms. But we could decide to write right to left or or boustrophon, should the community wish, and it would OR would not enter into it. Rich Farmbrough, 15:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC).

OR enters into it to the extent that this Manual of Style claims to describe English, which is not written boustrophedon. The fact that MOS appears on this, the English Wikipedia, implies that it does describe English; and MOS:CLEAR states that plain English (a subset of English) is preferable. I suppose there is a verbal quibble whether this amounts to OR in MOS, or MOS (as misinterpreted) requiring OR in article space; but which of these is better?

Let us consider what would be likely to happen if some small group made MOS say that we should be so original as to write boustrophedon, and took every measure in their power to "enforce" the rule against the "MOS breaches" of writing left-to-right. That would make half of every article unintelligible to the common reader; which would be a deliberate major harm to Wikipedia. Would we even pause for an RfC, or would we take the small "consensus" directly to ArbCom?

The present "rule" (which is not, of course, backed by the actual text of WP:ENDASH) doesn't make Wikipedia unintelligible, merely more difficult to read and subliterate in appearance. It is only minor harm - and open embarrassment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe ArbCom would reject a boustrophedon case as a content issue. However, a bigger consensus would presumably revert the boustrophedon guideline. If the pro-boustrophedon faction maintained control through edit warring and other disruptive editing, and perhaps if other dispute resolution procedure was followed (although that procedure wasn't really made for factional war), then ArbCom would accept the case. That's what should happen here, if the MoS isn't really a consensus. Art LaPella (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Original research, as quoted from the Wikipedia article:

Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. This material is of a primary source character. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)

I can not stress enough against your campaign to label a multitude of items discussed here as "Original research". In actuality, most of the items you prefer to label as "original research" are simply cases of improper grammar and in the rare case, a falsity. While it is certainly frowned upon to include false information on Wikipedia, using improper grammar does not signify intent to convey false material and is not original research in any context. --Xession (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The false claim, however, is that these instances of improper grammar, as here, are proper grammar - and, quite frequently, that some unheard-of form is the English for the subject. Neither of these classes is sourced (or sourceable); they are false and they are OR; but it will suffice to call them WP:MADEUP, if it will keep a red herring off the ground. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If they are false and are not sourcable, then how could they possibly be original research? What would a person research to come to an entirely false assumption beyond their own mind? They've taken no previously reviewed knowledge and they've contributed no new knowledge on the subject beyond stating absolutely false claims. It is not original research then, but rather a falsity. If however, an individual unknowingly misuses symbols, they may not be intending to present a falsity at all, but rather demonstrating their own lack of knowledge of English syntax. This would not make their entire contribution false, nor would it make such a contribution unwanted; the content would however, require an editor with further knowledge regarding English syntax, to correct the mistakes. Not everyone is skillful in English. --Xession (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Something an editor has made up is always Original Research; that's what WP:NOR was (forgive the play on words) originally for; it is easier to observe that (as here) a view is unsupported than to prove it to be an invention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the dash is required in "east–west", to signal the "to" or "between" or "versus" relationship between co-equals, as opposed to the hyphen, which would signal that this is the adjective form of an "east west" whatever that is. You can find it in at least a few sources, like this one. To show that some sources make the opposite determination, you'd need to find a source that can be seen to normally use the standard convention of en dash between co-equal terms, and then show that they use a hyphen in east-west. The proliferation of hyphens in sources that neglect en dashes doesn't tell you anything. Anyway, why not just go with the conventional rule, use the en dash, and thereby give your reader the right signal? Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

How about the OED? It has a full entry on Michelson–Morley (with dash), but its entry on east has a large number of citations of east-west and East-West and even East/West, (with hyphens and slashes, but no dashes). The entire entry has five dashes, all of them in the section on spelling, in such expressions as "OE–ME éast", which is a genuine instance of the from/to sense of the dash.

This signal seems unlikely to be received and understood by any reader who hasn't read through MOS (and how many have done that? why should they have to?); that's the trouble with making things up without letting the reader in on them first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Married women names

Apologies if this is not the right place for this question, but I was wondering about the naming convention that Wikipedia (and Wikipedia, only) seems to use in naming married women, in which the article is in the format: Firstname Maidenname Marriedname. I have never seen this format used anywhere else so I was hoping someone could tell me why (only) Wikipedia uses this naming convention, even for married women who don't actually use this naming convention themselves. NorthernThunder (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That is North American custom; it should be used with caution elsewhere. But the proper place for this is WT:TITLE; examples would be nice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Behind-the-scenes work

I see that Mr Anderson made an "Uncontroversial request" at Wikipedia:Requested moves that would have involved breaching the MoS guidance on dashes, by moving "Mexican–American War" to "Mexican-American War". Fortunately, an admin caught it and deleted the request.

Mr Anderson, please do not conduct clandestine campaigns without consensus. Tony (talk) 07:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"Clandestine campaigns"? Strictly speaking, is anyone required to ask on the MoS page first before requesting that the title of a completely different page be changed? Sure, it would have been best to discuss it first, but let's give people the benefit of the doubt and assume nothing deliberately underhanded was going on. At the very least, it'll keep tensions a little lower and make true consensus easier to reach. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is, I think, more of the unfortunate results of the claim that MOS has a mystic status "higher than a guideline" - and that it means whatever Tony would like it to mean, not what it says. It would be nice if he would cite ENDASH for what it actually says - that is, after all, the purpose of writing down even a disputed guidance.

As for Mexican-American War, it's another case of a hyphen being what English actually uses - and should use. These are the printed books which use "Mexican American War" (search phrase chosen for neutrality). I have looked some way down the list for one which does not hyphenate when one clicks through to the actual scan and not found one; for one Google has an OCR error and reports a space. Since this a compound adjective, being the war which is both Mexican and American, hyphenation also complies with WP:ENDASH.

Tony likes more colorful language that WP:CIVIL will normally permit (at least he isn't discussing his bodily functions again); but really, "clandestine" for an edit on WP:RM, a page watched by hundreds? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:ENDASH's "male–female ratio" include a compound adjective just like "Mexican [insert favorite punctuation here] American War"? "Male", "female", "Mexican", and "American" can all be used as nouns or adjectives. I wouldn't have called Septentrionalis's well-known opposition to ENDASH "clandestine", but then I wouldn't have called dash wars "uncontroversial", either. Art LaPella (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Mexican-American War was both Mexican and American, whereas the male–female ratio is neither male nor female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.105.17 (talk • contribs)

Nor is it both; as the War is Mexican (indeed, the name Mexican War is not uncommon) and American; the ratio is of males to females. Therefore male and female are nouns.

As for whether it is controversial; the reaction of every American with whom I have discussed this is "Wikipedia spells the Mexican-American War how? Why?" (And this War has strong ties with the United States.) Searches confirm this reaction; it should not be controversial to correct something Wikipedia has invented, with complete - er - originality. If it is controversial, the guideline which has misled non-Americans should be ignored until it is clarified. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You might be right about the adjectives (or was it a war of Mexicans and Americans, and a ratio of being male to being female? I don't know). But surely this page's archives show dashes are controversial here, regardless of their merits anywhere else. Here's how someone interpreted the rule in 2008. WP:EXCEPTIONS Art LaPella (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, in principle "Mexican–American War" could be taken to mean a war between Mexicans and Americans, but I think that's not the way wars are usually called. I guess a war involving Spain would be called Spanish-Whatever War, not Spaniard–Whatever War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.105.17 (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Other_dashes

The manual states that two hyphen (--) should not be used in place of an en dash (–) or em dash (—) as they are typewriter approximations. However, the typewriter conventions page (where the link goes) states, "A number of typographical conventions originate from the widespread use of the typewriter, based on the characteristics and limitations of the typewriter itself. For example, the QWERTY keyboard typewriter did not include keys for the en dash and the em dash. To overcome this obstacle, users typically typed more than one adjacent hyphen to approximate these symbols. This typewriter convention is still sometimes used today, even though modern computer word processing applications can input the correct en and em dashes for each font type." I don't know about most users, but my computer keyboard still doesn't have either an en dash key or an em dash key and Wikipedia doesn't autocorrect double hyphens into a en dash or em dash. Given that double hyphens still seem to be a valid necessity when writing on Wikipedia (and not using Alt+whatever to generate an en dash), and that this "approximation" has been around and in use for decades, it is my opinion that the manual should be changed to not actively discourage the use of double hyphens. The change to the "other dashes" section should be something like the following:

Do not use substitutes for em or en dashes, such as the combination of two hyphens (--). These were typewriter approximations.

Keyboards generally do not have en dash and the em dash symbols. To overcome this obstacle, for ease of use, users may use the typewriter approximation of typing two hyphens (--) for an en dash and three hyphens (---) for an em dash.

That's my opinion, anyway. :) Banaticus (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What about – and —?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed regrettable that through ignorance or plain boorishness, the geeks at Microsoft et al. who designed their computer keyboards decided to put all sorts of weird things on the keyboard—such as the circonflexe that is so useful (^), but left off the en and em dashes. The Mac keyboard, fortunately, does have these as normal keys, in keeping with its generally greater sensitivity to usability and its greater consumer orientation (as opposed to programmers' "we know how to write; don't bother to ask users or clients" attitude, which, sadly, still persists in many quarters—I suppose we're lucky to have a semicolon on the standard keyboard). Oh wait: could it be that # and ^ are required in programming? Fancy that.

After this little rant, to answer your question, Banticus, WP does require professional typography, as should any publisher worth their salt. The gobblydy – and — as suggested by Ryulong is one way; easier still are your trusted buttons that are always under the edit-box—the first two provided you have the "Insert" tab chosen. User:GregU's superb dash script is good before you click "Save"; it will change hyphens into dashes in number ranges and as spaced interruptors on the clause level, but won't fix the use of hyphens in, say, "east–west", or "blood–brain barrier", or "protein–protein interaction".

If writing a letter of complaint/request to Microsoft were ever not going to be trashed in a flash, one might bother; they're an arrogant near-monopoly. Remember Bill Gates in the witness box before the Congressional inquiry? Tony (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Postscript: LaTeX automatically renders -- as en dashes and --- as em dashes. Any impediment to putting an option for this in users' prefs, so that those combos are transformed into the proper typography upon first saving?

The reason that # and ^ (and other characters such as @ and ~) get used in technical contexts is that they are on the keyboard and scarcely used rather than the other way around. Rich Farmbrough, 15:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC).

Insulting Microsoft doesn't really help further your point any. I have computer keyboards from before the Microsoft era, that have an almost identical layout. The standard formed over time, and people got used to it. You are more than welcome to pick up any of the multitude of alternate layouts that fit your preferences though.

My keyboard does have the basic typographical symbols. I just feel for those who have to click the buttons at the bottom. Tony (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto for the insults, but perhaps the answer is to make the list of codes like &endash easier to find. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Besides the HTML entity code, there are templates {{ndash}} and {{mdash}}, and even {{--}}; unfortunately, {{-}} is used for float-element clearing. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No, please don't use those templates: people use them for unspaced en dashes, yet they come with a space. The template should be deleted. Tony (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no space from the double-dash version. Eg: no—space as compared to obvious – space. That means the ndash/mdash ones can be corrected. --MASEM (t) 04:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why we see horrors like 1983 – 86. It's two more keystrokes than – so as so often with a well-intentioned syntax/template, it falls over. Please don't use it. Tony (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there *any* time that one would spaces on either side of an ndash? or a better question, would be better to strip the spaces from the two (ndash/mdash) and have uses do that themselves? --MASEM (t) 04:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The spaced en dash is a stylistic alternative to the unspaced em dash, for a break. The template is for only that purpose – but it's not a very good name for it. It includes a non-breaking space before the en dash, so that it won't end up as the first thing on a new line. Taking the spaces out of the template would break all the correct uses of it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of being shot down in flames for a date range where the entities themselves use spaces or dashes - the spaced dash indicating a weaker binding than the spaces or dashes, e.g. July 12 - 30 May 62 rather than July 12-31 May 62. Rich Farmbrough, 15:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC).

What? Tony (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Far better, to me, to strip the spaces away, to stop users from wrongly inserting it in all contexts aside from the en dash as interrupter – like this: January–March 2008. Most en dashes are for year ranges. For full date ranges (dates of birth and death at the top, for example), it's a spaced en dash. But I cannot see the point of this template to start with. Just click on the button below the edit box. Tony (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The point is only to get the non-breaking space into the spaced en dash. It's lame that someone made the "--" template do em dash instead of following closer to TeX and giving us both dashes as "--" and "---". It wouldn't be hard to fix, though, since there are few uses of "--". Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately we also have the problem that {{---}} is taken for a different purpose too.

We could make {{n-}} and {{m-}} to make "easy" n and m dashes, no space on either side. --MASEM (t) 06:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but {{n-}} and {{m-}} are rather clunky to type out when you just want an en dash because you prefer using them over semicolons to set off a non-dependent clause in a sentence -- just use the double hyphens. So what if some "fancy" word processors autocorrect them -- let's use the decades old familiar approach. That's my opinion. :) Banaticus (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use double-hyphens unless an auto-correction is installed in WP's software. I I have to go around correcting after your edits, I'll be not worth speaking to. What is wrong with m and n within double curly brackets, Masem? (Assuming no spacing.) Tony (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

{{m}} is used across >50 pages for what appears to be latin alphabet stuff. {{n}} is a "nay" vote template.

Again, all I'm suggesting is that for some people, a template form of the standard html entity text is easier to remember when editing. We want an easy-to-remember template name to allow that to happen. Ideally it would have been {{-}} and {{--}}, but we can't use this pairing due to the first being used as float-div-clear. With names like "n-" and "m-", at least they audibly sound like what they are supposed to do and help improve their mnemonic quality.

Alternatively, we could actually change {{ndash}} and {{mdash}} to remove the spaces, but only after a bot or AWB is used to convert all existing uses from "{{spaced ndash}}" to " {{ndash}} ", and then alter the docs to explain this change. That's a lot more work but also I would think probably more correct. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

(or replace those spaces with non-breaking ones if that's the correct way...) --MASEM (t) 16:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

{{M}} is not in use on articles - there were two uses but they were typos. Many of the other uses I have looked at are tranlated from the French and should be {{Tl}}. Rich Farmbrough, 16:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC).

If you can remember {{mdash}}, you can remember —. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

But WP:DASH should link to a help page explaining options, or maybe one best option, for how to make dashes. It might also include discussion of those who want to change — to – or vice versa with a bot. I think everyone except the Hyphen Luddites agrees that's a good idea if somebody else does it. Art LaPella (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that they divide more or less evenly between those who want to change — to – and those who want to change – to —, both for clarity. This may depend on how visible the difference between dash and hyphen is on their personal computer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I meant everyone agrees that a dash making help page would be nice, however we explained the – or — (or ndash) issue, if we explained it at all. Of course that assumes that eliminating WP:DASH is not an alternative. Art LaPella (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)True, but the double curly brackets do have the benefit of being common to every other Wikipedia template (heck, I just wound up using two of them myself), so it would be easy to learn for newbies. That said, I always use the insert box below the edit window. Mentioning that is probably sufficient. oknazevad (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• What about {{en-}} and {{em-}}, for the unspaced, and {{ en- }} for the spaced en dash? And while we're at it, could we please consider {{s-}} for the non-breaking space? Tony (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • en- and em- are open. I don't think we can technically precede or follow the name of a template by a space character, but there's no reason templates can't be strong, or use something like {{_en-_}} for the nbspaces. There is a standard {{nbsp}} template already, but if en- and em- are considered fair, so is s- (though caution should be made, that there's a series of S-<name> templates that are used for succession boxes.) --MASEM (t) 05:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

May a bot protect template citations but not plain citations?

I have started an RfC on this question at WT:CITE#May a bot protect template citations but not plain citations? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Section headers BRD discussion

A bold addition from earlier today recommended against using semicolon headers and other boldface quasi-headings. For this who haven't used them, coding this:

;Example

Renders this:

Example

I reverted, as not only do I believe that this deserves some discussion, but I disagree that these headers are always undesirable. "Real" headers appear in the ToC, and if there's a series of headers in quick succession, the ToC can get very clogged.

As an example, I've used semicolon headers in Long Island Rail Road, in two sections. One for the list of branches, the other on the major (terminal) stations. In both cases, the ToC became quite bloated when they were full section headers. Also, as all entries have their own, already-linked article, there's no need to ever use a section link, which is the other major reason to use full headers. That certainly doesn't apply here.

This is only one example, but it strikes me that putting a blanket ban on them, especially without discussion, is problematic at best. Also, if they aren't meant to be used, why does the simulation feature exist? oknazevad (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand, the mark-up for semicolons exists from previous incarnations and alternatives to wiki-software for definition lists: a holdover from dictionary coding that is not really used in Wikipedia any longer except in glossaries (which are, as I've come to read, a controversial subject in their own right that I won't be touching here). In order to avoid breaking the intention of the initial contributor, the lead semicolon-syntax is kept, but it is more-or-less deprecated. In the example you cite, you seem to be using "headings" inappropriately since what you are doing is making an embedded children list that isn't a proper definition list, IMHO. I think best practice would be to follow the MoS guidance for children lists rather than using the semi-colon faux subsection. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Still useful in limited circumstances; some articles do contain glossaries, lists of minor characters, and so forth, where making them all sub-sub-sections would produce a mess of one- or two-line sections, and an absurdly long table of contents. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Most articles that contain glossaries can usually change those glossaries into embedded lists. I did so for the Long Island Rail Road referenced above. It's a stylistic improvement. You don't need to use sub-subsections, you can use bullets instead (with the added advantage that long embedded lists of things like minor characters can be easily divided into columns, for example). IvoryMeerkat (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I would absolutely support deprecating the various home made headers - I spend a lot of time cleaning them out of articles (that are probably headed straight for AfD - but that's another tale). To avoid ToC "clutter" use {{TOC limit}}. Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC).

If they're headed for AFD, why bother? But does this also remove the equally unnecessary header lines? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "header lines"? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Usage: Why weasel

Tony has extended MOS:FOLLOW to

Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources on the subject. If the sources can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage, follow current English usage instead—and consult more sources.

I thought he liked MOS brief.

More to the point, do the bolded weasel-words add anything material to the section that simple Observe doesn't? There is already an allowance for cases in which there is a clear reason not to follow usage; what more do we need? I suppose there is a case for Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, generally follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources; but is even that necessary? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The only benefit of Tony's version I can see is the notion that following high quality sources is not mandatory is expressed right at the beginning, for the benefit of people who don't read the entire paragraph. If someone can think of a version that is as brief as Septentrionalis's but expresses the non-mandatory nature of the advice right at the beginning, it would be an improvement. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine, we can put In general as the first two words. I do not agree with this, since I am tired of the campaign to use MOS to convert Wikipedia into something other than English, but it will do much less harm than the weaselry now in place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement of fact challenged

It doesn't seem to me that the following statement from this article is true:

"In American English, U.S. (with periods) is more common as the standard abbreviation for United States"

I encourage you to do as I have and make a point of noticing how it is done in America and by Americans, if you can, as you go about your lives. I think you will notice that the statement doesn't seem to be true. No authority is referred to in support of this statement, and I believe that it is not true now, although I think it used to be true in the not too distant past, it doesn't seem to be true now. Guideline articles like this are not held to the same standard of citation as mainspace articles, but in this case because there seems to be some doubt, if it's not just me, then please let's back up this statement with some kind of authority or remove it from this guideline article. Chrisrus (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I did a quick search on the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal websites, and they all use "U.S.". This summary of the APA style explicitly says to use periods [1]. I have the impression that this is the de facto standard for general publications in the United States. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I wrote a post on it and cited a good essay by an English professor grammar expert. It's still the norm in the United States. There are some changes and you can find some style guide that helps your case if you want to be cutting edge, but this guy's advice was to use whatever made sense in the context, and if you don't know, he said opt for the periods. Personally, I really don't care, since the kind of people who change them are meticulous about changing all of them. And I went through 7 changes in less than a month to my article. I just laid back and enjoyed it...;-) TCO (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well OK then. I asked for some kind of authority to the statement and you've given several, includig APA style book, which would have been enough for me. So that's that, without checking up on you I'll just take your word. But I'd just like to say before I drop it that I am an American and I never use the points and feel like I'm not alone in this and feel that way based on lots of evidence I see around me here in the US, so I think the dots are on the way out and we should keep a very long term eye on it and go with the winds of change. We should probably set some standard as to when we will change, such as maybe when the APA or the NYT change the style, we will take that as our cue to change as well, but until that day we'll stick with the periods. And we might have a look at the statement in the article and see if it shouldn't be softened about what "is the standard" in America because if it's the standard it's not a very standard standard if you'll look around you. Chrisrus (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It was a momentous decision by The Chicago Manual of Style last year to reverse its previous ruling that insisted on dotting "US"—a decision that is yet to fully filter through to American users; the WP MoS cites this decision. In reality, within in North America the ugly dots appear more often than not, but with decreasing incidence. Outside North America, the dots were dropped a long time ago by almost all users, which is consistent with the strong trend away from dotting acronyms and initialisms throughout the language; strangely, for some time American usage has insisted on no dots for USA, USAF, and just about every other American abbreviation. Tony (talk) 07:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I much prefer the look and logic of using the periods. I'd also like to reiterate that the Wikipedia should (and in this case does) reflect what English is, not what it seems as though it will be. Remember, we can always change it then. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Same here. I'm also an American and I did not know that you could say US without the dots; that just seems kind of strange to me.AerobicFox (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

While I believe Wikipedia has the potential to help further standardize language to the benefit of all, according to the usage on the government website, USA.gov [2], "U.S." is primary form and should probably be used until otherwise acknowledged by the government itself. --Xession (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

While not definitive in addressing the commonality of the usage, the style guidelines for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a U.S. government agency, mandates that U.S. be used when addressing the United States. Link

• "reflect what English is, not what it seems as though it will be."—Sorry, you've been left behind. Most people don't use the dots. The fact that some US institutions will take a few years to remove the uglies from their titles is of no relevence. Please don't try to force your personal preferences onto everyone, Darkfrog. Tony (talk)

It could also be said that most people today, heavily use contractions, memes and texting codes when writing as well. Common usage does not reflect formality in all(most) cases. --Xession (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Common usage aside, it seems we have conflicting advice on this in respected published style guides. Which to me means that we should not demand one usage or the other. Both should be seen as acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems agreeable. I need to stop reading this page so much. It seems to enforce dogmatism in supporting your own preferences, rather than collaboration. Thank you for balancing this. --Xession (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You have identified one of the major functions of MOS: allowing editors to make their own (all too often ungrounded) preferences into rules. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this and thought of something. Maybe those authorities who mandate the use of the periods are worried about that fact that, unlike USAF or USA, US is also a common English word, us, the object form of the word "we". In cases such as newspaper headlines or official doccument titles and such that are often written in ALLCAPS, there could be an awkward moment when the mind of the reader might parse it as the word "us". Imagine "POLL FIND US PEOPLE LIVING LONGER". Thinking about that, it made me theorize an understandable reason why a govenment agency or a newspaper would mandate universal use of the U.S. style. Chrisrus (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• "POLL FIND US PEOPLE LIVING LONGER"—it's very ungrammatical. I don't know how a headline like this could ever get through the subeditors. "US PEOPLE" is unusual (Americans). Could you find an example that is grammatical and ambiguous? Even then, it doesn't stop most people from dropping the uglies. Tony (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If you amend it to "POLL FINDS US PERSONS LIVING LONGER", it sounds to me like something you might find in a low-quality rag. However, I don't think that's a problem for us. We don't write things on Wikipedia in all caps. And since we don't write things in all caps, "US" can't be misunderstood as "us" (unless we're doing something like quoting a source that had it in all caps, but then we should be preserving the original ambiguity anyway).

I don't have the same reflexive hatred of periods that Tony has, but I do think they're distracting. Nevertheless plenty of people use them, so we ought to accept them just as with any other ENGVAR issue. Someday, I expect "U.S." will look quaint and we'll all write "US" everywhere; but that's not today. Ozob (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Tony, if you believe that most people in the U.S. are leaving out the dots, then we are not reading the same people. When "US" becomes the clear standard—when the MLA and AMA et al do as Chicago has done—then the Wikipedia MoS should instruct users to do the same in American English articles. Until then, the paragraph stating that Chicago has changed but the others haven't is good to go. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that the dots are on their way out. Note that I prefer dots, in many ways, that I spent a considerable effort some years ago persuading people to use dots on WP. But I am inclined to the reverse opinion now, for the following reasons. Firstly Chicago has changed. Secondly general usage has changed and appears to be changing consistently in the no-dot direction. Thirdly we need to use the undotted version when juxtaposed with other similar abbreviations (US, UK, NZ) which are never dotted on WP and rarely elsewhere, and it makes sense to maintain consistency across WP, otherwise articles could flip-flop from dotted to undotted as reference to, say, the UK were added and removed, and articles in the same set could have different styles (we do have a lot of this already for various reasons). Despite this opinion I think that the corpus should be simply allowed to drift to the undotted version over the next few, maybe more, years until it is 80/20 or 95/5, possibly a tidy up exercise at that stage might be warranted. Rich Farmbrough, 18:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC).

Yes, At some such point, when and if it is reached, no dots will be prevalent English usage, supported by style guides, and presumably Wikipedia consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

While Americans can unilaterally decide how to abbreviate things, it seems to me in poor style to confuse readers with other dialects or for whom English is a second language. I would be greatly annoyed if the Brits, for example, decided to employ words and phrases and abbreviations easily understood in the UK but not comprehensible elsewhere. I don't want to "work" to read a British English dialect article. If they have selected common phrases to both dialects, that would make it more readable to others IMO. I think unilateralism in English dialects is in poor taste, and a bit off-putting. Student7 (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

We are written in English; there is a Simple English Wikipedia for anybody who wants to read English before they have learnt it. It is in any case a doubtful kindness to learners to misinform them what English is; anybody who trusts us as what the abbreviation of United States is should get the actual abbreviation, as used by those who most often discuss it.

But it would appear that Student7's actual objection is to using American English to discuss the United States - which is a quite different section of MOS. Tell us, do you object equally to discussing England in British English? Or is your favorite dialect "international English" which everybody must use? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to type the example I invented with an "s". I mean "POLL FINDS US PEOPLE LIVING LONGER". You are right that we don't use all caps on Wikipedia, so one could argue that there therefore is no need to follow a convention that only exists to avoid allcaps confusion, if it could be established that that is, in fact, the only reason some mandate "U.S." be written with the dots while other expressions that don't spell a common English word, such as USA, USMC, or UK, are to be written without. I could be wrong that this is the reason, but if not, what possible reason could there be for writing only U.S. with dots and not USA, FBI, KGB, CIA, NASA, UK, USSR, etc. etc. etc. There's got to be a reason this seems to be the only one and that's the only reason I can think of for them to mandate such an inconsistant rule. Chrisrus (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Changing topics is confusing to readers in the middle of a thread. But answering the question about dialects, generally: I don't care (for example) for the British insistence on calling playing fields "pitches," accurate enough for cricket, but sloppily applied to all fields including rugby, soccer (association football), on which no one "pitches." It is a noun that they could easily replace and still be understood by a Brit reader. Student7 (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Us people? Ungrammatical. United States people? Unidiomatic (try "Americans"). No newspaper in its right mind would write US PEOPLE or, for that matter, U.S. PEOPLE. Tony (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Watering down the status of the MoS

Mr Anderson is pursuing a daily strategy to unilaterally perpetrate a change he has decided on to the "Follow the sources" general principle at the top.

The pre-existing text, to which I have reverted, is specific:

"Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources on the subject. If the sources can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage, follow current English usage instead—and consult more sources."

Mr Anderson is not happy with this. He wants to reduce the ambit of the style guide in WP articles by providing himself, and any others he can persuade, an instrument with which to challenge just about anything in the style guide he disagrees with:

"In general, observe the style adopted by high-quality sources. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources on the subject. If the sources can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage, follow current English usage instead—and consult more sources."

This change of itself may not be seen as hugely damaging; but it will be followed by a succession of changes that in themselves are "minor", which will add up to something that is significant. I see no particular reason to alter the text that apparently was agreed on some time ago. The MoS's most valuable function is to stop edit-warring over style out in the articles. This war of attrition—daily attempts to set up a slippery slope towards a vastly weakened MoS—needs to have consensus here beforehand. Tony (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not that I am in disagreeance, however, in the previous discussion (just above), he can be seen as discussing this as well as first choosing wording that was mentioned as overly strict. I don't entirely understand his angle and it seems tha you do not as well. Rather than lambasting him with verbose passages discussing how he is "watering down" the MoS, maybe it would be best to step back and gather perspective on the situation. He chooses to make edits because he feels the MoS is improperly worded in various portions. You feel he is in the wrong to do so because you prefer the current text or would at least prefer discussion on the matter first. However, there is somewhere near 100K active editors and yet, no where near that number discusses anything here. My point: there is never consensus on the MoS. There is no need to label his edits as "watering down" the text. Such labels only serve to demonize his actions without further discussion and really does ham to collaboration.--Xession (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

MOS is a Guideline... but Wikipedia has never properly answered the question: "What does 'Guideline' mean?" Some see them as being essentially junior Policy pages (consisting of rules that we must follow). Others see them as being mere advice pages (consisting of guidance as to good practice, but not something that must be followed). Almost all of our guidelines experience a constant tug of war between those who want the content and language to be more rule oriented, and those who want it to be more advice oriented. Over time, the page gets skewed towards one orientation or the other, and there is a reaction against it. I have seen this cycle get played out at WP:RS at least four times in the years I have been editing and working on policy/guideline pages. Resolving the tug of war is never easy, but if we want this page to be stable, we need to reach a middle ground. Both extremes of the pendulum need to compromise. Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There may be a bit of a slippery slope argument in the OP. However, the reason for the change in wording ought to have had a justification, and I don't see what justification was given for it. That said, the lede and general principles aren't particularly clear, IMO. It seems to define "Style" as "language, layout, and formatting that are consistent, clear, and precise." In the contended "Follow the sources" section, neither "Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources" nor "In general, observe the style adopted by high-quality sources" identify what all in Wikipedia should follow the language, layout, and formatting adopted by high-quality sources. Additionally, we don't, in fact, follow the language of the source if it's not English, nor do we follow the page layout of the sources, or the text formatting. Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (layout) and Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (formatting) don't clarify what this could mean either. A bit perplexing, as the MoS subpages generally make sense. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

See the section immediately above. "Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing" is weasel-wording, which adds nothing to the section. Why have it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

How does that wording "deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint" the way WP:Weasel words do? That's not really a concern with Wikipedia guidelines. "Many points of usage" appears from the edit history to have been there for some time. Tony may have added it recently, but it's more accurate to say he re-added it sometime after you removed it recently: diff. I don't much favor one over the other, as neither of them are instructive so far as I can see. "Many points" gives one example, while yours gives none, but that one example doesn't tell the reader much. Precisely what language, layout and formatting of the sources is supposed to be followed, and in relation to what? It's a question for anybody here. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. That's not a definition; Weasel words are equivocal statements, claims, or rules; the language you quote is why not to use them in articles (an aspect of guidelines MOS could use much more of - when, rarely, there are reasons for MOS' claims). Tony's vague and equivocal verbiage is a prime example of weaselling.

Your other questions deal with the substance of the section, which has not been in dispute; I have attempted to clarify: In general, a stylistic question should be solved by following the usage of English sources. Because style vaires by subject, writing on the same subject has most weight; also, there will be times a sensible writer will decline to follow the majority - but she should generally have a sound reason for this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

But I am puzzled not merely by the wording of Tony's tirade, but by what he means:

• What does Tony intend to say by is pursuing to unilaterally perpetrate? It alliterates nicely, but what does it mean?
• What is the status of MOS which he perceives me to be watering down? MOS has said for years that it's a guideline.
• How does replacing Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing by In general, observe undermine this?
• Reducing the ambit of MOS? That means decreasing its circumference, the difficulty of getting around it. Does Tony really want to fatten it?
• Should MOS describe encyclopedic English? If not, what?
• Should it be based on reliable sources? If not, why not?
• Should it represent the consensus of editors in general? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Contractions, again

In yet another example, this:

In general, the use of contractions—such as don't, can't, won't, they'd, should've, it's—is informal and should be avoided.

has been changed to this:

The use of contractions—such as don't, can't, won't, they'd, should've, it's—is informal and should generally be avoided; on the other hand, the pointed avoidance of contractions is stilted and also should be avoided.

I'd have thought "In general" was enough leeway for common sense to be applied in particular instances. "On the other hand" isn't a particularly thrilling phrase for a style guide. Can we have examples of where "the pointed avoideance of contractions is stilted and also should be avoided"? Otherwise, it seems to be bloat. What will new editors make of it? I'm struggling with it myself. Tony (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This should have been placed at #Proposed replacement text for WP:CONTRACTIONS section. The coy avoidance of contraction, when it is idiomatic, can be stilted, can't it? Or should this encyclopedia use can it not?

Much of the bad writing here is due to editors attempting Victorian school-room prose, because they think it necessary for an encyclopedia. You've read Fowler; you know how his contemporary reporters did when they tried writing on stilts. Let's not encourage newbies in this bad habit. Or do we need Let us not? For Heaven his sake, why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, consider this paragraph, ridden with cliche and pointless repetition, in the register of a bibulous sportscaster:

Godfrey signed a one year contract with Hampton & Richmond Borough in August 2004, but didn't make his first appearance until October that year due to injury. His debut was a home match against Windsor & Eton in the Isthmian League Premier Division, where he came off the bench to score the winner in a 2–1 victory for his new club.

Soem editor "corrected" didn't, leaving the rest of it alone, and went his way rejoicing. That does nothing to the real horrors, makes the sentence somewhat less natural, and doubtless gives the good soul a feeling of being useful to Wikipedia. That's what one-sided guidance produces. May he be happy; but has the guidance helped Wikipedia any? How? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that paragraph including the contraction. But since I know WP:CONTRACTION, I too would have changed that word. If WP:CONTRACTION changes to "Only remove contractions when you can guess that we want you to", I will simply ignore contractions, and tell my AWB software to do the same. Art LaPella (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do. When the contraction was taken out without fixing the paragraph, that made very bad writing slightly worse by changing register pointlessly. You didn't do it, but the fewer who do the better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC).

Sure, as soon as your change to WP:CONTRACTION remains unreverted; how else do I know what the consensus is? Art LaPella (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This section should make plain that the present text isn't consenus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Then change it again. Would you prefer we ignore every guideline that has been debated in the archives? Art LaPella (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that every bullet-point of MOS is - in effect - a separate guideline. Most of them have been protested in the past; the response is usually not a demonstration of consensus, but one or two editors claiming consensus (with no evidence) and revert-warring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I basically agree that style Nazis are a problem on this page. But style Nazis throughout Wikipedia who don't bother with this page, or with any other form of consensus, are a bigger problem. So what's the alternative? Art LaPella (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems like an OK situation of WP:BRD to me. The revert was absolutely appropriate, as is this discussion; and the bold change was OK, too, but then don't rag on the reverters. I made a bold change myself to the page recently, and nobody complained (I was surprised); so it depends on what the consensus is, right? Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

One problem is that is the first sign of discussion by the reverter; the other and more serious problem is reversion of edits with which the reverter doesn't disagree just on principle. This destroys all possibility of reaching general agreement; the actual text may be supported by nobody (except presumably whoever wrote it, and she may have left) - and still it stays as "consensus". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

For example, this edit made with the edit summary this change has not been fully discussed; one can assume the text is correct and the example is in error. One may indeed presume that the reverter has never heard the old joke: "when you ass-u-me, you make an ass out of u and me" ;-} but the edit was made after discussion at WT:MOSNUM, to straighten out sn inconsistency by which Tony was desperately worried. Now I don't really care; I intend to ignore this page and its whole Mass of Stupidities whatever asinine (as it were) rule it lays down on the subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to establish something: Wikipedia does not require people to get permission before making controversial edits. It only requires people to enter into discussions after their changes are reverted. Here on the MoS, we've developed a custom of discussing things first, and it's served us well, but it's not as though Anderson broke any rules.

However, now that it is clear that said changes are controversial, I would ask that Anderson make a habit of discussing any rule-changing edits on the page first. It's just nice to do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Darkfrog puts it nicely. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's annoying when editors remove contractions. Doing so often requires that the sentence be rewritten, because there are cases where "don't" is fine, but "do not" looks silly. I hope the reference above to software doesn't mean there's a bot going around doing this. If there is, I hope Art will consider putting a stop to that.

As for being bold on policies and guidelines, it's okay when improving the writing, but substantive changes are best discussed first. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The only reference above to "software" I could find was "AWB software". AWB is not a bot; it lets me look at each change before I accept it. In the case of WP:CONTRACTION, I don't remember ever rejecting a change AWB presents (that is, from a contraction to an uncontracted form) just because it sounds wrong, because I have never encountered such a contraction in a real article. I reject changes to contractions in titles and quotes. I believe that is consistent with the consensus as reflected by the current language of WP:CONTRACTION, unless your proposed change is accepted. Art LaPella (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I propose the following language to deal with the problem:

The use of contractions—such as don't, can't, won't, they'd, should've, it's—is informal and should generally be avoided; on the other hand, the pointed avoidance of contractions is stilted and also should be avoided.

Anything which conveys a similar caution will be equally acceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't see anything wrong with contractions, so I'd suggest telling people they're fine. If we want to retain the general caution, we could write something like: "The use of contractions—such as don't, can't, won't, they'd, should've, it's—is informal and should generally be avoided, but whether they are appropriate depends on context, and editors should not remove them without good reason." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Is there objection to this proposal? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Contractions don't belong in encyclopedias, except in quotes or similar things. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And where is that written? :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 09:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• More such words to invite editor conflict. Which two or more editors will be able to agree on its face what is a appropriate context for a contradiction: "appropriate depends on context". And what is "good reason" to two or more unhappy editors who always believe they are absolutely right and anyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong. Just look at routine editing here: whenever there is an opening for conflict, it is taken. Either WP is opened for any type of informal English or it is not. And it is a very slippery slope. This is an Encyclopedia, not a place for pandering to popular culture, nor Google stats, and not anything else that would make our school English teachers outraged. Hmains (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Contractions are prominent hallmarks of oral English and informal written English. I'm yet to see an example in which "it is" should be replaced by "it's" in WP text (aside from quotations, of course), and why is it "stilted" to use "do not" in an encyclopedic register? Tony (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The Britannica disagrees; for example, they phrase rhetorical questions: Shapley’s work caused astronomers to ask themselves certain questions: How could the existing stellar data be so wrong? Why couldn’t they see something in Sagittarius, the proposed galactic centre, 30,000 light-years away? as English actually phrases questions; substituting Why could they not would make the reader stumble - because it's not idiom; it's writing on stilts.

To impose such writing on Wikipedia is to disrupt the encyclopedia to make a point - and make the encyclopedia measurably worse.

It is also Original Research - since, as Slim Virgin points out, you have no source for this; you and Hmains have made it up. (The more measured claim in the text is equally unsourced; but as advice, it may halp - and it may also encourage semi-literate editors to make bad writing worse, as with the example in the top of the section.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just waiting (w8ng?) for the moment when someone argues that text-speak is their "national variety of English". Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. Ebonics actually had some merit to it, and it didn't last. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tony, it's not that "do not" is invariably stilted. It's that a sentence written to flow well with "didn't" may not flow well when it's replaced with "do not". Had the writer known his "didn't" would be removed, he might have chosen to write the sentence differently. I can't give an example because I've not kept note of them, but I've seen awkwardness introduced several times by editors going around changing other people's writing with a "one size fits all" approach. That's the thing that causes the problems, and the MoS makes clear no one should be doing it, so I think it's worth stressing it here regarding contractions.

Perhaps we could leave the sentence as it is, but refer editors back to the section that advises against editors changing from one style to another without good reason. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I dislike the 'without good reason' proviso. I often do change instances of "don't" or "couldn't" to "do not" and "could not" when I come across them, and I agree that often stylistic rewriting of the phrases are unavoidable. By all means, the guideline may recommend to editors to rewrite for flow to accompany such removals, but by insisting that simply removal of contractions (except within quotes) should not be done "without good reason" is going a bit far. It enforces the perception that contractions somehow have a right to unhindered existence above the uncontracted forms, and may lead to edit warring of an element where I know of no such conflicts. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There's nothing special about contractions warranting an implication that they're off-limits from (or less subject to) normal copyediting. —David Levy 03:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There is something special about them if there's a bot going around replacing them. It's that kind of blind replacement that it would be helpful to warn against.SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that blind replacement is a bad idea, but it's my understanding that no such bot has been deployed. —David Levy 18:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem (see the example at the top of this subsection, beginning with Godfrey) is that some editors go around behaving like bots. One took out the contraction in the example, and left the rest of it alone. This failed to fix the paragraph, and probebly added an increment of atrocity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I agree that blind replacement (irrespective of the mechanism behind it) is a bad idea, and others appear to agree as well.

I already have addressed that specific example below, and I remain baffled as to how the change in question "added an increment of atrocity" and why you choose to mock an editor for failing to correct unrelated flaws. —David Levy 20:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't blindly replace contractions with potentially stilted wording, but it often is possible to simply recast a sentence in a manner that eliminates the issue entirely.
In the case of "Why couldn't they see something in Sagittarius...", it's true that "Why could they not see something in Sagittarius..." is awkward, but alternative options (such as "Why did they see nothing in Sagittarius..." and "Why was nothing found in Sagittarius...") exist.
Of course, apart from quotations (which obviously shouldn't be modified in that manner), Wikipedia is unlikely to contain this style of prose in the first place.
I don't understand Pmanderson's earlier example, as I see absolutely nothing unnatural about the wording "...did not make his first appearance...". I agree that the paragraph contains unrelated flaws, but I find it rather unfair and distasteful to mock an editor for failing to address them (as though this was an either-or proposition in which the change from "didn't" to "did not" was performed instead). —David Levy 03:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Slim, I have no objection to the avoidance of contortions in WP article text just to achieve a stylistic recommendation (or insistence). It is always open to an editor who objects to the spelling out of a contraction by another editor to invoke the "use common sense" principle, which, if not accepted, could be debated on the talk page or even brought here for comment. But it does worry me that a few academic journals do allow contractions—not too many contractions, in scope (never "would've", of course) and in density in the text. These journals tend to be not very authoritative, I must say. We should beware risking difficulty in countering a group of editors who went around adding contractions (in good faith) to make the text more "friendly" in tone. In 20 or 30 years' time, maybe English will have changed enough to loosen up on this; but I don't think it has yet, at least, not in the most authoritative sources whose tone we need to emulate. Just my thoughts, and I think your and Mr Anderson's concern have been noted by everyone here, and that it's made us think carefully about the issue.

On that, let me comment on Mr Anderson's example above from Brittanica: "Shapley’s work caused astronomers to ask themselves certain questions: How could the existing stellar data be so wrong? Why couldn’t they see something in Sagittarius, the proposed galactic centre, 30,000 light-years away?" I do believe this tone is not encouraged in WP articles. It comes perilously close to POV in the relationship it assumes with the readers. If authoritative sources reacted in this way, it should be expressed as such, not as though it's WP's opinion. Have I got this right? Tony (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

We're not an academic journal, though. We're a new kind of thing, and we make up our own rules. If editors want to use contractions, I truly see no reason to stop them. What we want is good writing. Using or not using contractions won't change the quality of the writing, but swapping them willy nilly might. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be agreement that contractions shouldn't be blindly replaced (because doing so might result in stilted wording). But there also is consensus that contractions reflect an informal tone not typically used in our encyclopedia (apart from quotations) and generally should be avoided. (As with any other style convention, exceptions may arise.)

Indeed, we determine our own rules, and this one is longstanding. Much of the Manual of Style's text is fairly arbitrary, recommending one convention over another of comparable validity (based upon outside usage) because this eliminates needless inconsistency and argumentation.

In this instance, the rule isn't arbitrary, as there is a legitimate (albeit not universally applied) distinction. I'm sure that some editors want to use contractions, but others don't, and the last thing that we need is another source of edit wars. Unlike national English varieties (as an example), there is no compelling need for multiple styles to coexist. —David Levy 18:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

One who has had little exposure to refined English is more likely to consider the avoidance of contractions to be stilted, whereas one who has spent much time in studying educational works by professional writers using refined English is more likely to accept easily the avoidance of contractions.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Mild disagree: (Let me "pre-caveat": The last thing in the world (World?) I want to do is run around her fixing people's contractions or cripes edit-warring them. That said I wrote Ph.D. thesis and several peer-reviewed science papers without contractions (searching to fix all) and I never felt the "shackles" as heavy on me, or that the writing was strange afterwards.TCO (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

And they weren't (ha) stuffy papers either. The idea that sounding sciencey or being unreadable makes you better is routinely contradicted in any how to write a science paper article (although Wiki needs to read those more). They all say to avoid over-nominalizing and the like. That said, they are not as chatty as some good old talk page battlin".TCO (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

When writing articles, we need to code-switch into an "encyclopedic" tone. That changes most people's writing considerably. In particular, the prose in our articles shouldn't use contractions, because that makes it sound too informal. But people like me can use contractions on talk pages if they want to. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Remove the rule. I think that the guideline should recommend against "informal language" in general and leave it at that. This rule is too specific and, as such, it invites lazy editors to apply it mechanically. A paragraph with overly informal language needs to rewritten by someone who is actually thinking about what they are writing. "To write is to think, and to write well is to think well". This rule invites "thoughtless" edits. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

My two cents

1. While some contractions such as gonna or ain't are indeed restricted to spoken or spoken-like English or direct quotations thereof, others such as don't are now widely found even in professionally written and edited texts such as university-level textbooks. In >90% of the cases, using do not instead would be less informal but no less natural, but a blanket or near-blanket ban on don't is excessive, and just editing an article to replace all occurrences of don't outside quotations to do not without changing anything else is just a waste of time. (For an example of the remaining <10% of cases, see the “Cosmological constant problem” item in Unsolved problems in physics#Cosmology and astronomy: “Why does the zero-point energy of the vacuum not cause ...” would sound much worse.)
2. On the other hand, PMAnderson's proposal sounds too wordy and slightly polemical (“pointed”?) to me; the “generally” in the current guideline is fine, but I'd like something like “In most cases, uncontracted auxiliaries such as do not or it is should be preferred to contracted ones such as don't or it's, as the latter are less formal” even more. A. di M. (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's think about this a minute.

1) We are stuck with whatever someone uses in a quote. But, most people making quotable statements don't (!) use contractions.

2) Contractions most often involve a negative. Don't, can't, won't. These are seldom used by editors because they involve negative inventories. We inventory things/events that are there, not ones that aren't (are not!  :). Therefore, editors themselves will rarely need contractions.

3) Other contractions are clearly "lazy" and may confuse people whose first language is not English. "Would've", "you'll" "we'd".

Except for these informal discussions, I have found that I seldom need contractions.

I think we're arguing over pretty much nothing, here. Let the current language stand. It's rarely invoked anyway. Student7 (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious about point 2? The last four days' Main Page featured articles all have between two and sixteen instances of “not” immediately following an auxiliary not in a quotation. The reason why you seldom need “don't” is that “do not” is usually just fine, not that you never need negative statements in the first place. --A. di M. (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"rarely invoked"? I invoke it often, as part of my AWB edits, and fairly regularly when copyediting Main Page material. Art LaPella (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bots

This was archived without being resolved, so I've brought it back. We seem to agree that people should not be going around changing contractions without reading the text, and someone above said it wasn't being done with a bot, but I saw an example today of precisely that, so I suggest we add a caution about that to the guideline. Or else remove the section entirely as Charles suggested. But I think we do have to stop encouraging this blind replacement. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a link to Bender's contributions, not to a specific edit. But since it was one of his edits which inspired this discussion originally, dealing with him may be more immediately helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A very good article was printed in the Journal of Technical Writing & Communication about this issue. If anyone subscribes, "I, Pronoun: A Study of Formality in Online Content" in the December 2010 issue. From the abstract: "The study found that readers perceived text passages to be less formal when they contained personal pronouns, active voice verbs, informal punctuation, or verb contractions." Personally, I don't think we can afford to be perceived as any less formal. Contractions also frequently confound ESL readers and are difficult to translate. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The examples linked by SlimVirgin sound quite informal regardless of the contractions, so the versions with uncontracted auxiliaries sounds even weirder because of the mismatched registers. And referring to them as "typos" in edit summaries is particularly disingenuous, as it's quite unlikely that someone accidentally failed to input a space and accidentally input an apostrophe instead of an O. (Confound ESL readers? Actually when I started studying English in primary school I was taught I'm long before being taught I am. Difficult to translate? Couldn't means the same as could not, so if you can translate the latter you can translate the former as well.) --A. di M. (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The point of the MoS is to offer general advice that should usually be adhered to. Legislating in equivocation and sentiments against editors going about doing botlike changes is just more junk prose. The cautions do not belong here; they belong on relevant pages on editor behavior. This is just the style manual. I suggest reverting back to the simple language of the article before PMA started changing it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy, we're not a technical journal or an academic journal. We don't need to be so formal that we sound as though we have sticks up our asses, which is what sentences often look like when someone randomly removes contractions. I'm not saying that contractions are always fine. But they sometimes are. It depends on context. The only thing I'd like to stop is the bots going around removing them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

MOS works best in discouraging disruptive editor behavior; there is an argument that ENGVAR and similar sections are the only part of MOS that is actually consensus.

Pointed was intended as restrictive, not as polemical; if taking out don't doesn't produce artificial prose, there is no objection - and sometimes some profit - in taking it out. But where it does, either leave don't alone or recast. This seems to me the common sense of the matter - and if there is a clearer way of putting that, I will be glad to accept it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The MoS is not a "don't do this!" manual; it's a style guide. You've come to the wrong place for sanctions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's largely a piece of Original Research which claims to be a style guide. Please note that ENGVAR does not present sanctions; it notes the consensus that rewriting this encyclopedia into uniformly British or American [or Trinidadian, but that's not a problem] English is undesirable and should not be attempted. None of the proposed texts on contraction say any more; indeed most say less. If there is objection to the principle that MOS does not intend to prescribe stupid or clumsy writing, please say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, if we were to make clear in that section that this is just a guide, I'd be fine with that. The problem is that it's being imposed blindly by editors using bots as though it were policy, which is almost certainly leading to poor writing. I assume people won't mind if words to that effect are added? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like we have two distinct issues here... one is whether the MOS should include a note that contractions should (generally) be avoided... the other is whether we should have bots that "act upon" this statement. I have no problem with the first part... I have a serious problem with the second. Style issues are often gray areas... judgment calls that depend on context. Bots don't do a very good job when it comes to judgment calls based on context. You need a human in those situations. Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This looks like the intermediate case: a human (not native to English) acting like a bot; his user page has a biography. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm using "bot" to include editors using AWB, which is allowing them to remove contractions at a rate faster than anyone would want to replace them, and definitely too fast for each one to be considered separately. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Quoting Masem, “Yes, AWB is semi-automated. But I've used it, and when working on my own articles, I know how easy it is to think "Oh, I trust all changes AWB makes, I'll let it do it", and bam, something bad happened (which I was then able to correct).” --A. di M. (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added a second sentence, so it now reads: "The use of contractions—such as don't, can't, won't, they'd, should've, it's—is informal and should generally be avoided. Editorial judgment is required to determine whether their use is appropriate in any given context, and they should therefore not be removed as a matter of course." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Changed the last phrase to mechanically. We could also spell out in an automatic or semi-automatic fashion, but this is not a law code. The change may convey SV's point (with which I agree) better to somebody who hasn't seen this discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree... in fact, we could add a caveat like this to most of the MOS sections, but, that would be overkill. Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point of it being added here: editors should never make mechanical edits without reviewing them first. In fact that is the very first rule at WP:AWB, bolded, italicised and capitalised to make sure editors get the point. It seems even less likely it would be an issue for a bot, as they should only be run by trusted users very aware of their limitations. So it makes as much sense added to every other section: we don't because it should be far more effective to provide such guidance to those actually using mechanical means, not to the majority of editors who don't.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That's one reason I chose mechanically; editors can be mechanical without using any tools beyond the edit screen. The implicit claim that AWB and bots are not used mechanically is, however, a falsehood, as the date celinking case made clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The edit seems to be this one, changing he wasn't very tall to he was not very tall. This does not produce a encyclopedic tone, and (to my ear) changes the meaning from something like "He was less than 6' 2" (185 cm)" to a clumsy way of saying "he was shortish". Some editors may remember Orwell on the not unblack dog. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You folks seem to have issues with AWB. Perhaps you should do something about that instead of adding text that could be placed in every single part of the style guide. Someone still has not explained why "generally" does not seem to mean "generally" to them, or how "common sense and the occasional exception" has to be restated repeatedly. If people aren't understanding all that, it's not the guideline's fault, it's theirs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all apologies for the length of the post - it reflects my belief on the importance of the matter

I regularly use AWB and have rules set up to propose changes to some contractions. Checking "it's", for example, has to be reviewed as it could be either "it's" or "its" - without the check the incorrect "it's" cannot be changed to "its". Every proposed change to contractions, and indeed every change, I make is reviewed by me and if the context has been changed, then I rewrite the sentence to accommodate. The problem seems to be that some editors think that those using AWB are using it without checking.

Wiki being neither a scholarly work nor an academic journal - Wiki is indeed something new. That does not mean that we should lower the standards of grammar to a level below those works. The problem is that when saying "sometimes they are fine" depends on the reader, and the editor reading it. How would it be worded to better explain when it is fine, and when it is not? The basic problem is that written and spoken English are been very different. Written English has traditionally had contractions at an extremely low level, for example the APA guide says to not use them. Suggesting that articles allow contractions would make them more spoken than written.

MoS tries to guide people into correctly editing articles along a general path which aims to keep all articles in a similar vein. It would be strange to find some full of contractions and some with none. The problem is still when and when not. I hope that someone can come up with some sort of sense which can show differentiation between the two - I for one cannot. What about contractions such as "I'd", "We'd", and similar - are we saying those should not be automatically changed either ? I think that the real problem is those editors wishing to retain "don't" and "won't" etc. want to stop every contraction being removed from Wiki and see the spreading uses of AWB as the main problem in removing them.

It would be wrong of me to assume that contractions are not to be allowed at all, yet examples like the "very tall" one above are blatantly a problem with understanding as the "was not" and "wasn't" refers to "very tall" and the context of very tall has not been changed by the reintroduction of the o and space, after all it is a shortening of exactly the same thing, they are the same words, not different ones, reduced by punctuation.

Perhaps it is time for some research to be done which would show what the various current style handbooks (Chicago etc) and guides on grammar show. I found this [3] and [4] quite informative and it seems, at least here, that informal and formal are the basic delimiters.

It is a shame that I may have to remove the contractions rules from AWB as most changes, in my opinion, improve the articles. "Stilted wording" and "Victorian school-room prose" does not help those editors trying to improve grammar and prose, it merely suggests that the current editors making the accusations are perhaps not very well versed in grammar or they feel we should be adopting a more informal pose. If wikipedia is to be seen as a formal publication or an informal one, and if that is something which is going to be important in peoples acceptance of it as a serious encyclopaedia, is another matter. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Chaosdruid. The arguments against AWB for contractions could be used against any AWB edit. User:Art LaPella/Because the guideline says so#AWB. Art LaPella (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This editor was removing two or three a minute, so clearly wasn't reviewing them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I said the arguments against AWB for contractions, not the arguments against specific editors and specific edits. I hope we have some mechanism for controlling abuses of AWB, other than arguing against AWB in general – assuming we don't want to clearly outlaw AWB altogether. Mildly discouraging AWB in general will have the effect of driving out conservative AWB users, while leaving the aggressive AWB users to continue. Art LaPella (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think contractions should be used in formal text. There might be occasional exceptions, but the examples provided don't convince me. There is nothing "stilted" in "would have". Tony (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd should not be changed to I had or I would: either it is in a direct quotation and it should be left alone, or it isn't and the use of the first person should be removed altogether. In the Peter Roth example, “In high-school, Roth pursued basketball, but as he was not very tall he changed to music lessons” is too informal, but “as he was not very tall” is quite unidiomatic: that sentence had better be just rewritten. --A. di M. (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. I would have rewritten it myself if it were not also so vague that I'm not sure exactly what was meant. Tweaking wasn't to was not is not a help to anybody. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the text's quality remained poor. However, I don't agree that the edit actually worsened it or altered its meaning. —David Levy 02:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Instead, I think that it changed the sentence from one which sounds like the writer is just not used to write in encyclopaedias to one which sounds like the writer is just not proficient in English, in any register. That's pretty much worsening it, IMO. As for the meaning, it means that he (thought he) was too short to be likely to become a successful basketball player whether with or without the contraction, but I do perceive a difference in emphasis in the direction PMA says. In any event, even if there was an improvement, it was definitely not worth the time spent by people having the page on their watchlists and the resources to store one more revision of the page, and the edit summary calling it a "typo" sounds like [Lynn's writing class participant's teacher. --A. di M. (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't perceive a change in overall style or emphasis, but we agree that the wording is poor either way, so this matters very little.

Indeed, the edit was not worthwhile, but this is an unavoidable aspect of operating a wiki. I agree that contractions shouldn't be blindly replaced, but I believe that it's the potential for good prose to be harmed (not the potential for bad prose to remain bad) that justifies our concern. —David Levy 14:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Chaosdruid suggests that objection to the automated removal of contractions "merely suggests that the current editors making the accusations are perhaps not very well versed in grammar or they feel we should be adopting a more informal pose." As I am one of those editors (over here ), I feel that I should address this. In point of fact, I make my living as a copyeditor. I specialize in editing reference works and educational works. It is because I am a copyeditor who is well versed in grammar, style, and how they apply to formal works that I object to AWP expanding contractions.

Chaosdruid also suggests a review of current style manuals and such. For the record, the Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition) addresses contractions in 5.103, which begins with "Most types of writing benefit from the use of contractions," and continues in the same vein. The third edition of Garner's Modern American Usage, which typically advocates the more formal or traditional approach whenever possible, spends most of page 198 debunking those who object to the use of contractions, citing several other authorities in the process. Those are the most recently published such works in my collection; I could cite others as well.

In short, the claim that contractions have no place in formal writing has no basis. When I object to those who would override considerations of euphony, cadence, register, and readability in the service of a rule that, while flawed, is at least easily quantifiable, this objection is not because I am not well versed in grammar or am trying to lower the tone of Wikipedia. Rather the contrary. — Shmuel (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well said. I agree completely with Shmuel, especially the last paragraph. Chicago agrees with Shmuel! What more do you need? The rule should be struck. It is unnecessary and can't be applied intelligently. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is anyone seriously suggesting that WP article text (i.e., not quoted text) should contain "would've", ever? That is what the current text appears to condone. Tony (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• No, but don't and can't are common, and are often fine. It's the semi-automated removal that's objectionable. Either the caution in the MoS that editors shouldn't go around changing style issues counts for something or it doesn't. Every time people see editors arrive at articles they've not edited before to change someone's writing because a rule somewhere says they should it pisses people off, and that brings the MoS into disrepute. So I think we need to make clear to people that the automated fiddling has to stop, unless they're fixing clear errors, e.g. spelling mistakes, it's instead of its, etc. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Using bots (sensitively) to bring WP article text in line with the guidelines is necessary when we are approaching four million articles. Isn't it up to BAG? Tony (talk) 06:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec x2) I did 7 AWB edits in 3 minutes during a session today - it is not unusual to do that many, especially if there are only 1 or two changes to be made - that is why AWB is so popular :¬) - why oh why have people started a sub discussion up there - its much easier to follow if chronological order is kept Chaosdruid (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The guideline said contractions should "generally" be avoided. That left it to editorial judgment. No one should be going around imposing their judgment on articles they've never edited two or three edits a minute for several hours. This—"The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style ... "—has to be respected. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Only if "guideline-defined" is inconsistent with the word "generally". Heck, all guidelines have an implicit "generally" in them, so what does "guideline-defined" mean if it only applies to rules with no exceptions? Also, in my case it isn't true that "Every time people see editors arrive at articles they've not edited before to change someone's writing because a rule somewhere says they should it pisses people off"; I do that without getting nearly so much animosity. Art LaPella (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The quoted text refers to cases in which two or more styles have equal standing in the MoS (i.e. neither style is preferred). It doesn't apply to cases in which one style is recommended over another.

The word "generally" reflects the fact that exceptions should be taken into account (rather than rigidly imposing the guideline-defined style when doing so is illogical), and there appears to be wide agreement that editors shouldn't blindly replace contractions (and should instead consider their context and ensure that the change doesn't result in inferior prose). —David Levy 14:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

@Shmuel - Well, as far as I can see those manuals talk about informal v formal - is that not the case ? Chaosdruid (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

While those of us objecting to your position have been agreeing—even insisting—that the use of non-contracted forms affects both tone and register, often in a positive way, Chicago and Garner are decidedly not confining themselves to informal writing in asserting the utility of contractions. I would also question your use of "as far as I can see" when it does not appear that you have actually looked this up. You mean "I would assume." On what basis you would do so is anybody's guess. — Shmuel (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not ass-u-me : that is why I asked you but obviously you cannot resist a dig. If you do not know what as far as I can see means, it means "As far as I can see" I cannot see waht is not in front of me. I do not possess any American references as I am not American. I have seen quotes and links on the Chicago website and am not going to buy the book, nor pay and fees for access to a website when people like you can easily tell us. There is no need for you to get personal, simply answer the question or not. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that contractions are consistent with an encyclopedic tone, but it is not unreasonable to ask that people read the text on a case-by-case basis before replacing them.

Also, let's not have assumptions about what people really meant. No one here is telepathic (I assume). If there's a question about what someone meant, ask him or her. Don't tell him or her. Darkfrog24 14:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This became personal when Chaosdruid claimed that those on the other side were either ignorant or heedless of grammar. Putting that aside, I have already answered his or her question. Yes, I am citing references that deal with formal writing.

Perhaps a British authority will be more convincing. One might note page 127 of the Cambridge Guide to English Usage, by Pam Peters. I will note the obvious and say that it is a formal reference work. Peters explains that contractions used to be considered "too colloquial for the written medium," but that this is no longer the case. "The writers of formal documents may feel that they undermine the authority and the dignity of their words. But the interactive quality that contractions lend to a style is these days often sought, in business and elsewhere. They facilitate reading by reducing the space taken up by predictable elements of the verb phrase, and help to establish the underlying rhythms of prose. For all these reasons, contractions are used from time to time in this book." — Shmuel (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Do not misquote me "perhaps not very well versed in grammar or they feel we should be adopting a more informal pose." - You chose the first one to apply to you rather than the second and then made comments as if the second half of the sentence never existed Chaosdruid (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I did no such thing, but then you continue to pretend that I never addressed the latter. Either way, further bickering over this is out of place here. (If you must argue further over who insulted whom first, take it to my user page.) — Shmuel (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Virtually every style guide I own says contractions are discouraged; APA, MLA, Associated Press. The Chicago is one of the few that doesn't openly discourage them. I did find mention of a few that encourage it, although as I do not have the books or access to them so my understanding of these ones is cursory and secondhand (still with what I have I can safely posit that the majority of American style guides at the very least treat them with ambivalence). Really, it hinges on three points: one, certain contractions are essentially never allowable even in "casual" usage, such as "ain't". Secondly, it depends on the audience. For example, from my time in the US Federal Government, contractions were used purposefully in adhering to a "write as you talk" model to improve rapport with readers (so basically a public relations move). Three, we are attempting to be an encyclopedia, which aligns us more with academic, rather than mass-market, forms of style. I would say those are factual statements. What we do with that is another question. Frankly, if we aligned ourselves with one style guide, only amending it for the realities of creating a reference work for a web reader, we would be better off. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That contractions are much rarer in formal writing is true, but that they have no place at all is not, as someone's quotation from Britannica shows. --A. di M. (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

APA and MLA deal with academic writing, which is far more rarefied than most formal writing, including encyclopedias. I don't think even the maintainers of APA and MLA style would claim they ought to be used outside of that realm. I'm not sure AP is directly relevant either, but in any event it does not say that contractions should never be used, just that one should "avoid excessive use of contractions." (Note: I quote this from the 2007 edition. I don't have the 2010 edition, but I doubt this is among the changes.) I do not believe anybody here has disagreed with that. — Shmuel (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be better to pick a single style guide than to invent one, as we do now; but that is equivalent to saying it would be better to reproduce the 1911 Britannica as it stands than permit OR; one of the two may be better, but neither is desirable. An English or an American style-guide? One for journalists or for academics? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What I'd like to know is (a) what exactly is meant by formal writing, and (b) who decided that Wikipedia articles all had to be written that way, no matter the subject matter? The overarching theme of MoS discussions going back as far as I remember is that "once size fits all" is rarely a good idea, especially when it's not even clear where that size came from. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that David Fuchs has revert-warred against the advice not to change from wasn't to was not mechanically, on the grounds that it adds nothing. That is a falsehood; the edits which have provoked this long thread were done by AWB - and if the sentence removed adds nothing else, it is a caution against using AWB without thinking. If it is removed again, I will consider what relief it is necessary to request from the relevant authorities. It would be better to have no AWB than to have it abused. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your change once; considering you seem to be attempting to rewrite the entire guide without discussing first anyhow, I don't see that as unreasonable. If you want to complain about AWB, you simply are on the wrong page. Go start an RfC somewhere else about it if you feel that strongly. I've never touched the damn tool and don't care one whit, but I do object to you frontloading the style guide with verbiage. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And I object very strongly to the sweeping phrases of this foolish page being used to justify active harm. If you think the section too long, take it out altogether; while I agree that contractions should generally be avoided, we've had several voices here that don't. Mechanically does mean AWB - but it also means any other good soul who thinks that the solution to don't is always do not, clarity, rhythm, and sense be damned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

So in other words you admit you are not working in the best interests of this page, and you're content to continue your past behavior of edit warring to get what you want. Splendid. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Not working in the best interest of this page? What's that supposed to mean? I am working in the best interests of Wikipedia. The best interests of this page are - like all WP space pages - to serve Wikipedia (which, at the moment, it doesn't do at all well); I have therefore supplied a novel (and shorter) form of words in order to meet David Fuchs' criticism.

Since Slim Virgin has lengthened it again, I subjoin my proposal; it may be useful to endorse editorial judgment in a separate, general, statement.

In most cases, uncontracted forms such as do not or it is should be preferred to contracted ones such as don't or it's, as the latter are less formal. However, replacing them should not be done mechanically; in many contexts, rewriting the sentence is preferable.

Is this, however, a declaration that this page has a goal independent of Wikipedia, which David Fuchs is attempting to serve, whether or not it causes the encyclopedia harm? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Pma, I want the section to make two points clear: (a) that contractions aren't always wrong, and (b) that they shouldn't be removed mechanically because removal often requires a rewrite. They're separate points and I feel both are important to stop the knee-jerk removals. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

In most cases, uncontracted forms such as do not or it is should be preferred to contracted ones such as don't or it's, as the latter are less formal. Contractions should not be expanded mechanically; they are sometimes acceptable, and when they aren't, they should often be removed by rewriting the sentence.

To my ear, this is a self-illustrating example: are not would change the emphasis; whereas should not is intentionally proscriptive (on conduct, not content). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine by me. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Could we please make clear that people should not add advice to the MoS unless multiple style guides support what they're adding, and if there are good style guides that disagree, make that clear too, with inline citations perhaps? Also, please don't try to impose the standards of academic writing across the board, because it isn't appropriate for the overwhelming majority of our articles, and it's not going to help us retain readers. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What style guide addresses AWB use? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Many style guides recommend thinking about what you're doing. I regret to see that this is controversial at MOS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two perennial problems with MoS:

• (1) People add their own preferences as though they're written in stone. Sometimes those preferences reflect commonly held positions in good style guides, and sometimes they're idiosyncratic. If we could stop adding the latter, we'd be miles ahead.

• (2) Wikignomes see those preferences and start imposing them across the board on articles they've otherwise not edited, which is often inappropriate, leads to poor writing, and leads to internal inconsistency because later editors continue to do what they were doing before the gnome arrived. This annoys people and makes them dislike the MoS. That makes them arrive here to change the MoS, which in part accounts for the large number of edits the page sees, which makes it unstable, which makes people not like it ... Rinse and repeat. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not (or don't) understand the argument against expanding contractions. I'm not going to bring in style sources, but I also feel that contractions read more informally. But if I want to stress "not", I add emphasis to it; otherwise, I read them approximately the same and I don't discern a difference in the author's intent. Where above it seems that some perceive a change in meaning between "wasn't/was not very tall", I read them as meaning the same. Can someone please explain how they see this changes the meaning? As a self-proclaimed gnome, I agree with SV's #2 point for the most part, though I tend to rely on the tools enforcing the rules. But the MoS should not be able to have it both ways; if it wants to prescribe a widespread style, it should accept articles being edited to fit the format. Solely editing to change contractions may be excessive, but fixing them in the process of making other changes seems to harmless when edits are easily reverted. —Ost (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As in the quote above, expanding when they aren't, they should often be removed by rewriting the sentence to when they are not already adds more emphasis than necessary; when they are not would be grotesque.

For the other, the point is that English has no associative law. In because he wasn't very tall, was is grouped with not by construction; because he was not very tall can be read as grouping not with very - and not very tall is a coy way of saying short. (It is worse than ambiguous, since it is naturally so read; if the author meant to group was with not, he would use wasn't.)

Any wikignome who relies on the tools to enforce the rules is relying on our rules to automatically produce English - and automatically produce the English the author of the article meant. No set of rules can do either of these; the second also presumes the rules are telepathic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It may seem grotesque to you, but at least according to WP:ADVISOR, it is what it prescribed for users that type NOT (which I believe is usually naïvely done to add emphasis). I certainly do not hear emphasis on "not" whenever I see it; maybe this is a cultural difference, but this seems like a personal emphasis that some readers add (perhaps because they tend to speak in contractions). I'll defer to you on the not very point, because I would not speak the second way, at least not in the example given; I've never heard "not very" mean "the opposite of". —Ost (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Litotes. --A. di M. (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, gnoming doesn't mean using tools blindly without checking edits. The tools are made to make it easier to enforce rule without watching every page of the MoS and monitoring every edit, but I never implied that editor discretion isn't necessary. That includes checking AWB edits, but if the rules are meant to encompass most articles, there should be few reverts from editors cleaning up articles. —Ost (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Bots 2

Whether or not we want contractions edited: Changes to the Manual of Style should cause changes to the rest of Wikipedia or the Manual is meaningless. Outlawing automation doesn't make the job get performed more carefully; it makes the job be ignored (except maybe on a couple featured articles nobody reads), and again the Manual is meaningless. If changes to the rest of Wikipedia bring people here to object to guidelines, that is a good thing; isn't that how Wikipedia consensus is supposed to work? It is possible to use AWB without reviewing the changes as carefully as one would without AWB, but it is also possible to confront such abuses without shutting down automation. Of course, if the main goal is to create a debating society, then changing the outside world is an unnecessary distraction. Art LaPella (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Until a few hours ago, I was not opposed to automation; I assumed it would be used in accordance with this guideline and general policy. (I thought some provisions inappropriate for mindless editing even so.) Now I am.

The question is "which changes?" This is a guideline; all its provisions are to be applied with common sense and occasional exception. This applies doubly to those which are controversial - and most of them are.

Automation cannot allow for any of that; AWB will do so only if applied with the utmost care and discretion. Those who "tend to rely on the tools enforcing the rules" are not applying care and discretion.

These guidelines were and are written for those who, considering an article, know what they want to say, and want advice on how to ssy it; not for going and searching for some fine point of English grammar and then applying a MOS rule to the letter. But to the letter is unfair; the gnomes omit those letters which spell generally, normally, sometimes, usually or are intended to be applied in awareness of the article context and of the rest of the English language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Guidelines are supposed to describe the best current practices, so it's changes to Wikipedia which should cause changes to the MOS, not vice versa. --A. di M. (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Art, the MoS isn't policy, so it's not appropriate to go around applying it blindly. It's fine to use tools to remove spelling mistakes and the like, but not to enforce style preferences. We've had this problem over and over for years. Editors used to go around removing image sizes because the MoS said so (that caused a lot of fights and made articles look silly), or removing the passive voice, and a thousand other things, issues the MoS doesn't even recommend anymore. It's an example of the issues raised in this recent Independent article—guidelines and articles lurching back and forth because of some obscure argument somewhere that a gnome decides is definitive. It's incredibly off-putting. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It isn't appropriate to blindly apply policies either.

All editors, whether utilizing special tools or not, are obliged to pay attention to what they're doing and understand why they're doing it.

The indiscriminate application of style rules is potentially harmful, irrespective of whether it stems from unmonitored AWB use, a failure to adequately consider context, or a misguided belief that a rule's letter trumps its spirit. —David Levy 02:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe this summarizes the matter; I have been bold and have written a lightly edited version of it into the guideline. If anybody can disagree, I would appreciate it if they said so here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, there's no reason why using AWB to apply a rule (the distinction between policies and guidelines strikes me as mostly Wikilawyering; either there is a consensus or there isn't) has to be any more blind than applying the rule without AWB. What should be called "blind" are the articles nobody sees because they aren't using AWB. So the real question is whether to fix MoS problems one encounters by any means, AWB or not.

I wasn't around for the image size and passive voice wars, but if those guidelines were removed from the MoS after objections, it sounds like the system worked. It sounds like if you guys (oops, I didn't mean to exclude SlimVirgin) had your way, those rules would still be in the MoS, useless for any purpose except to cause another disruption if anyone ever noticed them, which they wouldn't.

But let's pin this idea down more precisely so we can see how it would work: It can't mean that you only use the MoS on your own article, because of WP:OWN. It would have to mean that you can only use the MoS when writing your own text, not to change someone else's. So there would be no reason to ever mention that you were using the MoS. And so nobody would know if anyone was really using it. And they wouldn't; I have lots of English books on my bookshelf I haven't looked at lately, and without any kind of peer pressure, the MoS would be just one more English book.

Of course, if there really is a consensus against making the MoS mean anything, I can find something else to do. Art LaPella (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus against making MOS mean anything; it should mean what every other guideline means: a summary of what editors agree on in practice when actually editing articles, put in one place so we don't have to repeat ourselves.

It should not mean the Secret Fulcrum of Wikipedia, where a handful of self-appointed mavens decide esactly what everyone else must do, and send out bots to enforce their will; I hope you don't need it to mean that. If you do, please say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Every other guideline is cited when making edits. So should the Manual of Style.

I'm not convinced that there should even be a Manual of Style. But if there is one, I think Wikipedia will run more smoothly if we use it. If we don't want to use it, just change it to an essay. I too am frustrated when "a handful of self-appointed mavens decide exactly what everyone else must do", but at the same time I am faulted ("Wikignomes" are faulted, and I surely fit that category) because "This annoys people and makes them dislike the MoS. That makes them arrive here to change the MoS". That is exactly what is needed to counteract the "self-appointed mavens" problem. We should do one or the other: just call it an essay, or use it. Otherwise, we spend half our time arguing about whether it means anything or not. Art LaPella (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Guys in the plural is not longer generally taken to exclude women, except e.g. when explicitly contrasted with chicks. I hear native English speakers address groups containing both males and females as “guys” nearly every day, and I've heard entirely female groups addressed that way at least half a dozen times in the past few months. I daresay that in contemporary spoken English you and you guys are just the second person singular and plural pronouns respectively, akin to e.g. [tú] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) and [sibh] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) in Irish. --A. di M. (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree in part, and am partly puzzled.

• Who said MOS shouldn't be cited? It shouldn't be blindly imposed - especially by bots, which can only act blindly.
• Wikipedia will run more smoothly if we use it. Wikipedia never has run more smoothly when the MOS has been used. That's because what it says is not consensus; which is also why it is only stable by revert-warring.
• If it is cited, it should first be consensus; it should describe the English language; it should have a rationale for what it says.
• As it is now, it is an essay; we can either admit this and start over, or change it once and forever. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Then I don't know what "a summary of what editors agree on in practice" means. How is that incompatible with applying it throughout Wikipedia? And once again, editing without AWB is more blind than editing with it, because most articles are never seen.
  • I could address your other points better if I could understand your alternative. You seem to be against any practical use of the MoS, but you say you aren't.

Art, the example of image sizes, and all the other hard-won issues, aren't examples of the system working. People had to fight, in some cases for a long time, for common-sense changes. People leave Wikipedia because of this atmosphere of nitpicking. Please do read this article. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That article isn't about the MoS, but it is about nitpicking. (It's also about feminism, but we aren't likely to agree on that.) Do you think I like the "atmosphere of nitpicking"? When the arguments go on and on about some obscure detail, you're unlikely to find my name except to mention civility or otherwise bring things back to reality. If you like contractions for instance, eliminate the rule entirely, rather than write a whole paragraph of nitpicking to describe how you mean it but you really don't mean it. That will just lead to more nitpicking about whether the rule really applies or not. I can only guess what the image size war was like, but if people are making up rules just because they lust for power, then people should watch this page to revert them, not just hope nobody will notice the rules. Art LaPella (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There's more nitpicking that goes on because of the MoS than any other single issue, Art. And the reverting issue is not so easy. We finally got rid of the requirement to wikify dates. We finally got rid of the absurd overlinking. We finally got rid of the prohibition on fixing image sizes. I say "we," but it was other people who fought those battles, not me (Tony1 can take a lot of the credit). It's utterly draining, it can go on for literally years, and it sometimes ends up at ArbCom. I recall that people actually left because of the date linking arguments. We should not be giving so much weight to a guideline that has the power to do this. We should be giving advice (this and this and this are best practice), and we should be very clear that wikignomes must not go around imposing the MoS's style preferences, because it's that imposition that people resent. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's more nitpicking that goes on because of the MoS than any other issue, except perhaps for style arguments from people who can't be bothered with the MoS or any other form of consensus. Of course it's a major problem. What's hard is to state a solution, within the bounds of "Anybody can edit". I don't think the solution is to have one wiki-drama to decide a guideline, and then have another wiki-drama to decide if the first wiki-drama should have any practical effect; rather, I think that guidelines should be put into practice. And once again "it's that imposition that people resent" is only indirectly true at best; I don't get nearly so much resentment. What causes resentment is the damn the torpedoes attitude that often goes with that imposition. Dictators at the Manual of Style are a problem, but style dictators throughout Wikipedia who don't bother with consensus are a bigger problem, so I conclude that the easiest place to fix it is right here at the MoS. I can't even get them to make the rules consistent with each other, but I nag them regularly. Art LaPella (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(e.c.) Comment. To deal first with Mr Anderson's complaint. He says (and I've changed the typography because I didn't pick up the green), In "because he wasn't very tall", "was" is grouped with "not" by construction; "because he was not very tall" can be read as grouping not with very – and "not very tall" is a coy way of saying "short".

No, the attachment of "was" and "not" is directly derived from oral mode and arose because people slurred over it in the first place, not because they wanted some intimate semantic connection between the two items or to avoid some connection between "not" and "very": it is a phonological, not a grammatical artefact, and the coyness Mr Anderson imputes could be there in either form and rather depends on the larger discourse. The grammar is totally unchanged in terms of how the items are interrelated; only the grammatical register of the text changes in the flagging of a more informal relationship between writer and reader.

In writing, contractions are still primarily rooted in the direct quotation of oral speech. The fact that we use contractions freely on talk pages is evidence of this, because talk on talk-pages (note that title—no coincidence there) is a hybrid form, lying somewhere between written and oral modes. The same is true of an email to a friend, of text messages, of transcripts of oral discourse, and in some advertising and public signage. Yes, there has been a shift towards less formal social relations in all anglophone societies over the past century, and this is reflected in the greater use of contractions in some written registers. But it is rarely appropriate in an encyclopedic register, which is supposed to convey smooth authority and neutrality, not a "Hey there, we're friends, thanks for reading my article text, you're welcome" kind of come-down-to-your-level self-conscious intimacy. Authorititative encyclopedic text is not a friendly email, a TV autocue, an ad at the bus-stop, or a sign in the vet's surgery that would be harsh were it not for the contraction ("Don't feed your dog dairy products.") These registers all use intimacy, friendliness, to engage—sometimes to pretend to engage—on the same level as the reader for a variety of social or political reasons, and occasionally to save space. That's fine.

But in WP articles, the text engages with readers in a quite different way. Parallel to this different engagement is that we don't use "I" or "you" normally in article text. I don't accept that "when they aren't" is right for WP article text (i.e., excluding quotations, of course), and it is fanciful to claim, as someone did above, that "when they are not" is "grotesque". No one has yet exemplified text in which a contraction is superior and/or more appropriate than the spelled-out form in WP article register; one example looked persuasive at first glance, but lies outside WP's register for another reason: non-neutral editorialising (which proves the point, doesn't it). And no one has tackled the issues of which contractions are plain gawky ("should've"), and whether it's ok to be inconsistent within an article: who wants to have to police that?

I spoke with User:Noetica last night to sound out his opinion on the matter—without knowing what it would be. He said, in brief, that he sees utterly no reason to change the pre-existing MoS advice on contractions: it left quite enough leeway to ignore the advice against contractions if a context is found in which it would be better to contract. While he couldn't think of an example when I pressed him, he said the proviso at the top of MoS to "apply common sense", and the slight leeway provided in the pre-existing version, are the satisfactory solution. His final comment: we could add explicit riders to everything at MoS, but that would be useless bloat. One or two editors clearly feel comfortable arguing that the guideline should be scattered with "generallies", "normallies", and "but do as you please if the fancy takes you", but that is irritating to the readers and clutters what is already too-long a text. The rider at the top is quite sufficient, as David Fuchs points out.

Concerning bots: methinks that it's all too convenient to pour tripe on bot-runners when you don't particularly agree with an aspect of a guideline the bot is fixing in articles; care is required, but virtually banning bot actions to bring this unruly site into harmony with the style guides would be to shoot ourselves in the foot with nearly four million articles. No one has brought up an example of where a bot has spelled out a contraction that is not an improvement in the text. I see little evidence of false positives.

And one more thing: this notion that "style guides should be or are properly prescriptive or descriptive alone" cuts no ice: they have always been both. You know that; I know that; why is it being put about again? Tony (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

All written English - except perhaps for some of the worst bureaucratese - is rooted in oral English; English is one language, not two. The effort to enforce (literally) deracinated prose is misguided - and the product unreadable Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Tony, we need an MoS that's rooted in the advice given by good style guides, where applicable. The problem is that editors add their own preferences, then wikignomes impose those preferences on articles. You were stunned yourself when you saw the ridiculous image sizes we were left with because wikignomes wouldn't allow us to fix image sizes, thanks to the MoS. That single issue went on for years, and led to heaven knows how many rows, how much bad feeling. People would work hard on articles they cared about, only to have some uninvolved editor arrive to insist that they reduce their image sizes to the point where no one could see them.

Schmuel cited some good style guides that don't mind contractions, and we ought to take that seriously. In addition, we disagree about what's meant by an encyclopedic register, and how that would be applied to, e.g. Cum shot and similar. Wikipedia isn't the Encyclopaedia Britannica and it isn't an academic journal. It succeeded because it's not those things. It will flounder—as they flounder—if it tries to be like them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but we did fix the images issue, didn't we—both the default size and the restrictions on using larger/smaller sizes? I wasn't aware of the problem until late in the day, and probably should have been. One reason for the slow response on sizes was that monitor sizes and download speeds have increased only gradually: the frog in the pot of slowly heating water didn't realise until rather late that the default size and our ability to adjust image sizes to the local context should have kept pace. (Aside: frankly, I find image management to be pretty bad even now.)

The style guides provide varying advice on contractions and other matters. None applies to the unique context of an online, international site such as the English WP. We have to make our own minds up on this, by consensus.

On Cum shot (I'd not dreamt WP would have such an article!), it shows how topic is different from register. I still think the language of the article should be similar to that for Queen Elizabeth II, even if Her Maj has never ever thought of the notion of cum shot. The "wasn't" contraction doesn't look too bad there, and I'd probably leave it if copy-editing; but even if changed to "was not", the stilted bit there is the comma after "1970s", not any spelling out of "wasn't" (I've spelled it out for the point made here): "it was not until the advent of hard-core pornography in the 1970s, that the stereotypical cum shot scene became a standard feature—displaying ejaculation with maximum visibility." And why "hard-core pornography", but "cum shot scene"? I don't think I want it on my contribs list, hehe. Tony (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I want to stress that I didn't know there was a contraction in Cum shot, having never read it. I saw someone link to it somewhere recently and mentioned it only as a rhetorical gesture. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Aw, I had taken your reference to be on purpose, and a clever one. We need an injection of wry humour here and a few examples where contractions might just survive. I think some flexibility will go a long way in treating this issue in articles ("use common sense"); but I am slightly concerned that some editors might misconstrue a change in the guideline wording to conduct a well-meaning campaign to make WP article text more "friendly", informal. What a wondrous thing WP is that it can treat such disparate topics within the same set of guidelines and policies! Tony (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess because hard is an adjective and cum is a noun and/or because hard-core is a fixed expression (occurring with extremely high frequency, and whose meaning cannot be inferred from those of its constituents) and cum shot isn't. But there seems to be no infallible rule predicting which compounds in English get written with a space, which with a hyphen, and which with neither, and it is very common for them to shift from one form to another. When in doubt, I just look up an up-to-date dictionary or search language corpora. --A. di M. (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course no style guide is entirely prescriptive or entirely descriptive, but some are mostly prescriptive and some are mostly descriptive. The white keys on a piano don't scatter all of the incident light and the black keys don't absorb all of it (otherwise you couldn't see a laser pointer pointed at a black key), but this doesn't make the words white and black useless.

As for "text in which a contraction is superior and/or more appropriate than the spelled-out form", I've already provided such an example. --A. di M. (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"No one has brought up an example of where a bot has spelled out a contraction that is not an improvement in the text." False. Even disregarding the disingenuous edit summary, do you actually think this edit was an improvement? If Bender235 had done that by hand rather than through AWB, and spent a minute on it rather than two seconds, he would have had a chance to change that sentence to actual formal written English, rather than something which looks like written by someone who started learning English six months ago (at the very least, removing the hyphen in “high-school”). --A. di M. (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

@PMA: What you're writing is covered by the rest of the MoS to a good degree. Once again, your issues with automated edits are not in the purview of the MoS. If you want to add restrictions to what types of automated edits people can make (so, for example, if MoS changes are allowed) then start a centralized discussion. As established already, many people here don't use AWB at all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That is another falsehood. If it were covered unequivocally by the rest of MOS, we would not be having this discussion. Furthermore, mindless edits are harmful, however they are done; that's Levy's point. (The only reason AWB comes into this at all is that it permits more mindless edits in a given quantity of time - and that its irresponsible users can say "but I trust AWB; nothing can go wrong"; some comments to that effect have already been made above.)

And that's a behavioral issue, not a style guideline one. You still have yet to convince me the MoS should be telling people how to use Wikipedia editing assisters or tools when there are separate pages for their operation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

MOS has had behavioral guidance all along; it's just that much of it is wrong. The only part of this page which is actually widely supported and useful is the behavioral guidance of WP:ENGVAR, which has been here longer than either of us has been editing. In practice, on the other hand, this page does give very unfortunate behavioral guidance: when MOS expresses a preference, make the change, without considering context or anything else. This is a long-needed corrective - and MOS without it should be struck from Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Bots 3

To slightly reword David Levy's post above, incorporating {{guideline}}:

This page is a guideline, an assistance to editorial judgment; it should be applied with common sense, and its provisions have occasional exceptions, not always stated. All editors, whether utilizing special tools or not, should pay attention to what they're doing and understand why they're doing it. The indiscriminate application of style rules is potentially harmful, whether it stems from unmonitored use of editing tools, a failure to adequately consider context, or a misguided belief that a rule's letter trumps its spirit.

Now the entire discussion above appears to agree with this, whatever our feelings about contractions; nevertheless, a single editor has reverted against it - without, it appears, disagreeing with it. The customary consequence of WP:BRD is discussion; if no objection to the content (as opposed to the wording, better done on the page itself) appears in a reasonable time, I shall restore it.

On the other hand, if MOS is intended to encourage and command editing without thought and understanding, it is actively harmful to the encyclopedia and I dispute its usefulness as a guideline. What should be done with those editors who support mindless edits is another question, to be addressed at another forum. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have struck the indicated portion. Out of context, it gives undue stress to editing tools, which are mentioned below. While I do not think automatic tools should ever be used to enforce the Manual of Style, that is only one branch of the generic idiocy which all too often passes as "enforcing MOS compliance". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked the text, in part to establish a more formal tone. You'll notice that I recast the wording instead of blindly removing the contractions.  ;) —David Levy 17:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

“ People just don't think, that's the problem. ” — Geoffrey K. Pullum, [5]

--A. di M. (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I do disagree with it, as made clear above, and I find your edits in an attempt to entirely recast and rewrite the purpose of the manual of style harmful. If you want to make such changes, I think you need to poorpose a change in the purpose of the entire MoS first. The consequence of BRD is discussion, Pm, not "rebuttal on the talk page and then add back my changes"—you seem to skip past the discussion part rather quick. If you keep this up I'm just going to ANI with this, because it's utterly ridiculous and unhelpful. I would hope you had learned from your blocks and warnings. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, what you say above is not that you disagree with anything David Levy has now written; but that it is inexpedient to say it in the MOS. If you disagree with any sentence, any sentiment, of it, please be clearer; we cannot adjust to a substantive objection without knowing what it is. I subjoin the text for your convenience.

This page is a guideline, not a replacement for editorial judgment; it should be applied with common sense and awareness of occasional exceptions, not always stated. Users are expected to pay attention to their edits and understand the reasons behind them. The indiscriminate application of style rules is potentially harmful, whether it stems from unmonitored use of editing tools, failure to adequately consider context, or adherence to a rule's letter instead of its spirit.

What purpose of the Manual of Style has this recast? The text David Levy has left combines {{style-guideline}} and the assertion that one should think while editing to conclude guidance should not be applied indiscriminately. You have yourself claimed that this is already covered by MOS to a good degree (I don't see where - but if so, we can merge whatever it is.) Which of those is novel? Indeed, the first and the last are direct application of WP:POLICY#Adherence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There have always been words to this effect in the MoS, but they've not been enforced, so it's worth stressing them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with David Fuchs that Anderson's changes are retrograde. I feel none of the 'editorial judgement' section is necessary, as it can be seen as applying the IAR pillar. Explicit mention is bureaucracy, and patronising to editors. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is more WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Let's have some reasons; what do you disagree with and on what grounds? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

TLDR version

Life is too short to read all of the above. Do we really have established editors arguing in favor of using contractions here? Shame on you if so! If you are serious, please comment on this edit which I made before seeing this. --John (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

One [Two] experienced editor[s] (not me) thinks they are harmless; but several experienced editors approve your edit, but deplore the tendency to edit to make (in your case) are not around anymore. That's what the dispute is really about; the people who expand contractions without reading the context. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Life is too short to read all of the above. Do we really have established editors arguing in favor of using contractions here?" Yes, and if you'd read the above, you might know why. The edit you link to is a fine one. If you'd read the above, you'd also know that nobody is arguing that contractions are always the best choice. They are, however, one of many tools employed in good, readable, formal writing. Insisting that they never be used would be just as wrong as insisting they always be used. (But I tire of repeating myself. See elucidation and citations above.) — Shmuel (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Contractions are not harmless, and should be removed on sight; leaving the unsightly contractions is a tacit nod to their proliferation. I would even favour bot-removals of same, provided instances within quotations can be avoided. If any rewording of the resulting sentence is necessary, I'm sure someone will come along and do the necessary at some stage. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you a professional editor or writer, Ohconfucius? I don't mean that as a snide remark, but as a genuine inquiry, because I'm puzzled about the certainty. We have professional editors disagreeing here (e.g. Shmuel above), so the issue isn't clear-cut among professionals, as the style guides show. I'm therefore wondering what your strength of feeling is based on. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I struck that because it does come across as a dig rather than a question. It's just that I always wonder where the certainty about language comes from in these borderline issues. Read Charles Dickens, a great writer, from not that long ago, and his punctuation is often unrecognizable. Things change, and different parts of the world have different practices. Even within the same country—for example, the UK's different spellings that cause such consternation here—people disagree. So these are rarely, if ever, issues that it makes sense to feel strongly about. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Slim, you will note that I was a lot less categorical before. I guess that, like John (below), I have been watching the reopened and continuing debate on what I had assumed was a well-established consensus. I was further struck by the sentiment about how it would make a mess of the encyclopaedia if contractions were simply removed without rewriting. I am challenging the notion that each change must give rise to a perfect text. As for the underlying principled objection, the use of contractions was indeed taught to me at an early age, but it was equally strongly drummed into me that it is inappropriate to write formal or quasi-formal texts using contractions; bitter memories of being marked down as a consequence of deviation therefrom remain. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

But is there any reason for MOS to encourage edits which make a text no better - and perhaps worse? As A. di M. said above, MOS should not encourage changing a sentence from one which sounds like the writer is just not used to write in encyclopaedias to one which sounds like the writer is just not proficient in English, in any register. (

In addition, he hasn't fixed it but he removed the indicator that it may need fixing. That's no help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "bitter memories of being marked down as a consequence of deviation therefrom remain," I understand that, and you're not alone. A lot of mistaken beliefs about proper English use are a consequence of rules from school being remembered long past the context in which they were useful. (Theodore M. Bernstein, former editor at the New York Times, wrote an entire book devoted to "Miss Thistlebottom's Hobgoblins," his term for rules learned in school that have no basis out in the real world.)

I had a class in graduate school in which I was forbidden from using semicolons, and had to drastically cut down my use of commas. The professor was quite right in doing so, as I had a tendency to use far too many of both. (I still tend to do so, but the exercise in that semester helped rein in my excesses somewhat.) If I had taken the lesson from there that semicolons were always inappropriate, I would have been in error. Indeed, some of my most cherished professors were those who insisted upon untenable rules that resulted in ridiculously stilted English... because after leaving those classes and (quite rightly) abandoning those practices, I ended up with a sensible middle ground and a vastly improved style.

It is for this reason that some classes in schools and universities bar the use of contractions. Not because they are always inappropriate for formal writing—a cursory look at formal texts in general should suffice to disabuse one of that notion—but because most students in those classes tend to use far too many of them. When you have a poster that's rolled too tightly and you want to flatten it out, you need to roll it tightly in the other direction first. If students use too many contractions, as they often do, bar them from using any at all. Once they leave school, they will rebound to using a sensible number. That, at least, is the theory. The problem comes when people (sometimes even teachers, alas) take the "rule" too much to heart and think it is actually a rule of English style in general. This is not the case. — Shmuel (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(to Ohconfusius) There's a problem with the way writing is taught in schools. Rigid rules are often drummed into people (for no good reason, or to simplify in order to get them to remember), and they're often wrong, or outdated, or at least wrong in their absolutism. Again, not a dig at you, just a general observation, which makes me think we should stick to the best of the modern style guides. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Dickens is a great writer but I don't think we should aspire to write like him here. There's a long-standing consensus that using contractions is too chatty for an encyclopedia. I was shocked and horrified at the implication that this was being challenged. Please tell me I misunderstood and this was rhetorical license rather than a real position. --John (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I only meant that punctuation and grammar advice has changed a lot since Dickens, and continues to change. So what we were taught in school wasn't necessarily the most current advice, or if it was at the time it may not be now. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

True, and philosophically I agree with you. I do think there's a consensus among those who think about these things, that we should err on the side of writing relatively conservatively, in the paradigm we are debating here. We should not be breaking new ground but reflecting the tone of the sources we work from. The sources I use don't tend to use "ain't", they prefer "is not", and so I am going with that style. --John (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with John's first and last comments. I would think that some of these arguers were trolls except they are long established editors. (I know. I know. Yet another essay on not suggesting that editors are trolls). Student7 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Attempt to sabotage the role of the style guide

Now, a recent flurry of changes to the top of the MoS effectively represents a massive downgrading of the role of the style guides. To enact such changes, it would be normal to present the proposed text on the talk page first to gain consensus. Instead, the changes have been worked out on the style guide itself, making huge changes to the general principles.

These include the elevation of a new section announcing the primacy of what is called "editorial judgement" over the style guides, as a matter of principle. This flags strong "excuses" for not complying with the style guides—as if we didn't have enough already in the "use common sense" and the many instances of "generally", etc. This would be such a huge change in direction for Wikipedia—the community and the articles—that if seriously proposed it would first need careful scrutiny, debate, and consensus generation. For your convenience, here is the diff.

Could I remind editors that the style guides function to minimise edit-wars out in the articles. Although there may be instances of friction and edit-warring that relate to the style guides, without the style guides there would be anarchy. Can you imagine? There would be a constant stream of stylistic arguments flaring up into edit-wars based on this "Editorial judgement" principle: whose editorial judgement? That is the whole point of calmly discussing issues on the style-guide talk pages. In the new chaos, we'd need to start a special section at ANI to deal with style wars arising from this strong right to exert "editorial judgement" over all else. Do we have enough admins to run it? Are we prepared for the inevitable increase in instability in articles? That is why we have style guides, even if we don't agree with everything in them. Tony (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If MOS is intended to minimize edit wars, it is an utter failure. This is "Do it MY way and we'll have stability", the claim of every POV-pusher sophisticated enough to frame it; we wouldn't put up with that on content (and it doesn't work there either); why should we put up with it here? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Tony, the MoS has always said something like this, and that was the point of the two or three ArbCom rulings that we mention in the first section, namely that editors shouldn't go around changing from one style to another. It's becoming a problem; there's a similar discussion on the CITE talk page at the moment. So I can't see the harm of expanding that section just to emphasize the point. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

They are two different things. It says now "that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another", such as from one citation style to another, or from British to Canadian English spelling, without good reason. But changing an article to conform with the MOS is acceptable and expected, though as with all edits with care and common sense (so e.g. not blindly using bots). As for exceptions editors can exceptionally invoke Ignore All Rules, but if challenged would have to justify doing so with something more than "editorial judgement". And WP:IAR is already linked at the top of the article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Slim, this went far further than what is there already: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Isn't this quite clear? I believe the proposed change fundamentally altered the relationship between the style guides far beyond ArbCom's determination. Indeed, it would invite edit-warring at articles, which is exactly what ArbCom didn't want in its determination. I agree that it's a delicate balance—but one that has served us well, despite intermittent rumblings about particular points of style. Tony (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

While I'm uncertain of whether such a section is needed (and see no harm in discussing this), I'm baffled as to how its inclusion constituted "MAJOR MAJOR shifts" or "a huge change in direction."

Does anything stated in the text not reflect longstanding consensus? What new, controversial principles were introduced? —David Levy 01:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed so. If there is a dispute about any of the words involved here, let us have specifics. Daivd Levy's wording is:

This page is a guideline, not a replacement for editorial judgment; it should be applied with common sense and awareness of occasional exceptions, not always stated. Users are expected to pay attention to their edits and understand the reasons behind them. The indiscriminate application of style rules is potentially harmful, whether it stems from unmonitored use of editing tools, failure to adequately consider context, or adherence to a rule's letter instead of its spirit.

Now, if, as I believe, this is consensus, and #Bots 2 and #Bots 3 demonstrate evolution ofthe wording that consenuss, then it should be restored.

If not, what is the objection?

1. Does anyone say that this is not a guideline, or replaces editorial judgment?
2. That it should not be applied with common sense and awareness of occasional exceptions?
3. That editors are not expected to pay attention to their edits and understand the reasons behind them?
4. That indiscriminate application of style rules is never harmful?

If so, let them say so, now and here. That's all the section says.

If more evolution of the wording is necessary, what is it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• What I said above. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Which remains without specifics. What do you disagree with? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a big difference between emphasising internal consistency in articles and emphasising the primacy of editorial judgment. I cannot see the problem with saying that articles should be internally consistent. That's just plain common sense. As for emphasising the primacy of editorial judgment, if that is the case, why do we need a style guide? Michael Glass (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• It is understandable that some people may not like to be constrained by guidelines, let alone policies. That they want no restraints does not mean they have to be diluted so as to have nil effect; however, it could mean they should re-evaluate whether they want to be part of this project. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Style guides exist to inform and advise editorial judgment; to guide it. That's why we call this a guideline. Is it intended to replace editorial judgment? Say so frankly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You're playing with semantics. Yes, it is intended to replace editorial freedom to "do as you please" in many areas, because if editors did as they pleased in all respects there would be chaos: edit-wars all over the place. One of the trade-offs for having an unprecendentedly free and open encyclopedia is that we sort out the wars here before they happen. That is a prime function of the MoS. I do not want to work on a project that is full of bickering and warring: let it happen here, and keep the articles relatively free from it. Tony (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That's your theory - and that of a handful of disruptive edir-warriors beside, who in so holding violate policy - and backed by palpable falsehoods. MOS doesn't sort our disputes before they happen; it inspires unthinking editors to conduct edit wars in articles they know nothing about. But insofar as that is the role of MOS, it should not be a guideline; it should be a record of a historic failure, Until it complies with policy, I dispute its standing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• This style guide has functioned to minimise edit-wars in the articles I have had problems in. PPdd (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice to know it works sometimes. That's what it ought to do - and if it represented either consensus or English usage it would have a better chance. But that it is used to justify edits which don't pay attention to context or awareness of exceptions starts more wars - and causes more harm - than it prevents. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Anderson's statement, that "insofar as that is the role of MOS, it should not be a guideline; it should be a record of a historic failure, Until it complies with policy, I dispute its standing" says all about his intentions to re-weight this guideline by his none-too-subtle change, dressed up as a simple extension of fact. The fact that one or two people dispute a matter does not mean a consensus does not exist on the matter. It just means they do not accept the consensus, or perhaps they are calling 'black' 'white'. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to reweight it; to weight it as a guideline - as what policy says a guideline is. It has been used too long to justify disruptive imposition of stuff made up in school some day. The opinion of two or three editors that it should be more than a guideline is unfounded in policy, in pracrice, or in its text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• New users view MOS as authoritative, experienced users view it with respect and with home-team loyalty[[6], and wikilawyers use it manipulatively[7]. A big change in its semi-authoritative appearance would be to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war. PPdd (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• It would be a pity if new users viewed this page with authority; although newbies will be over-impressed by anything with a tag on it. It has none: it doesn't describe English, it's not based on reliable sources, and it doesn't have consensus.
• The only experienced users I know of that respect MOS are the half-dozen who write in their views; most of us ignore it. I am occasionally foolish enough to think it can be fixed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Your statements are inconsistent; it appears fairly transparent to me that you are trying to undermine it totally by turning it into an essay. Its standing as a guideline is clear enough to all but a vocal minority, and no reinforcement necessary – and certainly not the rather subjective language of 'editorial judgement', instead of the well accepted WP:IAR. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: Some of Pmanderson's comments, as well as his repeated tagging of the MoS as "disputed," indeed appear to reflect a desire to undermine the guideline's standing. Because he's adapted one of my messages and quoted me by name several times, I want to state for the record that I strongly disapprove of any such attempt.
I believe that the section in question accurately describes longstanding consensus, but if its introduction was intended to further the aforementioned campaign, I object to its inclusion (whether derived from my words or not). —David Levy 05:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as an attempt to undermine the MoS qua guideline; rather it's an effort to point out that it's not policy. And even if it were—imagine the chaos if I now took it upon myself to go around enforcing WP:V and WP:NOR in articles I had otherwise no interest in by removing unsourced sentences two or three times a minute for the next few hours or days or weeks.

It's this attempt to enforce by otherwise uninvolved editors that's the problem. If you're editing an article and you remove a contraction, no one's going to care. But the sight of someone engaged in semi-automatic MoS enforcement (whether it's contractions, or passive voice, or image sizes, or whatever the latest thing is) is provocative, and every time someone does it, the MoS's reputation drops another notch—along the lines of the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it. It's the MoS admirers who should be asking the wikignomes to tone things down a bit. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We need to accept something: Whoever made this changes probably wasn't trying to "sabotage" the MoS. We're not dealing with a vandal. We're dealing with someone who probably thought that he or she was improving things. This person absolutely should have raised the issue on the talk page first, but let's see if we can't stop viewing this as an attack and view it as the unconventional delivery of some new ideas. The truth is that while most of the MoS is an accessible tribute to correct English, it does also contain rules that were made up and have been imposed on the rest of Wikipedia by their fans.

There has been a problem over the past few years in that the MoS is labeled "guideline" but followed like the rule of law. These changes seem to have something to do with that. It should either be enforced like a guideline or renamed. Perhaps we should rethink the MoS as a "list of changes that anyone is allowed to make, regardless of other factors." And by "changes," I mean "stylistic corrections that ought to have no affect on meaning." As SlimV puts it, no one should care if an editor removes a contraction or corrects punctuation or capitalization. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

And this was discussed - at length - on this talk page; see #Bots 2 and #bots 3 above. The only objection then was that this might belong on some other page, and there was wide support; there is no specific disagreement now. As best as I can tell, the only problem is that three editors want MOS to be something more than a guideline - although there has never been consensus that it should be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am seeing a parallel between the discussion here, and similar discussions we have had at WP:RS. On both pages we seem to have a constant tug of war between those who feel that guidelines should be broad in structure and language (favoring broad statements of principal and explanations of intent that avoid going into detail and specifics)... and those who desire it to be narrow in structure and language (favoring a "list of rules" approach that goes into narrow detail and specifics.) Both views are valid... but both can be taken to extremes, and what we should be striving for is something in the middle.

At the moment, I think the MOS is currently overly narrow (increasingly being edited towards the "list of rules" extreme). It needs to be broadened... but... in doing so we need to avoid making it overly broad (to the point where it becomes meaningless and unhelpful). Not easy, but necessary. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As a point of personal privilege, I deny David Levy's charge that I want to undermine the proper standing of MOS. I would like two things from it, even in an ideal world:

• I agree precisely with what he has written (including denying that MOS should replace editorial judgment). I did not expect it to be controversial; I believe all of it to be consensus among editors in general. Those who do disagree with it violate Wikipedia consensus and policy and encourage harm to the encyclopedia; MOS should not be used to produce mindless editing. I am shocked that respectable editors should hold such a position; insofar as MOS does, I dispute it - but I go no further.
• It would be nice if MOS provisions described English usage (in an encyclopedic register), had some rationale for their enactment (such as a published style guide), or were consensus among editors. I'd settle for two out of three ;}. But all too many of these score zero out of three. (Nor do I expect this to change any time soon.)

I urge nothing else. If this be sabotage, make the most of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, I agree with the section's wording and believe that it reflects longstanding consensus. However, as Ohconfucius noted, your statements are inconsistent. Some appear indicative of a belief that the MoS is illegitimate and should not be respected. Coupled with your repeated tagging of the "entire page as harmful" (a disruptive response to one's failure to immediately get his/her way), it's entirely reasonable to question your motives. —David Levy 18:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, my statements are conditional.

• If MOS behaves like a guideline, and is applied by editors who think about what they are doing;
• if it contains advice which is helpful to the encyclopedia and represents best practice;
• then it is useful.

The first of these is not as true as it ought to be, but I thought until yesterday that all of us agreed it should be true; I dispute this guideline if it does not mean that. The second is a long-standing problem, why many editors have a low regard for MOS, but it is a reason to dispute individual provisions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Amen to that. --A. di M. (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

PMA, the MoS is more than a guideline, whether people want it to be or not. BlueBoar: I see no reason why the MoS cannot contain both statements of principle and specific rules. Considering that the MoS's purpose is to instruct users on correct English, which is itself made up of rules, the "list of rules" approach is probably best, even if that would not be the case for something like WP:RS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Who says MOS is more than a guideline? MOS doesn't say so; indeed, it has borne a guideline tag for years. Does any policy say so? Not that I can find. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The MoS doesn't say that it is more than a guideline but it is enforced as absolute rules. If it were a guideline, then people wouldn't be brought up on ANI for "violating" it. I am saying that the problem is that the MoS is labeled as one thing and enforced as something else. The name and the practice should match and they don't. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Have there been cases where editors have been blocked for not following the MOS? Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked? Wouldn't know off the top of my head. Brought up on ANI? Heck yes, myself for one. We should either treat it like a guideline or—and as much as I disapprove of the one rule I supposedly violated, this next would be the better choice overall—acknowledge the MoS for what it is and call it something that reflects that reality. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I would not say it is "more than a guideline", but rather that is a guideline does not make it less than policy. I would refer readers to WP:PGE, which gets to the heart of my point, in particular

Misconception #3: Policies tell you what you must always do, and other pages just make optional suggestions

Misconception #7: Policy pages outrank guidelines, which in turn outrank essays

This is a guideline but so is WP:EL which editors are regularly blocked and banned for ignoring. So a guideline can be as important or more important than a policy when it comes to guiding editing behaviour. Although editors will rarely be blocked for not following the MoS it is possible and probably more likely than they will be blocked for not supplying sources as required by the policy WP:V.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Question, John B: How are these misconceptions? The word "guideline" has at the very least strong connotations of "general direction" and "optional," and policy pages do seem more important than guidelines, which are both certainly more canon than opinion pieces written by individual editors. Please imagine non-sarcasm for my tone of voice. I am actually quite interested in your reasoning. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

But all the examples I have seen of such blocks and bans are not because EL is a guideline, but because they are revert-warring to insert links which back their POV. That's two policies. Here we have people warring "to enforce MOS" - often when their understanding of it is not how the majority would read it - and some of them have been sanctioned for that. (By this logic, it's less than a guideline; but the general view is that it is neither more nor less.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more of spammers, the sort that participate in WP simply to promote something by repeatedly inserting links. They don't need to edit war, just do it often enough on different articles that they get four warnings and are blocked, the warnings such as {{Uw-spam1}} referring to WP:EL as a reason for them, as well as WP:SPAM, another guideline. My point was and still is that it makes no difference whether it's a policy or guideline. If it's a WP policy or guideline, or sometimes even an essay (e.g. WP:TE), that's been agreed by broad consensus then major changes should not be made without similar consensus being achieved.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's a WP policy or guideline, or sometimes even an essay (e.g. WP:TE), that's been agreed by broad consensus. That's true of most policies, even many guidelines and some essays. But MOS is not the product of broad consensus; I've watched this sausage factory. Slim Virgin said "people add their own preferences as though they're written in stone" and she's right. Sometimes they look in style guides first; more often they remember what they learned in high school; all too often they invent stuff. But do they ever secure broad consensus? Find me an example. (Sometimes, as with ENGVAR, they achieve it; but that's chance at work.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Contractions, resumed

Addressing none of the concerns in this thread (sorry), I would like to point out that contractions may have to be used in quotes (already pointed out), but they should seldom be used in the current or future tense. We report history; we don't really know what is happening now. We are not WP:CRYSTAL. Therefore many contractions limited to past tense or past pluperfect. "Wouldn't've (!)," not "don't," "couldn't've"(!) not "can't". These tend to be a little more stilted than current tense, note. Note that editor has well made the argument above for verbal (conversation) vs written English. Makes a lot of sense IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Not so. Many contractions (didn't, for example) are preterites. More importantly, we use the present quite often, for scientific or mathematical or philosophical articles, where we are discussing non-temporal states of affairs. There isn't a thirty-third class of crystals; Perfect numbers aren't square. Rhetorical questions, where both the Britannica and we use contractions because expanding is clumsy, are often presents. Why doesn't the zero-point energy of the vacuum cause a large cosmological constant? (Observe, there, that does not is not idiom, and Why does the zero-point energy of the vacuum not cause is hard to read.)

This is, incidentally, one endemic problem with MOS; rules are phrased by somebody thinking of one case (direct statements in historical articles) and then applied to other cases where they fit less well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I regret if anything I have said seems personal - and will be happy to strike if it does; both halves of this compound error ignore much of Wikipedia and much of English. So does most of MOS. Those who have learned that formal English has rules have yet to learn that the full syntax of a living language can't be expressed in a finite system of rules. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly... One of the things that frustrates students of English (especially those who grew up speaking other languages) is that it has so many exceptions to its rules. Throughout its history, the English language has consistently resisted being formalized. The use of contractions is a case in point. In many (even most) cases, they should be avoided.... however there are a lot of exceptions to that broad rule. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The solution to two of those examples is to reword them. Instead of "There isn't a 33rd class of crystals" write "There are only 32 classes of crystals". Instead of "Perfect numbers aren't square" write "All perfect numbers are non-square" (though this is a poor example as not being square is not usually a notable mathematical property and there is no term for it). The third example is a rhetorical question that should not usually appear in an article: instead the article should contain a description of the facts, such as : "the zero-point energy of the vacuum does not agree with the magnitude of the cosmological constant, a discrepancy which has various explanations."--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This is another diadvantage of attempting to set rules for an encyclopedia; whether a number is, or must be, square is often a tolerably important tool in number theory; whether the number is divisible by a square is even more important (see Square-free integer, to which quadratfrei redirects). The MOS all too often sets rules for subjects where we would do better to "restrain our legislative hand" because, as the Lord Chancellor sings, we do not understand them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

To return to the topic, I believe most people agree that two of the examples can - and probably should - be reworded, although I gather this last is not consensus; SV and Shmuel would probably dissent. But they are none of them properly solved by blindly replacing aren't by are not and so on - and it is that blind editing which this entire section is intended to address. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

For the second one, try "None of the perfect numbers are". The third one is not a rhetorical question at all, and if you answered it you would likely be awarded a Nobel prize. Also, all the items of List of unsolved problems are phrased as questions, so rewording only one of them into a statement only to avoid a contraction would be idiotic. --137.43.105.17 (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Given the present wording of WP:CONTRACTION, I'm abandoning editing of contractions, with or without AWB, rather than guess what you want changed and what you don't. Or what you do not. Whatever. Art LaPella (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Forget about us and do what is best for the encyclopedia. That's the whole point here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Or "No perfect number is square" – there are many ways to reword it to avoid the are not/aren't in the first version, and editors are not only permitted but encouraged to copy-edit articles to make them read better and so avoid stilted writing that cries out for contractions. And yes, if the article is a list of questions then it will contain questions, which is why I wrote 'not usually'. But normally such questions should be replaced.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't change contractions in a way that makes them read better, because contractions read fine to me. It's only at Wikipedia that I read anything about discouraging them in formal English (which I presume to be true). If I "forget about us and do what is best for the encyclopedia", Wikipedia would be much less formal; some jokes would be nice, for instance. But I know that isn't the consensus. The consensus used to be no contractions. Now we're supposed to guess about contractions. So I'll leave them alone. Art LaPella (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus on any of these subjects. If you can make an article clearer with a joke, go ahead - but remember your audience includes Australians, Idahoans, and anglophone Maori.

But surely some of the examples in this discussion, probably at both ends, seem ungainly to you; feel free to fix them as you come across them. If somebody dislikes the result, he'll fix them again. That's the wiki method, on which we gamble. Only those who dislike it need crowds of bots to work their will. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Then I'm lost in your semantics. You say ENGVAR is a consensus, but there's a bigger consensus for routinely removing jokes as vandalism. Suppose a bot could reliably enforce ENGVAR; would you use it? Art LaPella (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Your mileage varies. I've seen ENGVAR referenced often; every halfway reasonable claim has prevailed. Some "jokes" (in the manner of Lenny Bruce) are vandalism and removed; but the two or three jokes I've used seem still to be in place. I haven't seen discussion of any others.

On your second point: a bot that could reliably enforce ENGVAR would have to have a full corpus of the differences between the dialects - and be able to construe English to see where, for example, the English plural applied. When artificial intelligence is applied to Wikipedia, we can reconsider the matter; but there is an argument that such a bot would be paying attention to its edits and is aware of what it is doing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I said to suppose it was reliable, so I think your answer is "yes". I certainly pay attention to AWB contraction edits, if only to make sure they aren't in a quote or something. My awareness is debatable, since I come to different conclusions. I brought it up because I don't think the guideline says what you really mean. I think you would rather expand all contractions than none of them. I would avoid expanding contractions in the question examples, but I don't remember ever finding such an example in a real article. Art LaPella (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If I had no other choice, I might choose to expand all rather than none. But there is always another choice, closer to what we should do;Expand when beneficial and only then.

Likewise, it might be better to trust AIs to edit our articles; in the same realm of purest SF, we'd have AIs to write them. But we don't now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As I explained, there isn't much of another choice for me, and I think other Wikignomes have more in common with me than with MoS regulars. If we can't use AWB, then there surely isn't another choice for most articles, because there wouldn't be time to edit them all. It does sound like some AWB users are at least worth discussing, but doesn't the Bot Approval Group handle that? Art LaPella (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The key question begged here is: Why should you have to edit them all? Wikipedia relies on the tendency of readers of articles to improve them; even on minute points of fact, which few readers, even those interested in the subject, will know. What works for Accuracy and Verifiability will work for how and whether to expand a contraction.

Indeed, the very use of this argument concedes the great weakness of MOS: only a few people agree on any of its mandates - and usually some disagree - otherwise the wiki process would enforce your desires. It is when a handful of editors need to express The Hidden Truth about Macedonia or global warming that we get people trying to edit all Wikipedia on that subject; so here. Those who believe there is One True Way about contractions which only a handful Really Understand (rather than a general tendency of formal English) are those who demand bots. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Then remove the guideline. But if there is a good reason for a guideline that tells the world to expand a randomly selected 1% of all contractions, without making any attempt to specify which contractions you want, then the same reason applies to the other 99%. Art LaPella (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a good reason for a guideline which says (to each individual editor): if you're not sure which way you should write it, it's probably better to expand the contraction. That's what MOS actually now says.

There is no reason for random edits at all - which is all categorical instructions blindly fulfilled can produce. Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring, and the same applies to the less emollient spring of Dionysius Thrax. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 11:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but the fault was with the guideline in this case. Don't blame the bot runners. The guideline contained a rule which was utterly unambiguous and specific: no contractions. The rule was, in a word, wrong. The more relaxed version we have today is closer to right (although I still think we should just drop the section all together). Millions of edits were (mis) guided by a bad rule. That's not the bot runners fault. You can't simply add a section the guideline that says (in so many words) ignore bad rules! That's ridiculous. I would prefer we avoid bad rules in the future. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to talk about fault; the problem is double:

• Most of MOS is oversimplified rules; many of them not entirely wrong - like this one, they point more or less in the right direction; but not exactly correct. (Others are made up in school one day; and those are the most viciously defended - but that's like article text) For most features of English, this is unavoidable - except by silence; actual idiom is too complex for a tolerable rule to be accurate.

• All too often, they are applied without thought or understanding, and not only by botters.

The solution, therefore, is also two-fold: Make MOS represent English better, on the one hand. On the other hand, consider its advice but don't trust it beyond your own competence and knowledge; especially when it says generally or usually or normally, don't impose it as an infallible rule. This would be sound if it were the best possible MOS; even if it were, it would be less sound than the habits of a literate writer of English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia contractions weren't written by Dionysius Thrax, and Septentrionalis would be the first to agree that almost nobody reads the Manual of Style. If the guideline should be "if you're not sure which way you should write it, it's probably better to expand the contraction", then it doesn't matter whether it's "you" as an author, "you" as a copyeditor, or "you" as a semi-automated copyeditor – except that if someone else wrote it one way, that is limited evidence that others would write it that way, just as I would be more careful changing a statistic or equation than if I were adding it as missing data. WP:OWN. Art LaPella (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The only difference between semi-automatic editing and manual editing is quantity. If AWB is applied using common sense and judgment, it is as valuable as the same amount of manual editing; if it is done blindly it is as bad as, and more copious than, blind editing by hand. (The same applies to automatic editing, but outside SF it can't be done with judgment.) AWB does tempt to laziness and thoughtlessness, but the same cautions should be applied to both. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are some randomly chosen contractions, excluding quotes, titles, and file names. Search these for "can't": List of smoking bans, List of Alvin and the Chipmunks episodes, Passport, PlayStation3, Turing test, and Afterlife. "don't": Comparison of web browsers, Homosexuality, Electoral College (United States), and List of Monster Rancher monsters. "wouldn't": Arab citizens of Israel. "isn't": Mass–energy equivalence. "wouldn't" in Vegetarianism is something that I hopefully wouldn't change because it's a quote in disguise. Are there any other examples you wouldn't change, or is the whole problem more hypothetical than real?

Remember, the relevant comparison isn't between AWB and "the same amount of manual editing"; AWB or nothing is a closer approximation. If you believe the former, then the next time I get the urge to edit a list using AWB, I'll ask you to volunteer to edit the same list manually, instead. Art LaPella (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe I wouldn't change (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction, but there are plenty that I would happily change. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  The language of a pompous bureaucrat is not really an improvement; we hope our articles will be read. the serving or consumption of food or drink are not permitted would be unreadable, save by those readers perverse enough to be attracted by lack of agreement between subject and predicate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ouch, you found me out! ;-) Perhaps you might like to have a go, then... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a choice between AWB and nothing only for articles which nobody reads (and, if nobody reads them, our concern for what they look like is -er- limited). Most of my mainspace edits are tweaks of articles I was reading for some other purpose; this includes repairing clumsy or ungrammatical phrases, ideally with no change of meaning. None of the articles you mention should be unread, but even there, one rational test for whether isn't is acceptable in the encyclopedic register is: if no reader notices it's there without using a search engine, it's not a problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Then I hope your edits are prolific. Actually, even the Main Page would get occasional contractions if I didn't catch them – which I should evidently stop doing, since my edits are too mechanical. How many non-bot users do you think are even aware of WP:CONTRACTION? And does your last sentence mean that the contractions I Googled have survived this long, so they must be correct? In that case, we don't need a guideline at all. (note: "pompous bureaucrat" is, um, pushing the WP:NPA envelope) Art LaPella (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Language of a pompous bureaucrat is discussing the edit, not the editor; since he writes much better in expressing himself, even before ArbCom, this is probably another example of the dangers of editing to a register not natural to the editor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) If it isn't a matter of general consensus among editors at large to expand contractions, then this is a minority concern, and the rule to do so doesn't belong in a guideline at all. If it is general consensus, then you don't have to worry about how often I edit. (If contractions have survived FAC, imperfect though it is, we should probably strike the section; glaring embarrassments usually don't make it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I missed that the edit you linked might be criticized as pompous and bureaucratic. Now perhaps you have another explanation for why you so emphasized the simple grammatical oversight of making "x or y" plural. Of course I could point out similar oversights in anybody's writing.

Most editors don't write guidelines and don't care about expanding contractions. It's a consensus only in the sense that not enough people have objected, and that can be said of any guideline including ENGVAR. I'm not sure of your answer to my previous question; do you want to expand the contractions I listed? If we remove every guideline I find routinely violated in Tomorrow's Featured Article, there wouldn't be many left. Art LaPella (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't intend it as such; but that's a good idea - if you allow for the occasional exception. You are very unlikely to find ENGVAR violated; most such articles are written by editors with the same national ties - or those who can fake it. Moreover, ENGVAR has active support; for our culture on the matter see the archives of Talk:Yoghurt. Nor would you find violations of the actual consensus rules of English. (End sentences with punctuation.)

Why should we make rules which only a handful care about - and some of that handful diagree with? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "You don't intend it as such" Actually, my earlier quote was something like "I'm not sure there should even be a Manual of Style. But if we have one, we should use it."
• "violations of the consensus rules of English" How many would you like me to list? There's nothing sacred about ENGVAR, either, although I'm more likely to notice British spellings in US articles than vice versa. Anyway, featured articles are a game for Wikipedia insiders only, unless they are going to the Main Page. The main part of Wikipedia ignores the Manual of Style even more completely than featured articles do. We need more automation, or everything else on this page is a game.
• Why make rules which only a handful care about? I suppose because at least a bigger minority wants formal English, but doesn't know the details of how to get it. Once again, many or most of those rules I wouldn't miss. But we should use them if we have them.
• Going back to whether to use AWB: Because apparently you want to expand almost all contractions. Because the Manual of Style without AWB would be as unused and pointless as it was a couple years ago. Because the easiest way to achieve what I think you want (but I can't get you to state it clearly) is to zap everything with a bot – preferably an automatic bot, not AWB – and then undo the exceptions manually. Because AWB users who re-revert too aggressively or uncivilly are an ordinary tendentious editing problem, not an AWB problem. And because if making Wikipedia work creates an uproar, we should think first of how to deal with the Luddites, not AWB. Art LaPella (talk) 06:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've stated what I want several times: intelligent editing. That is impossible with a bot; once we start bots - or bot-like editors - to work, we cannot in practice turn them off and revcerse their work where it has gone wrong.

And if we have a bad rule (and we have all too many), we should remove it - certainly, we should not enforce it. First, do no harm. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"What you want" refers to how many of my sample contractions you would keep; I'm guessing zero. But as explained, the alternative to AWB is virtually no editing, which is more harmful than AWB, whether or not we check the bot's history file. But I certainly encourage you to remove bad rules. Art LaPella (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a paragraph with two contractions I didn't expand, because I can't see the Emperor's new clothes and therefore that expansion would be "mechanical" contrary to WP:CONTRACTIONS. Art LaPella (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The word "didn't" is now scheduled for the Main Page from 6 pm to midnight, February 24, UTC. [8] Art LaPella (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a classic example where the contraction is not needed and ought to just be expanded in article text. Maybe the goal of the hooks is to have a conversational tone instead of an encyclopedic tone. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the rest of my edit, and the similar edits I make daily, I'm pretty sure the goal is unrelated to Manual of Style obscurities at all. Almost nobody knows that stuff. Few know that there's anything wrong with contractions in the first place, never mind which contractions should be kept, and after the above it isn't going to be my call whether expanding that contraction would be "mechanical" or not. It won't be protected until it goes on the Main Page, and thus any of you may edit it.Oops, it's already protected, but CBM is an administrator and he is welcome to edit it. My point is, of course, that I think the recent WP:CONTRACTION change will have far more unintended consequences than intended consequences. Art LaPella (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I could edit it, but I think it would be a little pointy, since I basically never deal with deal with DYK, to suddenly pop in to make some minor change like that based on some far away discussion. But I don't think there's any reason why "don't" is needed there; it makes the sentence a little chatty. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"didn't". I might be called pointy, but I'm not really, because I'm drawing attention to the absence of an edit I wouldn't have made anyway. Art LaPella (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone give me a link to the word didn't which was reported to be scheduled for a Main Page hook on the 24th? I can't seem to find it. I keep getting redirected to "contraction," which seems quite reasonable and not as challenging to my sense of what should be featured in the encyclopedia. :) Student7 (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you expecting? "Can't" is a contraction of "cannot". I doubt if anyone would want it to be linked on the main page. – SMasters (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That's right. "didn't" was not linked. Now it's in the archives. Art LaPella (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I meant to say "didn't" -> "did not". Too many things on my plate today and I got distracted. – SMasters (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

About the serial comma

From the "Serial Commas" section:

"A serial comma (also known as an Oxford comma or a Harvard comma) is a comma used immediately before a conjunction in a list of three or more items: the phrase ham, chips, and eggs includes a serial comma, while the variant ham, chips and eggs omits it. Editors may use either convention on Wikipedia so long as each article is consistent within itself."

I recommend that editors use only the former convention (with the serial comma). It does not make much sense for a serial comma to be omitted in any Wikipedia article (which should be ruled as incorrect), but why is the serial comma omitted before a conjunction in the last item in a list of three or more items, anyway? 66.204.145.253 (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a difference of style. If the article is consistent with itself, it doesn't matter which you wrote with or without a serial comma. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There are a few cases in which either adding or leaving out the serial comma would be confusing: "Jane thanked her parents, Coach Bob and Jane Allen" doesn't mean the same as "Jane thanked her parents, Coach Bob, and Jane Allen." I recommend allowing editors to use their judgment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What's incorrect to you is correct to me: I usually omit a serial comma in my own writing. Both are valid so it's left up to editorial judgement.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely this is an ENGVAR issue? The serial comma is prevelent in US articles and usually never used in British English articles. Never having used a serial comma in 57 years of writing it jars on me like fingernails down a chalk board - but I accept them in US articles (with the hairs on my neck bristling). 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 18:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not only regional. There's a reason it's called the Oxford comma. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

So, before the last item in a list of three or more items, a serial/Oxford comma should always be used, it cannot be omitted.

• "Jane thanked her parents, Coach Bob and Jane Allen." This sentence implies that Jane's parents are Coach Bob and Jane Allen.
• "Jane thanked her parents, Coach Bob, and Jane Allen." This sentence inplies that Jane's parents are different from Coach Bob and Jane Allen.66.204.145.253 (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No. If it is used, it is an Oxford comma; but it only resolves ambiguity in that sentence because the first item is "her parents". There are occasions (see Oxford comma, where including one produces ambiguity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

How can including a serial comma produce ambiguity? 66.204.145.253 (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• To my mother, Coach Jane, and God. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  Yes. The rules on the serial comma are fine as is. Ozob (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts and a Protective Tariff." The Alien and Sedition Acts is (always treated as) one item. Inserting commas helps clarify that. "Congress Passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, and a Protective Tariff." This can't be a colonial affectation!  :) Student7 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Noetica convinced me after a long argument to switch to using the Oxford comma in every case, on the grounds of logic from the reader's point of view. Tony (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the serial comma too, and I reword if I think the result sounds clumsy. But I don't think the MoS should command one usage or the other; both occur in standard formal written English. Ozob (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I prefer to leave out the serial comma, but both styles are correct and encyclopedic and both should be permitted. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No italics for Latin/French/Japanese words?

Hello, I am here to put my two cents' worth of knowledge: In my native language, Spanish, we often put Latin/French in italics, but not Japanese, so I was shocked when I read the following sentence:"Loanwords and borrowed phrases that have common usage in English—Gestapo, samurai, vice versa, esprit de corps—do not require italics. A rule of thumb is not to italicize words that appear unitalicized in major English-language dictionaries." I would change the wording to "Some words do require italics" because for example, many people nowadays know what samurai is, but not what Gestapo or esprit de corps mean. Thus I will seek either removal or rewording of that section. Fandelasketchup (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Comprehension of a word/phrase is different from how it is formatted. Such are linked to allow readers to understand the terms if they are not in common english (eg as Gestapo or esprit de corps); but as you noted, phrases like samurai or vice versa though borrowed are considered common english and would not be linked. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

These words don't need italics because they have become English words. We don't need to italicize them just because not everyone would understand them. (After all, English is the one that drags other languages into the alley, beats them up and then goes through their pockets for spare vocabulary.) We don't regularly italicize words like "vociferate" and "pulchritude" and these are probably harder to understand than "Gestapo" despite not being loan words. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I would italicise "esprit de corps" because it is a foreign phrase that is not part of the English language, we just use it for effect. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree; it is a bad example - at best marginal, and for many good authors wrong. Gestapo is another matter; it is an English term of abuse, often used as a generic term. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As a counter example on the other side, in situ is nearly always italicized in academic sources. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

So is loc. cit.. The usual way of expressing the line is whether a phrase is treated in English as foreign or not; since that consists largely of whether it is in italics, that becomes quite circular. (Also whether it makes English compounds and inflexions: Gestapo-like, but esprits de corps.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, we have to ask, what do other English language sources do? If a word or phrase is routinely italicized, we should do so as well. If not, then neither should we. If usage is mixed, then leave it up to the article writers to decide. There is nothing wrong with allowing editorial discretion. Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Darkfrog is right in his observation that English appropriates words. I've found "esprit de corps" in English dictionaries, having been used in English for a century, and maybe more. It is always attributed to French of course, but no longer exists as a "foreign phrase" in English. Student7 (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

past tense, in particular past perfect

I have noticed that on some pages (including WP: pages, even some that provide advice on grammar) the past tense is used incorrectly, and this seems to go unnoticed for a long time. Examples: He was born in Vilnius, Lithuania, after the country (had) gained independence. In designing the sequel, the staff was able to include the speech and improved visuals Gilbert (had) originally envisioned for Maniac Mansion. I haven't seen this subject included in this style page (did I miss it?). Should it be? -- Nczempin (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say no, because this is not specific to Wikipedia, and if we try to write a style manual to cover all English usage, the MoS will become as large as printed manuals of style. The general English usage advice that is present in the MoS now should be removed. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jc3s5h. The MOS is not (and should not be) an English grammar guide. If you think you can improve the language or grammar of an article, just do it. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that the general English advice should be removed from the MoS. This question shows that there is at least one person who consults it for such. I do agree that said user should just go ahead and fix things when he or she finds that they are wrong. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

MOS is a grammar guide; but we should probably not cover this point; this is another case where the actual rules of English are complex:

• He was born in Vilnius, Lithuania, after the country gained independence is grammatical; the sequence of tenses is not always mandatory. The addition of had would strengthen the assertion that independence was before the birth, but after already says that.
• On the other hand, In designing the sequel, the staff was able to include the speech and improved visuals Gilbert originally envisioned for Maniac Mansion. is unidomatic and much more in need of had for clarity, not least because the reader may take improved as an active verb, with the staff as subject.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the fairly common, "Smith would go on to become provost of the base," derives mostly from a tense often employed by genealogists for some reason. I always change this to "Smith became provost in nnnn." (Yes an exception can be granted for "Smith, who would go on to become provost himself, argued with the then-provost Jones...") Student7 (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Question: Addition of crosses

Some ips like to add † next to the name of a dead person [9]. Is there a policy or guideline that supports or forbids this? Should those crosses be removed? In case it's allowed, is it Hillevi Rombin† or Hillevi Rombin †? -John KB (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline. It is not unknown in English next to the date of death, although d. is more common; in running text (as with your example), it is useless and uncommunicative, if largely harmless. I would probably remove them, as actual anglophones are likely to take † as the mark of a footnote, and wate time looking for one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, will remove them. --John KB (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've seen crosses next to names (particularly next to names of authors of jointly authored works where one of the authors died during preparation). But I think this is an inappropriate convention except when the deceased was Christian and the publication is intended for a Christian audience. That's not true here on Wikipedia, so I think it would be appropriate to forbid crosses. Ozob (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe German Wikipedia follows this convention. We do not, and should not. "Died" is not that long or onerous to type, and it is a lot clearer. --John (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

ISBNs

A bot has been converting ISBN-10s to ISBN-13s and hyphenating the latter (see also WT:ISBN). I am not aware of community consensus for such a mass change. Is there? Geometry guy 21:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The BAG approved it Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RjwilmsiBot 6, and suggested to be following WP:ISBN appropriately. But there wasn't any discussion on if the task was appropriate from a MOS standard (even though I see the author flagged WT:ISBN for input).

The issue of failure to ignore wrapping might be solved with some CSS ala no-wrap flags. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am advised that the bot is not yet converting ISBN-10s to ISBN-13s, although this was sought in the bot request. In my view this may be an example of BAG approving a task on technical grounds without considering community consensus. Geometry guy 21:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

But again, there is a call by the bot author on WT:ISBN to review the bot's purpose before it was approved by BAG. I don't see that notice here on WT:MOS but at the same time, it certainly wasn't done in a vacuum. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As you say, I do not think the bot operator is particularly at fault here; rather it is the BAG approval for mass stylistic changes which are not documented in the MoS. Geometry guy 22:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no community consensus for stylistic edits without thought or consideration. There is a strong feeling, at least, that editors should know why they are doing things; bots never do, although they are not the only offenders. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

ISBNs should obviously be hyphenated since it makes them much easier to read and gather the relevant information from them. This is routine cleanup. Likewise for ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 conversions.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The hyphenation of ISBN-13s is not in the MoS, so it needs to be discussed. Geometry guy 22:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Clearly the bot operators should know why the bots are doing those things. Just as clearly Rjwilmsi knows why this bot is doing this thing. Converting is the right thing to do, at the least in all articles that have both -10 and -13 types. We should not have them mixed. As for the hyphenation and nowrap, we've discussed it before. It's pretty much a yawner. Some editors will squeal over slow load times, others over wasted space on a small screen. That shouldn't stop the bot from doing the -10 to -13 conversion. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The bot is not currently doing the -10 to -13 conversion (although that has, apparently been approved). However, it is adding hyphens to ISBN-13s. Geometry guy 22:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the -13 contains more info of -10, I don't understand why use not use -13 in all cases. Is there any problem with that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What information does the 13 digit ISBN carry that the 10 digit one does not? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that hyphenation/spacing is useful to the reader. The ISBN folks' current preference is to use hyphens. I have hyphenated quite a number of ISBNs in the last year or so, several times at FAN or GAN or in the FPA queue, and to the best of my memory none have been reverted (except once when an editor expressed a preference for the retention of existing spaces, I forget why I changed the format). I have been reading long enough for my brain to recognize that a hyphen at the end of a line indicates continuation. I am unpersuaded that the 10-13 change is a benefit. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer ISBN-13s, and I also prefer ISBN-13s with minimal hyphenation (one at most). So I would support a bot to covert -10s to -13s. However my personal preferences are not the issue here: mass stylistic changes need community consensus, and in this case, that probably means explicit support for the preferred style (whatever that is) in the MoS. Geometry guy 22:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the single hyphen is not approved or described by the ISBN authorities (but enlighten me if I'm wrong). I don't see what information it gives the reader, and we should avoid it. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Per ISBN international manuals (which was pointed to at the BRFA), both ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 require hyphenation. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

From the ISBN page linked above:

"The ten-digit number is divided into four parts of variable length, which must be separated clearly by hyphens or spaces: ISBN 0 571 08989 5 or ISBN 90-70002-34-5 Note: Experience suggests that hyphens are preferable to spaces." and from the ISBN 13 manual: "The ISBN is divided into five elements, three of them of variable length; the first and last elements are of fixed length. The elements must each be separated clearly by hyphens or spaces when displayed in human readable form:"

i.e. hyphens are NOT required, just preferred.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I interpret the ISBN standard to mean that one of hyphens or spaces is required, hyphens preferred over spaces. If there is a feeling we should allow correctly placed spaces or hyphens I can certainly do that, though I would wonder whether use of two formats would be more confusing, and less consistent overall. Rjwilmsi 21:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no a priori reason for Wikipedia to follow an ISBN standard any more than a particular style guide, and the evidence at WT:ISBN#ISBN_usage_on_English_Wikipedia_as_of_January_2011 is that Wikipedians do not follow the ISBN standard. We can of course compel them to do so if there is a case for it, but discussion so far does not amount to such a case. On the other hand we make frequent use of Google books and Amazon for verifiability; the latter uses a single hyphen for ISBN-13s. Geometry guy 22:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If the ISO, as the body that defines the ISBN standards, calls for the hyphens or spaces, we should definitely use them. There is a defined, correct form. This is not merely a matter of style.There's no reason not to use it. What Amazon does, especially if it can be empirically shown as incorrect (which it is), does not concern us. oknazevad (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Who determines what is "correct" or "incorrect"? Who determines common practice? Which authorities should we follow slavishly and which should we ignore? Who decides? You? Geometry guy 23:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The ISO. The scare quotes on correct aren't needed. There is a correct way to write them. I don't define it. Nor do you. oknazevad (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Who says that they're right? Themselves? Why should we prefer what they say to anything else? Ultimately, this is a convention. The right question to ask is: Do we want to follow ISO's convention or not? The ultimate standard, here as elsewhere, is what there is consensus for. There may be consensus for obeying ISO—I think it's a good idea—but I don't think there's consensus for obeying them just because they're ISO. Ozob (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course they're right, they define the ISBN! (End snark.) Regardless, The real question is do we go with the ISO, or our own convention. The whole point of international standards is that they're the same everywhere (that is, standard, natch). We could go with another convention, but we should have a very good reason for it, otherwise we mis-present the facts and work outside the framework. I don't see any good reasons presented.

The question then boils down to the question of whether to use hyphens or spaces, which are both allowed. I prefer the hyphens, as they are a stronger grouping symbol, and even if the text does wrap at the end of a line, it shows that there's a continuation. oknazevad (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Quoting: "which must be separated clearly by hyphens or spaces" and "The elements must each be separated clearly by hyphens or spaces when displayed in human readable form." Am I missing something or does it not say "must" and refer to multiple hyphens between elements? Anyway, whether WP or Google Books/Amazon should actually follow their standards is at each one's own discretion. Of course non-hyphened ISBNs are much easier to deal with programmatically and lead to better search hits, so I can understand why they prefer them.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not advocating above that we should follow Amazon and Google, only that the case for conformity with ISO has not been made. When ISO state that "the elements must each be separated by hyphens or spaces", they are emprically (oknazevad's word) incorrect, in that there are plentiful counterexamples to such a claim! The issue is similar to SI units, which we do not systematically use in all cases. There are many other examples. The most important thing is internal consistency within each article. Geometry guy 21:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

PS. The Library of Congress doesn't use hyphens either. That "must" is looking increasingly like wishful thinking.

---

I'm deferring comment on this issue for 24 hours. However, in the hope of aiding discussion I've posted some stats on existing ISBN usage on Wikipedia at Wikipedia_talk:ISBN#ISBN_usage_on_English_Wikipedia_as_of_January_2011. Rjwilmsi 22:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding ISBN-10 vs. ISBN-13, I want to point out that books published before ISBN-13 was developed will not have an ISBN-13 anywhere to be found on them. I don't see why we would be changing citations to print sources that reflect the identifying information actually found on the source. (Yes, that's right, there are articles that cite physically printed books!) If you are looking at the physical book, not just some database of book information, the ISBN that is printed on the book is what will allow you to verify that it is the same edition as what was cited. This is not a question of "style", but of accurately citing source information. --RL0919 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This also occurred to me, and is why early on I removed ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 conversion from the bot request, and none have my bot's edits have involved this. I am happy to state here that I do not consider the bot task to include authorisation for any ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 conversion. Rjwilmsi 21:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems a pity. Since there is exactly one ISBN-13 that can be computed from a given ISBN-10, looked up in any number of major catalogues, or even some combination of these, it is difficult to conceive of any substantive error that this could introduce. Remember too that the authoritative ISBN is not the one on or in the book but the one by which the publisher lists the book. Indeed the publisher's occasional practice of applying ISBN corrections by self-adhesive labels will be familiar to most book buyers. Publishers routinely added the ISBN-13 to jackets at the time of reprints without waiting for a new edition, and we certainly don't routinely trouble ourselves to identify distinct printings in our citations. Can anyone show cases where there have been problems resulting from adding the extra digits? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• There are clear disadvantages to using hyphens in ISBNs with regard to searches both on the Wikipedia and the web in general. What are the practical advantages, other than some subjective aesthetic criteria that I personally don't see, to adding the hyphens? See: Wikipedia talk:ISBN#Proposal to remove hyphens from Wikipedia ISBNs. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  No hyphens is better for cut and pasting the numbers; hyphens should make the number easier to understand and remember if you aren't cutting and pasting. (Presumably this lies behind the ISO's original recommendation of hyphens, in 1970.) Neither sounds like the sort of overwhelming advantage that would justify a bot, and the statistics indicate that there is no consensus among Wikipedians. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  The bot made over 20000 edits (starting 14 February) to ISBNs before I stopped it; however, the more comprehensive run, starting 22nd February, only made 7000 edits, and got as far as "Amo-" (including articles beginning with a number or non-character). Geometry guy 01:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  The Bot can augment ISBN information with ISBN-13 information in the id field, e.g. id=ISBN 1234567890123. Removing the ISBN-10 information would be horrible, hampering the book trade for dealers and buyers alike.

  Please make sure that the BOT should preserve 1-2 distinct ISBNs for a volume: For example, consider the ISBN problems of Charles Sanders Peirce's New Elements of Mathematics, which took me a lot of time to fix. Our page is the only resource on the internet that correctly identifies the ISBN numbers, which is necessary to find and order any of these books (for risk-averse book buyers). I did not add the 13-digit ISBNS because that would violate WP:OR; how does this Bot avoid problems with OR?

  Can the bot protect multi-volume sets with a set-ISBN and individual ISBNs?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 23:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  The bot does not add or remove ISBNs, only adds or updates hyphenation. No ISBN-13 addition or conversion is part of the task. Rjwilmsi 08:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Supporting roles and Cameron's intentions in the lead

I am bringing this here because it has to do with the style of a lead section, and because I have run out of other options. I've taken this matter to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, but, other than one editor thus far, they haven't been helpful. And I thought of taking it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (film), but that project isn't as active and the editor I'm in dispute with over this often weighs in there. I'm also certain that WP:RfC would be no help either. We need at least a few editors to give their input, and from what I have seen...RfC has not been working well lately.

Basically, the dispute is over what should be in a lead of an article, a film article in particular, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Lead section. I have cited this guideline, WP:LEAD, and precedent set in other articles...such as the featured article Changeling (film), while the editor I am in a dispute with has ignored this and says that I am wrong on all accounts.

Help is definitely needed here, so that the matter may be properly resolved and the editors of the article can move on. Consider reading the discussion and adding your two cents, even if brief.

Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there consensus to end the long-standing role of the MoS?

I have reverted Mr Anderson's change again, since he has not gathered consensus for it here. It would be a fundamental change in the concept of MoS: to [expand the scope of the advice to follow the usage of "reliable" secondary sources in determining "many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names", to a point-blank, general statement to "observe the style adopt by external sources", in which case, I wonder why we need a MoS at all. If there is consensus to make the change, I will then move to delete the MoS, since it will be of no use.

Before such a transformation begins, we should determine whether there is consensus for giving carte-blanche to anyone who wants to override the Manual of Style simply by citing a single external authority or example.

Support Mr Anderson's proposal to give external sources general authority over the MoS in WP articles ("In general, observe the style adopted by high-quality sources when considering a stylistic question. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources on the subject of an article.")

Retain the long-standing wording ("Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources on the subject....")

1. Tony (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
3. SMasters (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This personal attack misstates the issues. This "long-standing wording" (adopted early last year) does, and was intended to, establish a general rule (with exceptions for good reason) that Wikipedia would use styles generally accepted in English; this has not been changed. No word of any version says that we should follow any "single source"; indeed, today's version says we should usually follow general usage - which Tony's verbosity does not.

• Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Can we please have diffs, so we can all see that is at issue. --Philcha (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Seems like this is an overreaction. Both statements are making the same point - that if there's something that our MOS doesn't answer specifically you turn to the sources - with the latter being more clear about it. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• I would go for the second version. A bit stronger and more in line with the WP:NOR policy. It's shorter, and it doesn't presuppose which points of usage are covered for sure. (/me suspects that this is related WP:ENDASH and similar disputes, where it was argued that the punctuation in reliable sources doesn't have to be followed because we have our own stylistic guides) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Is there consensus to end the long-standing role of the MoS?" Answer: fuck no, and Tony gives exactly the reason why. We have our own manual of style, specific to our own needs. Sometimes we disagree with allowed styles, other times we impose one over all others, and sometimes we permit all of them. PMAnderson's version strips the MOS of it's power to discriminate against styles deemed undesired. Many MOSes would allow for YYYY-MM-DD in prose. Yet we don't want that. Many MOSes would likewise impose the Harvard style of citation. We allow all styles. Many MOSes tells you to use titlecase for sections. We choose sentence case. External sources provide good guidance most of the time, but which are different from our agreed-upon house style. But most damning of all, several reliable sources have shit-poor stylistic standards. Assume for instance, that all books on say... whale reproduction italicizes the English names of whale species blah blah blah, the blue whale is a .... Should we then start italicizing the English name of whales in the article on the reproduction of whales, and not italicize them otherwise, as most books don't italicize the English names of species? The answer is a resounding NO. In this case, books on whale reproduction can take a hike. PManderson's version tells you that no, if you can find a subset of books/blogs/columns/newspaper/journals/... with weird, sub-par, or otherwise-innapropriate-for-Wikipedia conventions, you can now Wikilawyer their horrible style into articles. So again: fuck no. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • To be completely fair, neither version specifically says the equivalent "WP's MOS takes priority over external sources." --MASEM (t) 15:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The first version says external sources can often provide a good guidance. The second says you must follow external sources. World of difference. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
      • "In general" != "must". And given that guidelines are meant to be descriptive, that follows allow that route. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • See the words Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, which are in all versions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Tempest in a tea-pot... Both versions are acceptable, as they say essentially the same thing. Both statements can be boiled down to: "When in doubt, follow the style used in reliable sources" (which I hope we would all agree with). That said... Is there consensus to end the long-standing role of the MoS? ... No, of course not. But that begs the question: Does PMA's edit "end the long-standing role the role of the MOS?" ... my answer: No it doesn't. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • And I have not intended to change anything about our guidance, merely to word it better; if Headbomb's comments above are intended to enshrine some other role for NOS, I will welcome his saying what it is below.
  • In line with this, since this relatively novel section is still wordy, I have ventured an even tighter text, in the perpetual hope that a new form of words will bring agreement:

    Wikipedia usually adopts the style generally found in high-quality sources on a given subject. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources. If the sources can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage, follow current English usage instead—and consult more sources.

  • If there is disagreement that Wikipedia usually does (and should) adopt such a style, let us have it explicitly - and without profanity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the long-standing role of the MoS?

Having skimmed through several of the debates on this page, have to wonder if we have a consensus on this fundamental question. So let's see if we can reach one... what do people think the role of the MOS actually is? Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I get the impression that some people feel it is some form of a constitution that should be dogmatically followed. I personally feel that the MoS is a guideline, and while maybe a great place to look if in need, it is neither infallible, nor does it necessarily express true consensus on Wikipedia. Giving the MoS the status of a rule book opens the door to many other problems, including giving quasi-legislative powers to a select few, prominent editors. Disastrous, if such a definition for the MoS is sought.--Xession (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather than complain about how other people see the MOS, could we restrict our comments to what we think the role of the MOS actually is (or is supposed to be). Xession, you say the MOS is a guideline, and "a great place to look if in need". Please expand... What do you mean by that? Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If an editor is working on an aticle, and is unsure how to stylize a particular portion, or looking for information regarding how they could benefit an article in some way, the MoS is a great place to start. However, the guidelines should not be mandated, should an editor feel they have a better method than the guide provides.--Xession (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• It is a guideline - it is meant to be descriptive, providing some straight-up mechanical advice (punctuation, etc. ) but otherwise reducing but not eliminating the amount of variance in style between articles. It is clearly not aimed or used to promote one single style (otherwise, for example, we'd be able to fix ourselves on using american-vs-UK english, or american-vs-international date formats). --MASEM (t) 16:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• The Manual of Style is a guideline for writing encyclopedic English. If it demands something which is not English, that interferes the purpose of this English Wikipedia, which is to communicate with English-speakers. The test of whether something is English is whether the community of anglophones has adopted it; there is no English Academy to make decrees. No-one who supposes that this page has some other "long-standing role" has ever stated what it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• It is a guideline; it gives guidance on how to write English. It is not a policy, a set of rules that must be followed on every single article. This is an encyclopedia, it complies information of a wide variety of fields; when usage common to that field varies from the MoS, the terms and usages proper to that field should be followed. And it describes the English that exists, not the English yet to come. Most importantly, it should describe English as widely used, not just because some editors like it; some parts are currently minority usage (regardless of variety) that were preferred by editors at the time of drafting, but are uncommon in daily usage. oknazevad (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Guidelines and policies both have exceptions, according to WP:IAR and common sense (for instance, software malfunction isn't listed as a 3RR exception, but obviously it could be), although guidelines probably have more exceptions. But if we have no obligation to honor the MoS and guidelines amount to essays, then I don't understand why we waste our time here on the MoS at all. There are hundreds of books and websites about style, and almost nobody has read them all. If the MoS is no different, then why do we pay any attention to it? Art LaPella (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Because it's accessible. Most people don't have access to a single style guide; even fewer have access to a range of them. As Xession says above, it's a convenient place to look; even though I have access to CMOS most of the time, typing "WP:MOS" is a lot easier - and it covers Wikipedia-specific issues.
  • We have no obligation to honor MOS; we have an obligation to write English, because what matters is the encyclopedia which should be intelligible to readers of English. The reason to spend time is the same for every guideline: we save time we would otherwise spend repeating things we agree on - by putting them in a central location and linking. (Of course, that would require a MOS that said things we agree on, instead of things people WP:MADEUP.)
  • And, in the meanwhile, there is always keeping MOS from encouraging willful harm. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have been following this discussion with much interest. As a professional copy editor, I work with many different publications and media outlets. Earlier in my career, I freelanced, hopping from one publisher to the next, often on a project or short-term basis. Each house will have its own Style Manual, and it is the first thing that I will look at when I'm with a new outlet. If I was not able to adopt to individual house styles quickly, word would get around and I would not be in this career for long. I am not sure if people are confused with the term "Style guide". The word "guide" here is very misleading. It is not a guide at all, but a set of standards – a manual. That is why it is called the Manual of Style and not Style Guidelines or Suggested Style. For professionals, we would view this as a manual and would use it as our "bible", referring to if often to ensure consistency. You see, consistency is key when it comes to the overall feel and look of any publication. It is also a mark of the quality of any publication. I totally agree with Tony that if the MOS is merely a suggested style, then why bother having it at all? There is no point. Everyone can do what they want, and it will just look like chop suey. For Wikipedia, I believe that it should maintain its own house style. It is not just about guidance on language (I do agree that this part is guidance), but it is also much to do with styling, hence Manual of Style and not Manual of English. Why should we bother about all this? What if you are looking at a bunch of articles and cross referencing at the same time, for example, if you are going through all articles in a Featured list, or reading the Signpost in a single page. Following other house styles will mean many conflicting and inconsistent styling of the articles. Even within one article, there will be many references. Which style do you follow? One italicizes foreign terms and another doesn't. One bolds the names of people and uses a period for all abbreviations and another doesn't. Without a style manual, there will not be consistency. Some have argued that we are here to write an encyclopedia, and because there are a wide range topics, an MOS is not practical, workable, or even a waste of time. Firstly, I can tell you that I have worked with old-school encyclopedia publishers years ago, and every single one of them has a style manual. As I have said, this is imperative if one is to achieve consistency. Secondly, while it is used as a "bible" by professionals, there are times when we do have to deviate, but such deviation are few and far between, and affect a relatively small amount of articles. And finally, some of us are writers. Write, and someone else will come and do the copy editing and styling. But don't say that the MOS is a waste of time. If anything, it adds great value to the project. It says that we care about consistency, standards and quality. This is my personal opinion. A big part of me will die if the MOS goes, and my respect for the project will certainly go spiraling downhill. – SMasters (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should reimagine the MoS as a list of changes that anyone should be allowed to make at any time without being required to discuss them on talk pages first. We should accept that not all Wikipedia contributors who are qualified to provide information will be able to do so in high-quality English. We should accept that other Wikipedians will go around and correct the English of such contributions. The MoS should be a list of instructions for those editors.

As for whether the MoS should be treated as a guideline or as hard rules, well, if the MoS were not full of people's personal preferences set up as rules, then I'd prefer a strict interpretation. However, because it includes revisionist "this is how English should be" ideas, then I find it does not have sufficient credibility to be treated that way.

As for consistency, it has long been established that the unit of consistency is the article, not all of Wikipedia. I personally feel that that is a great way to think of a project of this kind: we don't need consistency throughout the whole project and requiring it in all cases would stifle and insult contributors who come from different English schools. That is something else that we should accept. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr Anderson is currently engaged in his war of attrition not only here, but here as well, where he is garnering people who just write "Support" or "Support" what you say, or Support Mexico–America but not Mexican–American. This is a rag-tag, disorganised corner in which he is challenging the status of MoS as the coherent stylistic guideline for the project, focusing on an issue in which he has failed to gain consensus here again and again. He has presented what looks like a skewed argument that somehow neglects the MoS guideline that dashes stand not only for "to", but for "versus"."Is this War a range from Mexican to American?", he asks editors there. No, it's Mexicans "versus" Americans. If he succeeds, I can see that all binary war expressions, x–y graph, blood–brain barrier, and many other well-established usages, will potentially become edit-war zones as he pleases. This is why we have a MoS in the first place: to stop this kind of instability. I wish he would cease and desist. Tony (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Tony... please stop your personal attacks against PMA. I started this thread, not PMA, and my question was inspired by a lot more than the specific debate you are talking about. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. But I think we are coming to the meat of the matter, and it may require another subsection to discuss it. On the immediate substance: I do not oppose well-established usages; I support them - I oppose Mexican–American War because the dash doesn't appear to be anybody's usage; and therefore Tony's proposed etymology is, however plausible, mistaken. Blood–brain barrier, with a dash, does appear to be common usage - and if so, I support it; but, like Michelson–Morley effect, it is a compound noun used attributively (the difference between that and, say, Austria-Hungary may justify a final phrasing of ENDASH using noun compounds often). The rational solution in general would be to explain custom as well as we can, not to invent a new one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Tony may not be the most politically correct bout this, but he is nonetheless right. PMAnderson is waging a war of attrition on the MOS. And I'm as annoyed as Tony on this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It takes two (or more) to tango. This is exactly the same type of situation that was created during the date delinking mess before it got to Arbcom, sides entrenching themselves without working collaboratively on a solution. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If "it's Mexicans "versus" Americans" were the way wars are named, a war involving Spain (or Finland, or Iceland) would be called "Spaniard–Whatever War" (or "Finn–Whatever War", or "Whatever–Icelander War"). That's not how wars are typically called, is it. 137.43.105.17 (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

For example, Spanish-American War (which also uses a hyphen everywhere but Wikipedia). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with PMAnderson here. I have a composition book that wonderfully lays out the differences and hyphenating is certainly the most appropriate choice. Tony's vigilance on this matter seems both petty and non-collaborative. The entire purpose of this discussion area is to discuss these types of matters, rather than pronouncing people as wrong-doers, war mongers, or illegitimate, as Tony would seem to prefer. I will post further reasoning for my position on the aforementioned article.--Xession (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to call my position "absurd", the least you could do is inform me of it. Powers ^T 13:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WTF are you people smoking!?!?!? The MoS is the closest thing WP has to "Holy Scripture™" - please stop screwing around with it. Roger (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• In a way, I agree with Darkfrog that the MOS should be a list of changes that anyone should be allowed to make at any time without being required to discuss them on talk pages first -- however, that would involve drastically pruning the current MOS, most of which would be better off as Essays that individual editors or groups could adopt declaiming "the way I wish everybody wrote". older ≠ wiser 18:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That is more or less what other guidelines are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• I could not disagree with you more Roger. Declaring the MoS a "holy scripture" implies that no debate on the matter is allowed; the content can never change. This would set an absolutely terrible precedent for the guide. Your position on the matter, would completely invalidate this entire discussion page and most of the related archives. Such a dogmatic approach suggests that Wikipedia may be better off being developed entirely by bots. Wikipedia as I see it, is collection of people that have come to compose a database of human knowledge, not mandate rules on how to do so. --Xession (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy Scripture?!?

The MoS is the closest thing WP has to "Holy Scripture™"

Thank you, Dodger 67, for expressing frankly what much of the profanity around here seems to imply Is there consensus on this view?

I doubt it:

• NPOV, V, and OR are much closer to Holy Scripture - and the wish to maintain these exactly as written is much weaker.
• This is contrary to clear policy: Wikipedia is not governed by statute law, much less Revelation.
• Has anybody ever attempted to have MOS say any such thing? I doubt it; that is not consensus among Wikipedians as a whole, and efforts to make it say so would have made it {{historic}} long ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• None of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines come close to being Holy Scripture... even NPOV, V and OR have to take second place to community consensus (ie if there is consensus to change them, we do so). And the MOS is no where near that level. Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Out in the articles, the MoS is treated as hard-and-fast rules, what Roger calls "Holy Scripture." Whether or not that should be the official status of the MoS is an entirely separate question. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If you mean exceptions to MoS guidelines are unknown out in the articles, of course they are unknown; the MoS itself is virtually unknown. Demands that everyone "should" know the exceptions won't help in the slightest. Or did you mean only that we should be aware that exceptions exist? Yes we should, although we might not take an individual editor's word for such an exception in a specific case.

We need to overcome the myth that editors busily consult the MoS before writing each sentence, especially since there is no consensus for making rules consistent and easier to find. Good grief, even MoS regulars are often unaware of their own rules. I believe the most important purpose of the MoS is instructions for bot operators. It doesn't matter how perfect our grammar is on this page, if millions of articles go unaffected by that knowledge. Art LaPella (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean 1. Robert isn't nuts for calling the MoS "Holy Scripture" and 2. if someone can be punished for not following the MoS, then it is being treated as a set of hard-and-fast rules, regardless of whether it would be better to treat the MoS as a set of recommendations. I am not under the impression that most editors consult the MoS regularly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No, unfortunately he isn't nuts; he is, however, trusting religiously in the infallibility of a document which cannot capture the complexity of English (no matter how good it becomes) and which is presently not very good. Any admin who inflicts punishment for not following the MOS should be desysopped; I hope what you are remembering are cases of revert-warring, which has been punished even when the edit in question is the best alternative. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow! If I thought folks would take my comment so literally I probably would not have posted. Most commentators are "under-valuing" the modifier phrase I used: "closest thing to". It's obviously not "that" close - the "thou shalt not change a single iota of this eternal truth" aspect of "Holy Scripture" is obviously not applicable.

Unfortunately your tongue-in-cheek comment is actually literally how some regulars at Wikipedia apply the rules. As the words of God, not to be departed from regardless of what common sense tells us. Worse, the overwhelming complexity of the instructions, guides, FAQ's and addenda (like this one) purporting to govern "good" writing (a logical impossibility, otherwise all good writing would be formulaic), "appropriate" and "inappropriate" use of style, and the microscopic minutiae of possibly irrelevant preferences make it almost certain that the MoS will be consulted less and less as it becomes more and more inaccessible.

Debate is good, but the bewildering avalanche of sometimes simply rancorous differences of opinion here is entirely destructive. It approaches in metaphor the chaos of the French Revolution, where some zealots used a period of anarchy to attempt re-inventing all social rules from the ground up as an expression of rebellion against any kind of pre-existing order. We know how that ended.

The reality for us, here, now, is that the English language already has a complex set of rules, further subdivided by national snobbery; there simply is no such thing as American English, Canadian English, International English, British English, etc. It's the same language with a growing range of variants and exceptions.

What the MoS could realistically aspire to is guidance on referencing, neutrality, objectivity, and consistency. Heading towards an entirely new version of "Wikipedia English" is ultimately self-destructive, arrogant and unrealizable, no matter how passionate its advocates become. Right now a bit of consolidation wouldn't go astray; you simply shouldn't have to dig through a dozen layers of links to read all the various instructions on the same topic (if you want to waste some time, look for punctuation rules and track down all the mentions of apostrophes in possessives, plurals, contractions, names, and translations from languages that don't use the Roman alphabet).

Written English may be subject to rules, but attempting to subject every facet of writing to formulaic rules is the perverse aspiration to create an algorithm that removes the need for human judgement or aesthetics from the language altogether. Peter S Strempel 11:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterstrempel (talk • contribs) Sorry, that signature should be Peter S Strempel (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, trying to substitute one person's perception of common sense for the Manual of Style usually leads to more chaos, not less. When the Manual is clearly wrong, you should at least try to change it, which keeps the French Revolution confined to this page. But sure, the Manual of Style appears to be written primarily to show off how much grammar we know, or to gain prestige by resembling manuals intended for institutions that can fire editors for not studying them. It isn't streamlined in a way that would best influence the rest of Wikipedia. A camel is a horse designed by a committee. Art LaPella (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe Darkfrog24 grokked my post better than others. The point I was trying to make (obviously not very sucessfully) is that the MoS is the guide to creating quality articles - how to be a good Wikipedian. In that sense it is comparable to the "moral code" function of "Holy Scriptures". BTW it seems most commentators missed the tongue-in-cheek ™ that I appended to the phrase.

Now to get to the core of what I really want to say: The MoS obviously must evolve and develop to suit the needs of the project but there seem to be some MoS editors who have no regard for it's important function as "the" manual. I see people "coatracking" their personal feuds onto the MoS by edit warring about dashes versus hyphens and other similar minutiae. The edit waring over such "trivia" points to a disrespect for the objective of the Wikipedia project - creating the worlds best encyclopedia. So please stop messing with it. Roger (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, this is not a personal feud - despite the efforts of some editors to make it into one.

But dashes and hyphens and such things do matter to the encyclopedia: using the wrong one makes it harder to read and understand; using forms which are hypercorrect or subliterate makes the encyclopedia look stupid.

MOS is being actively used and quoted - often misquoted - in an effort which does make the encyclopedia worse; if this can be slowed down by changing MOS itself - and it does change, like other guidelines - shouldn't this be done? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I see two repeated fallacies in this discussion, here and every other time I've seen it come up:

1. The fallacy that the MoS is, or should be, a definitive statement of English grammar. The MOS is not an encyclopedia article on English grammar, much less holy writ. It is a house manual of style. Like any publication's manual of style, it makes no assertion that it is universally applicable or correct. No manual of style is Holy Writ for the entire English language. However, by definition, it is Holy Writ for the publication whose style it defines. That's the purpose of a manual of style: to define the correct usage of English for a particular publication, so that it can be applied consistently throughout the publication. Yes, there are arguments for myriad ways to use hyphens here and dashes there. That is why publications create a house style guide: it says "for this publication, we are doing it this way." This doesn't mean that other publications can't make different choices. It doesn't mean that the given choice is right. It means that someone has chosen one way to do it, so that everyone is doing it the same way, and the publication uses a uniform version of English, rather than looking like it was written by a roomful of monkeys with typewriters. My point is: the argument "we must change the MoS because it must reflect The One True Grammar Of the English Language" is a non-starter, because it's untrue by definition. Likewise, "The MoS must allow people the freedom to use whatever variant of English grammar they like" is misguided, because it neglects the point of having a manual of style in the first place.
2. The fallacy that one can determine The One True Grammar of the English Language by statistical analysis. I see many arguments to statistical authority: "I analyzed Corpus X of works, and I found that 98% of those works use left-handed colons, so we should change the MoS to permit only left-handed semicolons—or, failing that, explicitly allow authors to use either right- or left-handed semicolons based on their national ties." This argument assumes that the given corpus is an accurate, universal reflection of English; the cited corpus in these arguments is often questionable. It also presumes that the majority of people writing English, especially on the Internet, use proper grammar—or that proper English grammar should be defined by how most people write. Yet, if that were true, emoticons, lol, and ain't would all be acceptable in English Wikipedia articles: any statistical analysis of Facebook would show that all are common English usage today. I would hope the assertion that we rewrite the MoS to permit ain't in articles would be rejected as patently absurd, no matter how compelling the statistics. Even those who write English professionally often struggle with English grammar: I would hate to define the language by the way most contemporary newspaper columnists abuse it, and many published authors routinely thank their editors for fixing their errors. Reference books, like encyclopedias, are written in proper English, not colloquial English. Arguments to "this is the way people are doing it now" are appeals to colloquialism, not professionalism.

I think that any discussion over the role of the MoS has to note these fallacies, and take care to avoid falling into their traps. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Point 2 sounds like a straw man to me. What is correct in formal standard English is of course defined by what people normally do when writing in formal standard English (see Chapter 1 of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language for a more detailed definition), and no-one seriously proposes using text corpora which include Facebook posts for determining what we should do on Wikipedia. --A. di M. (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Fallacy 3: "That's the purpose of a manual of style: to define the correct usage of English for a particular publication, so that it can be applied consistently throughout the publication." Well sort of, but just because something is in the Manual of Style doesn't make the rest of the publication jump into conformity. Remember, we can't fire people for not reading the manual. The rest of the paragraph should be rethought with that in mind. Art LaPella (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Stability?

Tony's argument, that MOS is a set of decisions (more or less arbitrary, it would appear) which are to be imposed on all articles in the interests of stability is also refreshingly frank. His system has three disadvantages:

1. It does not in fact produce stability. More editors are fluent in English than know the recesses of MOS; when MOS differs from English usage, we get the following cycle: Some editor corrects an error; some worthy soul replaces it as a "MOS breach"; an editor corrects it again; and so on until WP:DEADLINE.

   When MOS arbitrarily picks one usage within the corpus of formal written English, the same thing happens (more slowly, since only editors who prefer other usages change MOS back). This is the sort of thing WP:ENGVAR averts; but the rest of MOS is not so sensible.

2. It does not produce English. Since the purpose of en: Wikipedia (and therefore of MOS) is to produce an English encyclopedia, this is actively harmful.
3. It attracts everybody who would like to Fix the English Language. <drumroll> That's how we got the Kibibyte Wars: some good soul decided that kibibytes were the Right Way to Do Things, and attempted to produce stability. If MOSNUM said, first of all, "write English", that would have been comparatively easy to settle.

This is presumably why this view is not consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Reversion

For, I think, the first time in this matter, I have made an exact revert, eliminating the first sentence here:

Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources when considering a stylistic question. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources. If the sources can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage, follow current English usage instead—and consult more sources.

The conclusion of this discussion is surely that the first sentence is not consensus, whereas the other two sentences are; but I am too tired of this nonsense, crowned by this falsehood of an edit summary, to propose another compromise text.

Tony, if the text you keep reverting to is consensus, why did it stay out for two days until you reverted it - again?

Our policy is either to discuss (without uncivil accusations), or to offer a compromise text, in the hope that the wikiprocess of collective editing will resolve the matter. I have done both; you have done neither.

I've put in Blueboar's summary above, as common ground, if there is one. If anybody else can think of anything better, I should be most grateful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Tony is right in his reversion. If he didn't get to it first, I would have reverted it myself. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? Since, despite your profane assurances, Blueboar is right that no change of meaning has been affected here, merely a simplification of weaseling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

According to WT:MOS#Is there consensus to end the long-standing role of the MoS?, although the wording of the question clearly wasn't neutral, it does show 5 for the long version, 2 for the short version including Enric Naval, and 2 for "what's the difference?" If "what's the difference?" is the consensus, then whoever reverts last loses. Art LaPella (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

But expecially if there is no consensus, the claim that this clumsy version is uncontested consensus is, shall we say, a terminological inexactitude. Therefore this removal of a tag is less than accurate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Septentrionalis there. See the "Dispute tags" entry here. Art LaPella (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should apply Andrewa's first Rule of Thumb: If after a significant amount of debate there's sill no consensus, then it doesn't really matter which way we go, so let's all stop wasting time. Andrewa (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll learn something. Have you ever successfully closed a discussion by pretending it doesn't exist? Art LaPella (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, frequently. Your restatement of the rule is unflattering to it (see WP:rhetoric) but logically sound. Or in other words, if it really doesn't matter, then realising this and conceding defeat amounts to a possibly important victory. Andrewa (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought we were discussing removing a discussion tag. Art LaPella (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologise, and we are. Clear now? Andrewa (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, because you're arguing why the person who inserted the tag should end the discussion, not why the person who removes the tag can expect the first person to suddenly see it that way (it didn't work this time). But if you get good empirical results, I suppose that's the answer. Odd; in my experience tags themselves are more likely to be the subjects of lame edit wars. Art LaPella (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

MoS is the real anti-instruction-creep policy

For what it's worth, I've long understood the MoS as being the part of the P&G that is aimed at preventing people from making up their own, arbitrary and often hypercorrective rules.

In my mind, the MoS is the real anti-instruction-creep part of the P&G, by collecting valid stylistic rules as well as collecting and explaining logically valid and sometimes necessary exceptions from those rules. (Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep is the relativistic, mob rule take on the same issue: "teh soshalist Wiki government should get off our backs and let us create our own ad hoc rules".)

This means that the MoS is by its very nature, at least to an extent, elitist, dogmatic and normative (ie. the way I see it). Consensus is completely overrated on Wikipedia because too many are actually following the invitation for anyone to edit. --87.79.114.210 (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As for your first sentence, no, all too often, once somebody makes up an arbitrary and hypercorrective rule, the first thing done with it is to put it into MOS.

What are your criteria for "validity", Sir?

Some people appear to believe that what their divine afflatus tells them is a valid rule; this leads to WP:MADEUP violations.

Mine are simple: The ideal rule should:

1. Reflect English usage;
2. Represent the advice of reliable sources;
3. Be consensus of Wikipedia editors in general.

I will settle for two our of three. Much of MOS (and almost all of the rules peddled across Wikipedia as "MOS-compliance") satisfy zero of three. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think your least favorite rule is WP:DASH, so let's see how your 3 rules apply. Googling "dashes hyphens" on Wikipedia or the rest of the Internet shows that almost nobody says dashes and hyphens are interchangeable, and almost nobody wants to overthrow WP:DASH. Dashes and hyphens are often interchangeable in practice, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, but dash advocates would dismiss most of them as low-quality sources. So the number of rules satisfied on this issue depends on how you define the terms in your rules. Rule 2 says "advice", so WP:DASH should get at least one point because those who never use dashes seldom talk about it. Art LaPella (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

To say expressly that hyphens and dashes were interchangeable would be a different mistaken rule. Is there any authority for all of what WP:DASH says? for example, searching for an authority for east–west with a dash instead of a hyphen yields a lot of writing on other topics, including this style guide which uses dashes and east-west with a hyphen, and this lesson plan which uses east-west as an example where a hyphen is preferred to a dash; on the other side, there is -well- the Wikipedia Manual of Style, apparently by itself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like more of a swamp than I want to dive into. Here is a better explanation; you oppose WP:DASH but don't always oppose dashes, although few Wikipedians are aware of the difference. Art LaPella (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I support dashes when they are English, as here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

wrong word in article

{{edit protected}} Unnecessarily is an adverb and unnecessary is an adjective. In section Clarity, unnecessarily is used as an adjective in "unnecessarily complex wording." This should be replaced with unnecessary.Blackwidowhex (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: In "unnecessarily complex wording" the adverb unnecessarily is modifying the adjective complex, which is quite correct. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Blackwidowhex. The usage of the adverb unnecessarily implies that complex wording is desirable as long as it isn't unnecessarily complex -- which is completely wrong. The wording should always be as simple as possible without compromising accuracy and comprehensiveness. I have therefore re-requested the edit. --78.35.215.51 (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is silly. An article such as C*-algebra is going to be complex; that's unavoidable. The idea is not to make it unnecessarily complex. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The idea is to make it as simple as possible without compromising accuracy and comprehensiveness. The subject matter may be complex, the wording should strive to be as simple as possible. You and the current wording of the MoS are confusing the subject matter and its explanatory description. --78.35.215.51 (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"complex wording" and "complex concept" are different things. The paragraph in question is about using simple English and avoiding complex wording when it is not necessary -- i.e. "unnecessarily complex wording". This has nothing to do with how complicated the article is. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Telling editors to "avoid [...] unnecessarily complex wording" is the same thing as telling them to "use complex wording, just not unnecessarily complex wording".

What the original author meant to convey is that the article should account for the complexity of the subject matter. Again: the current wording confuses two things: While complex subject matter does require a complex description, the language used to describe it should be kept as plain as possible. Therefore, editors should "avoid unnecessary complex wording" ("in the appropriately complex discussion of the subject matter").

The depth and scope of the article should reflect the complexity of the subject matter. The language however should be kept as plain and simple as possible. These are two different things, which the current wording conflates. --78.35.215.51 (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors should avoid "unnecessary complex wording" irrespective of the complexity of the article. The passage advises editors to not make it more complex, not to make it complex/simple/whatever. The sentence is clear -- "do not use wording that is more complex than it is necessary" = "avoid unnecessarily complex wording". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The passage links to another article that is not clear. Can you explain the first paragraph of Use Plain English? What I thought Clarity should say is not to use the "justly" in that paragraph when it serves no clear purpose. Read the quote from Strunk and see he used the term unnecessary and not unnecessarily. The last sentence of the 1st paragraph in Use Plain English is even more atrocious. I do think Wikipedia should focus more about unneeded words that are used. Blackwidowhex (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Use plain English is an essay (the very top banner of the page), and it's writing does not necessarily represent WP policies/guidelines. Feel free to improve the language there if you want. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

H3llkn0wz, please re-read my comment. All unnecessary complex wording should be avoided. Wording should never strive to be complex. The wording should not somehow "mimic" the complexity of the discussed subject matter. The wording is not the same as the article. You're still conflating these two things. --78.35.204.17 (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"All unnecessary complex wording should be avoided" -- isn't that exactly what the page says? -- i.e. "avoid [..] unnecessarily complex wording". It never says to write complex prose. "The wording should not somehow "mimic" the complexity of the discussed subject matter. The wording is not the same as the article." -- that is exactly what I said: "editors should avoid "unnecessary complex wording" irrespective of the complexity of the article." I don't understand where you see the conflation. "avoid [...] unnecessarily complex wording" is not the same as "use complex wording, just not unnecessarily complex wording". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In "unnecessarily complex wording", "unnecessarily" modifies "complex". In "unnecessary complex wording", "unnecessary" modifies "complex wording". We want neither unnecessarily complex wording nor unnecessary complex wording. Neither of these includes the other, and I think that being so careful about which word to use is not a good use of our time. Ozob (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with those who have pointed out that "unnecessarily complex" is correct. I would like to add that the simplest turn of phrase is often but not always the best or most encyclopedic. I feel that "unnecessarily complex" expresses the intent of th eMoS very well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The simple Wiki [10] is surely where simple English should be used? Chaosdruid (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In a more perfect world, Simple English Wikipedia would avoid complex wording for children, foreigners etc., and English Wikipedia would avoid unnecessarily complex wording – as well as unnecessary complex wording. Art LaPella (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And on the MoS talk pages it seems unnecessarily complex discussing and unnecessary complex dissection can also occur lol Chaosdruid (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(Gulp!) No one seems to have mentioned that the word unnecessarily could be modifying the verb. "Unnecessarily make" (implied) is good English, right? Maybe no change? Student7 (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The verb is avoid. So how does "avoid unnecessarily complex wording" sound? Blackwidowhex (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What's the whole sentence(s) then? It does already say "avoid [..] unnecessarily complex wording". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to confirm it for me. To me it says avoid unnecessarily even if the complex wording is necessary. Blackwidowhex (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

When you said "So how does [..] sound?" I thought you were proposing new wording. But, as there are other words in the sentence, I asked how the whole sentence would be worded. Because, to me, the proposal above does not change the context. Hence, the question and redundant confirmation. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

How about "Writing should be clear and concise, and plain English works best. Avoid jargon, vagueness, and complexity where it is not necessary." ? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that works out better. Blackwidowhex (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hold on. How do we what does 'it' mean, the action or the noun? I think it's common to say "do that only if it is necessary". I think that maybe Wikipedia has better English grammar services that could settle this. Again, thanks. Blackwidowhex (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"unnecessarily" modifying verb would be: "avoid unnecessarily using complex wording" or "avoid using complex wording unnecessarily". Currently it modifies "complex", though. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Now, I get it. Blackwidowhex (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are sarctastic, but that was a reply to Student7. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Striking as irrelevant and poor comment on my part.19:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

ENGVAR and internal consistency

Within the past fifteen minutes I discovered that EnigmaMcmxc (talk · contribs) was moving several articles concerning the British Armed Forces during World War II to titles that use the standard Commonwealth name of the war which is "the Second World War". Now, in some cases these articles have been at these titles since 2003. These pages are:

• Timeline of the United Kingdom home front during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Demobilization of the British Armed Forces after World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of British Brigades in World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of British Divisions in World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of British corps in World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of British Armies in World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should we keep with the internal consistency which is to use the American name of "World War II" or should these pages on the British activity in the war be moved to titles using "Second World War" as that is how the various members of the Commonwealth of Nations write it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps a shorter version of the question would be: does ENGVAR cover multiple word proper nouns and override site-wide consistency?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

ENGVAR states we are allowed to use local variant in articles (i.e. concensus has already been reached): editors are making these kinds of edits throughout the wiki on a daily basis and titles, regardless of length of time in use, should be held to the same standard. The more important question is, with concensus and policies already in place: why should an American variant be imposed on articles dealing with British matters?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is "World War II"/"Second World War" considered an acceptable variation is the question. And rather than rehash the discussion I had with EnigmaMcmxc on his talk page at User talk:EnigmaMcmxc#Changes of "World War II" to "Second World War", it would be much better, Enigma, if we waited for someone else to comment rather than continuing to argue back and forth between just the two of us.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to claim, for a simple example, the official histories of the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Austrilia are all using unacceptable variations of the American term "World War Two", that is fine by me! What you have just asked is compeltly ridiculous!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not the phrase "World War II" is not acceptable when used on articles in the Commonwealth is what we will be determining here. We should keep possibly controversial changes at the status quo until a consensus can be determined. This is how the site works. So please, allow for outside input.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see History of the Second World War, Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War, Australian War Memorial, and The Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War for further instances of unacceptable usage. If the governments of these nations determined this is the language to use, the ENGVAR policy states local variant can be used, MILHIST stated if was fine years ago ... why are we having this conversation to simple constructive edits? Again i point out other editors are changing the language within articles on a daily basis to use the above term, therefore titles should be held to the same standard.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Those various pages you are pointing out concern proper nouns. Not whether or not general pages on British, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand topics in WWII should use "World War II" or "Second World War" on Wikipedia. And I am asking for a gosh darn clarification on ENGVAR to see if you are right or if I am right. So could you please wait for someone else to say something?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well since you labelled the changes controversial, stated "Is "World War II"/"Second World War" considered an acceptable variation", and "Whether or not the phrase "World War II" is not acceptable when used on articles in the Commonwealth". I am simply producing the evidence, so take a chill pill!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The page moves were controversial, considering one of them had been there since 2003.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)

Does the MoS take precedent, or the MilHist MoS on this matter?

Without adding to the conversation just yet, can I point out that Ryulong made 2 statements, Enigma made a statement and then you made another leaving it 3:1 to Ryulong. At the moment it is at 5:3 to Ryulong. I also think that perhaps this would have been better at the MilHist first and then here if clarity was not given. It is apparent that there are enough US, English and other users of English for a pretty fair hearing there. Chaosdruid (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really 5:3 as my second statement is only a tl;dr of my main statement. And I'd rather it be here rather than MilHist because as far as I am aware there has been no discussion (even though Enigma claims there has been) on this subject and this site-wide guideline would get more eyes on it than a bunch of history buffs. As far as I am aware, the standing consensus of WP:MILHIST is that "World War II" prevails in usage. A quick archive search shows two discussions: one from 2006 and one from 2008, neither of which resulted in any sort of consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(od) By consistency, I assume you mean title consistency across WP rather than internal consistency with the article text? Br-En uses "Second World War" rather than "World War II" so titling an article "Second World War" when the article text uses "Second World War" seems less jarring to me than any need to maintain title consistency. This recent milhist discussion seems to bear that out, preferring that articles are internally consistent with their English variant rather than a single naming scheme be imposed across all articles, though the situation is less clear where cats are concerned (where a single variant - "World War X" in this case - is preferred for technical reasons). I regard Enigma's retitling as in line with ENGVAR and current practice, though as with all large-scale changes a note to WT:MILHIST, while not necessary, may have been diplomatic first! Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 09:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The articles that were moved use "World War II" in text, though, even if they concern British history.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I also think that is a little insulting, whether or not "buffs" is the term (in English that also means naked) there is a separate MilHist MoS and if we are to bother making projects and having extra MoS' there must be a reason for it do you not think? Perhaps it is exactly because of this that we have more intuitive MoS' for things like Biogs, TV, Military history, music etc. They are more in tune with the topics than are gen pop. Chaosdruid (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I considered this an issue with the general manual of style first, rather than that of the relatively lower traffic MILHIST MOS. I have left a comment at the talk page pointing them here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel it should be as follows: World War I or World War II. Adamdaley (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I appreciate Ryulong's concern - mass changes have been the subject of a few acrimonious ANI threads recently, and even where such things have a basis in policy, in practice they are best approached cautiously to avoid giving the false impression to observers that an editor is on some kind of nationalistic crusade (which I don't believe for one moment is the case here). Re the articles also using "World War II" in the text, probably that should also be changed to "Second World War" per ENGVAR (just as "colour" would rightly be changed to "color" in a US-subject article). I think it's really a case-by-case decision though and not hugely important in the big scheme of things :) Further input from milhist will be useful though; perhaps we need to explicitly codify consensus and current practice somewhere. EyeSerene^talk 10:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out, that was second on the list of things to do; one just wasnt given the time to do so. I was working on about 5-6 articles at the same time when the edit conflicts started appearing.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be Second World War for British/Commonwealth articles. Note articles should not be moved until this discussion has concluded. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Dunno about the rest of the Commonwealth, but in Canada I'm pretty sure WWII is the dominant variation. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Likewise in Australia, where I would guess "World War II" outnumbers "The Second World War" (which to me has an old-fashioned ring) by about 4 to 1. The former also has the advantage of brevity. Rumiton (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Both names for the war are in widespread use in British English nowadays: [11]. 137.43.105.17 (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My own extremely cursory search of sources has turned up nothing on the prevalence or acceptability of "World War II" vs "Second World War" in British English. I will say, though, that, as an American, I do not find "Second World War" confusing, jarring or unencyclopedic. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In spoken BrE, one hears both "the Second World War" and "World War Two", and both are fine. In writing, I prefer "World War II". 81.159.109.20 (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Canadian English seems to use WWII more than 2ndWW, in my personal experience. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

From comments here, it seems that "Commonwealth English" uses "Word War II", while British English may not. So, Commonwealth articles should use WWII form, and only British articles should use SecondWW form. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Making it Britain vs the rest of the Commonwealth is a bit naive. Especially since most of the Commonwealth do not speak English as their first language. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion seems to show that "World War II" is an acceptable name internationally, and "Second World War", which previously was the common name within the UK and other Commonwealth nations, is not as favored.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Just my personal usage, I use WWII far more often than 2WW (come to think of it, I always use WWII!). Wikicopter _{what i do} s + c cup|former 04:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not the best example to make a generalized determination since the wording is understandable either way in any variation. I don't see why the Brit/Anzac "Second World War" can't be used and (maybe) have a redirect from "Same Header World War II", so it shows up in American searches (or not, at editors discretion).

A "better" (worse?) case would be one in which the terminology was quite different, like "Baseball pitch" (a field on which baseball is played) or "Soccer diamond" (I just made this up BTW!) a field on which Association Football is played.

Control of the article means control of the title, IMO. Otherwise it is meaningless. Having said that, it would be "nice" to categorize it or redirect titles, so they show up in the searches of other variants.

Having said all that, I think World War II" is more classic, more objective than the use of ordinals. And, no, Yankees do not have a lock on objectivity. Yanks use "First Grade" instead of "Grade One," for example. Student7 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of comma

A small point. Would you use a comma after "destroyer" in the following? To me it looks wrong, but I do see this sort of style from time to time in various articles, so I'd be interested in others' opinions:

After graduation Young entered the United States Navy. He served as Fire Control Officer on the destroyer, USS Laws (DD-558) until June 1953 and completed a tour in the Korean Seas.

86.176.211.225 (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No. There may be a case for two commas, before and after the parenthetical USS Laws (DD-558), but there is no case for one. No commas at all is clearer and less fussy, so I would use none. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Two commas don't seem right to me either. With the definite article, that would imply that the destroyer had been previously mentioned but not named, which isn't the case. 81.159.109.20 (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The apposition article says "a restrictive appositive is not set off by commas". Art LaPella (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not always easy to decide when this rule applies. I think I would use a comma in ". . . joined the European Union, the socialist organization founded by . . ." --Boson (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Commas are tricky. A simple change in word order can change whether we use a comma or not. For example, consider: "He served as Fire Control Officer aboard USS Laws (DD-558), a destroyer, until June..." In this case the commas around the words "a destroyer" would be correct. But in the word order as presented by the IP, we would not use a comma. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If I saw a sentence like that, I would immediately rewrite it as, "He served as Fire Control Officer aboard the destroyer, USS Laws (DD-558) until June..." One less comma and flows better. --Xession (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that the wording is better as it is. I was just pointing out that the use or non-use of commas depends on the specifics of how the sentence is structured and even the specific wording used. Even a small change of one word (such as replacing "the destroyer" with "a destroyer") can impact whether a comma is used or not. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think I agree with Mr Anderson; but just informally, I note that if formatted (such as with italics), or linked, there is less need to insert commas either side. Tony (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• No comma. As mentioned above, using two commas to set off the name of the destroyer would be appropriate if the phrase were properly parenthetical, but that's not the case here. This is the first mention of the ship. If the paragraph had previously talked about the destroyer in generic terms, it might be appropriate to make the name parenthetical, though I think that would probably be questionable style for an encyclopedia. Here, destroyer is an integral part of the ship's description—the destroyer USS Laws—that clarifies for the reader that USS Laws is a destroyer. The given phrasing with a definite article, "…the destroyer, USS Laws, until 1958…", would imply that the important fact is that Young was an officer on a destroyer that was so notable, one may refer to it as "the destroyer" without necessarily mentioning the destroyer's name, and everyone will know what it means: "Oh yeah, the destroyer—what was it's name? Laws or something?" // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"the destroyer Laws" would be okay. But "destroyer, USS Laws," seems more appropriate with two commas. Student7 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Protection

There are several issues involved in the present protection, including a revert war for the verbose and clumsy sentence now leading MOS:FOLLOW, but one of them is the claim, perhaps most clearly made in this link, that somehow one of several phrasings of the same sentence confers on MOS the authority to mandate whatever spellings and punctuations it pleases, even if they don;t occur in English at all. While, as the response to the post remarks, this ignores the actual wordings at issue, it does seem worth settling. So:

Should the Manual of Style be a guide to English? should it avoid mandating forms which are not English, and which readers of English will stumble over? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Since this condensed question has been found unclear, I give a fuller #Platform below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

(no threaded replies here, please)

• Yes The Manual of Style should be a guide to encyclopedic English. It should follow the usage of reliable sources, unless there is good reason to do otherwise. When it chooses among the usages of reliable sources, it should have consensus to do so, and state its reasons. It should not be used for rules which somebody made up one day; that's how we had a year with the good soul who wanted everybody to use kibibytes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• No. The Manual of Style should limit itself to expressing the choice that articles should be internally consistent, but consistency between articles is not required, and choosing from among acceptable alternatives of English style for use within Wikipedia. For matters on which the MOS is silent printed style guides and the usage of reliable sources should be relied upon. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• No to the first question, and yes to the second. The Manual of Style should not require anything which is not common English usage, but it is not a guide to English: it is a guide to the English language requirements for articles written on Wikipedia. Geometry guy 00:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Balderdash the questions asked are both completely unclear, and completely unrelated to how PMAnderson will interpret the answer. !Voting means endorsing PMAnderson's version, !Voting no means not endorsing his version. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • If Headbomb would read my posts more carefully, he would see that these are the questions I have always been asking. Part of the confusion below appears to be disbelief that these questions need to be asked, and therefore a search for some more complex sense. This is a position which several editors uphold, and which has been responded to largely with personal attacks such as this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• No. The RFC questions both beg the question. Should the MoS be a guide to English? Absolutely not; it's not an encyclopedic reference to English grammar. However, by definition it is the absolute guide to English as it is to be used on Wikipedia. That's what a manual of style is. If the MoS decreed that every sentence shall end with a purple octothorpe instead of a period, it would not matter that this is not English grammar anywhere else: by placing such a rule in the MoS, it becomes the required style for our publication, Wikipedia by definition. The second question assumes that it is possible to universally define "English" in such a way that one can derive a grammar that will be instantly familiar and comfortable for all readers of English worldwide; this is patently impossible, given the variations of English. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. We have an obligation to our readers to provide correct English. Otherwise why have an MoS at all? Consistency is useless unless the things that are consistent are good things. Consistently putting a purple octothorpe would make all the articles look the same; it would make them look stupid. The fact that Wikipedia is so popular with readers and that it is edited by people with such a variety of levels of English skill means that this MoS must be especially careful to be accessible, clear and correct. That means that it will, at least in some respects, be a guide to English in general. As for determining what is correct English (while acknowledging that correct English changes over time), we should consult sources, such as style guides that have been put together by experts. In this respect, we should hold the MoS to a standard at least as high as regular articles per WP:V. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• no I came to the MoS to find out about general article styles. For instance, many introductory paragraphs to articles contain information that is not sourced or cited. Is that a common practice? Do we reserve citations for later in the article when those introductory sentences are explained in detail? Another thing that would be helpful in MoS is a discussion of how different articles cite their sources, and when to use citations v. references (I've seen articles with both). What I found at MoS was extremely unhelpful to me. It reads like the APA style guide, or any other guide to the English language. There are enough knowledgeable WP users that corrections of style occur almost automatically. People who need to learn proper grammar and spelling are not coming to the MoS to learn it, they are editing boldly and with the knowledge that another user will fix their errors at a later date. It seems to work, but what doesn't is that I have no reference(except thousands of examples that are inconsistent) for how an article should generally look. Cliff (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Citation is under WP:CITE and WP:V. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Are you sure your issue is with the Manual of Style so much as with certain, limited aspects of it and its jurisdiction? The MoS is so much more than merely a guide to encyclopedic English (which incidentally it really isn't, by its very nature). It concerns many aspects of text formatting and content organization entirely unique to Wikipedia.
  Honestly, Mr Anderson, isn't this all yet another avenue in your constant battle to eradicate things you don't like? You see, the points you are desperately trying to make at this talk page might carry more weight if everyone else wasn't aware of your neverending battles at various articles, where you habitually don't shy away from asking again, and again, and if the consensus still doesn't please you, yet again. --87.79.114.210 (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Please sign yourself in, Sir.
  • No, my issue is not with the Manual of Style, aathough it is imperfect; it is with claims which have been made on this talk page, which are unsupported by the text of the Manual of Style, contrary to WP:POLICY and insofar as they peevent this English Wikipedia from being written in English, harmful to the Encyclopedia.
  • To quote oknazevad above: MOS "describes the English that exists, not the English yet to come. Most importantly, it should describe English as widely used, not just because some editors like it; some parts are currently minority usage (regardless of variety) that were preferred by editors at the time of drafting, but are uncommon in daily usage." Do you agree, Sir, or do you not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• For those that haven't read and followed this closely: What exactly is this RfC asking? As far as I know, the parts of MoS that refer to English usage should be a guide to how English is to be consistently used in Wikipedia. I thought that this was the long-standing consensus/status quo? Does "should it avoid mandating forms which are not English" refer to hypothetical incorrect usage of English or does it refer to the usage of non-English content? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  It's code for "PMAnderson always gets his way." Ozob (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  I would ask the same question: I don't know what the RfC is about. The MoS is the style guide for the encyclopaedia which is written in English, so yes, it is about encyclopaedic English. But it's not just about the language, but about all things that make up the formatting, as opposed to the content, of the encyclopaedia. If an editor is unhappy with any part of it they can start a discussion on it, to try and get consensus for change. What this RfC is for, i.e. exactly what change to the guideline is being proposed, is not at all clear.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't mind that the MoS contains formatting instructions et al. I like that they're all in one place; that makes them easier to find. I believe that, because what happens on the MoS can ripple out to other articles, the MoS should be held to a standard at least as high as regular articles when it comes to verifying its content. We need to start citing sources for what's on this page. If we do that, then we can justify treating the MoS as a document—whether we call it a guideline, a policy or a rutabaga—that should be enforced strictly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think we can cite sources for much of what is on this page, and sources are divided on much of the rest; but it would be a start. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Only the sourced parts would be enforceable. Smells like more trouble than it's worth. And why this constant need to appeal to authority? Yes, we should cite sources in discussions about the MoS wherever possible, and maybe even cite those sources in the guideline itself. But why can't we just drop the charade and just say that the MoS is normative in nature? By shifting the normativity to secondary sources, we are not ridding ourselves, as a community, of the challenge to make judgement calls for the MoS. More importantly, any appeal to authority makes this easily gameable by the very likes of PMAnderson. --87.78.24.210 (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • To deal with the personal attack first: my only game is the time-honored one: "Write in English, so that our readers will understand us."
    • The purpose of having only the sourced rules enforceable is so that MOS being used by those who prefer things WP:MADEUP one day. Those who prefer to make their own language are free to do so; I believe there are conlang Wikipedias - and if not there ought to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• What Darkfrog24 said: this document, as one that seems to be held as more than just advice (though I think it's too strictly applied at times), should be based on sources, not just personal preferences. English is funny, of course, in that there's no definitive set of rules set down by an official academy, but there is widely accepted standards of usage; this document should reflect these, using sources specific to show these.

That said, there's issues with that ideal. Firstly, that there are multiple different national varieties of the language, and it's long-shown consensus that Wikipedia doesn't prefer one over another, just uses whichever makes the most sense for the article. (WP:ENGVAR does enjoy wide consensus.)

Also, some usages are purely stylistic. There's equally valid differences in usage that cannot be attributed to a national variety or any other rigid rule set, just what the writer has been expose to most often. That's where much of our conflicts lie; MoS as it stands picks one valid usage over another arbitrarily. The problem is not so much in the choosing, it's the ossification that follows, where a valid usage that wasnt the arbitrary choice becomes "banned", for lack of a better word, and editors who came along later are basically told they are wrong when all they're doing is using a valid form of the language.

That's where the MoS needs to be softened, I think. These chosen usages are truly arbitrary, as they were chosen by those who just happened to be involved in the discussion at the time, and are then defended far too strongly as law. It's truly off-putting to consensus building and the collegiality that Wikipedia is based on. (Doesn't help that many of the defenses boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, either).

PS, PMA, if you're going to quote me, please get my user name right ;-) oknazevad (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I abase myself repeatedly at your feet, Sir. If it helps, I thought I had. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

S'alright. People make mistakes. (I'm guessing you didn't see the smiley.) oknazevad (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I did see the smiley. If I hadn't, my reply would have far less baroque. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• • And then people are going to cite the sources they want to support their view, even if that is not the most common view. It makes little difference on that score, Oknazevad. Witness Pmanderson's edit warring. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • If sources are divided, then both versions are well-supported English usage; that is the situation Oknavzevad envisages. We should normally acknowledge and permit both, rather than picking one arbitrarily.
    • If there is reason to pick one - and consensus among Wikipedians to do so - that is a different matter, but the fact that reliable sources think differently should generally persuade us to edit with common sense and awareness of context, allowing for the occasional situation in which the other possibility is indeed preferable.
    • Nothing I have proposed has said anything more.
    • Since it seems that certain points of view here cannot be maintained without personal attacks, I will simply remark that I have not "revert-warred" for anything. I have tried, with others, to propose something other than the present text, which is not consensus among Wikipedians - nor even on this talk page; personally, I would have accepted almost any compromise text, if any had been offered. But a small number of revert-warriors have suppressed even the evidence of this discussion.
    • Let us have reasons for the present ossified text which do not consist of, "It's all Septentrionalis' fault." I have spent months away from the MOS at various times; during those times it was equally controversial - and equally despised by many Wikipedians - but the revert-warriors disposed of the mere students of English with greater ease. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Precisely my point; the standard for consistency on Wikipedia is at the article level. As long as the same usage is throughout an article, and it's not blatant error, there's no reason to make any arbitrary changes to the article. The MoS should acknowledge that, and not enforce some arbitrary choice made years ago without acknowledgement that consensus may have changed. In the couple of years I've been watching this talk page, I've seem too many cases of ideas for change being dismissed offhand. That's not useful. oknazevad (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • And why would we want to encourage diffuse series of edit-wars out on article talk pages as to which style, from which of the many sources, should be used? The MoS is here to minimise edit-wars over language in the project. It performs this function well, as far as I can see. Tony (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
        • On the contrary. What supports a diffuse series of edit-wars is the present interpretation of MOS, which demands things which are simply not English. Far more editors are fluent in English than in the MOSsy recesses where these rules lurk, so we get the following cycle: An editor corrects an expression foreign to English; some good soul restores it, to correct the "MOS violation"; another editor corrects it; and so on until WP:DEADLINE.
          • On the other hand, where MOS reflects English usage, and is consensus, it doesn't cause edit wars; everybody agrees with it, including literate people who have never seen MOS or Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Because right now, Tony, the MoS forces a few editors' revisionist preferences, some of which are in direct conflict with correct English, on all of Wikipedia. It would be better to let people fight about it than to get it wrong every time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• [this comment copied from above, when moving threaded reply] No. The Manual of Style should limit itself to expressing the choice that articles should be internally consistent, but consistency between articles is not required, and choosing from among acceptable alternatives of English style for use within Wikipedia. For matters on which the MOS is silent printed style guides and the usage of reliable sources should be relied upon. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Then we do not disagree. If a few people were to write into MOS a requirement that Wikipedia always use double commas, it would be a formatting requirement, but it would not be English usage; I intentionally choose a patently unEnglish example, unconnected to any actual controversy. Some editors would then insist that the double commas be imposed on every article, for "MOS compliance". I am somewhat taken aback by this position, and believe there is consensus against it, as a matter of princeiple. This RfC, therefore, asks whether MOS should ever require something which is not English.
  • I concur with comments below [now above] that when MOS chooses between styles within English it should give a reason and note a source.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"this vulgar post" cited here links to a history page, not to a vulgar post. Therefore, I don't understand the question (the snotty answer would be that both sides use English not French.) Does it mean formal English, informal English, Internet English, style manual English, or what? Art LaPella (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Oops. this post. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Close this RFC; it is a flagrant abuse of process

This RFC is corrupt from the very start, and cannot result in rational unbiased discussion. It ignores this clear instruction (from WP:RFC):

2. Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template. Keep it simple and be clear about what the question is, so that the RfC attracts a clear and actionable response.

And it ignores this follow-up instruction (at the same location):

If you feel as though you cannot describe the dispute neutrally, ask someone else to write a summary for you. You can also do your best, and invite others to improve your question or summary later.

The wording of this RFC is far from neutral. I underline some of the biased phrasing:

There are several issues involved in the present protection, including a revert war for the verbose and clumsy sentence now leading MOS:FOLLOW, but one of them is the claim, perhaps most clearly made in this vulgar post, that somehow one of several phrasings of the same sentence confers on MOS the authority to mandate whatever spellings and punctuations it pleases, even if they [don't] occur in English at all. While, as the response to the post remarks, this ignores the actual wordings at issue, it does seem worth settling. So:
Should the Manual of Style be a guide to English? should it avoid mandating forms which are not English, and which readers of English will stumble over?

The instigator of this RFC is transparently not interested in a fair consideration of the issues. Rather, this is a pointed and abusive attempt to pursue a relentless partisan campaign: to weaken the status of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Since this may not be apparent to those less familiar with the history of MOS, they have been called in to comment on false pretences. The RFC should be closed immediately. It is irredeemably flawed.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 05:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hear, hear. --John (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• 100% agree. We should consider topic-banning PMAnderson from all MOS and style discussions as well. This disruption has gone long enough. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • More personal attacks from Headbomb. Does "corrupt" mean that I have been paid off (by whom?) or that I come from the Nether Deeps (I don't)? Please try to express the positive substance of your views without profanity or scurrility; when you are finished accusing me of things I have not done and positions I don't agree with, I would be interested to see what you think MOS is - which is the one thing you have not stated. That might persuade me; this sort of thing never will. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• • While I will argue that I don't get the point of this RFC, this is far from being disruptive (no more so than the regulars here) and it's not AFG to call for a topic ban. --MASEM (t) 06:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • AGF is not a suicide pact. PMA is not here to discuss honestly. The RfC proves that as succinctly as it gets with him. --78.35.220.2 (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Exactly. There is nothing wrong with questioning "Holy Writ." I have done this myself and been shot down a few times. After being shot down, I don't try to mount the same aircraft and take off again on the same mission! It seems disruptive IMO. Student7 (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• With all the AGF in the world, I still don't get what this RfC is asking? Perhaps it should indeed be restarted to address some well-forumlated issue, rather than an unclear blanket decision about English on Wikipedia. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Yes close it. It's still not clear what change to this guideline the RfC is asking for comment on: I asked for clarification and received none. It's still not clear what it is trying to achieve, and absent such clarification it has no point.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• What's this about? Someone is making a point... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• I agree. What is this about? Maybe this discussion doesn't need an RFC (which certainly isn't too clearly worded) but there's nothing inherently inappropriate about it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Platform

1. There should be a Manual of Style
2. That it is most effective at stopping edit wars in sections like the one under #Serial comma above: anybody who starts an edit war over a serial comma can be told there are two ways of doing things, and pointed to MOS' section of that name
3. That MOS should not (as with Mexican–American War, but there are all too many other examples) mandate a form which is vanishingly rare in English and unsupported by reliable sources.

   That general claim 3 is the subject of this RFC.

4. To quote David Levy:

   This page is a guideline, not a replacement for editorial judgment; it should be applied with common sense and awareness of occasional exceptions, not always stated. Users are expected to pay attention to their edits and understand the reasons behind them. The indiscriminate application of style rules is potentially harmful, whether it stems from unmonitored use of editing tools, failure to adequately consider context, or adherence to a rule's letter instead of its spirit.

5. To quote Blueboar:

   None of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines come close to being Holy Scripture... even NPOV, V and OR have to take second place to community consensus (ie if there is consensus to change them, we do so). And the MOS is no where near that level.

6. To quote Oknavezad (have I got it right this time ;}?)

   This document, as one that seems to be held as more than just advice (though I think it's too strictly applied at times), should be based on sources, not just personal preferences. English is funny, of course, in that there's no definitive set of rules set down by an official academy, but there is widely accepted standards of usage; this document should reflect these, using sources specific to show these.

   That said, there's issues with that ideal. Firstly, that there are multiple different national varieties of the language, and it's long-shown consensus that Wikipedia doesn't prefer one over another, just uses whichever makes the most sense for the article. (WP:ENGVAR does enjoy wide consensus.)

   Also, some usages are purely stylistic. There's equally valid differences in usage that cannot be attributed to a national variety or any other rigid rule set, just what the writer has been expose to most often. That's where much of our conflicts lie; MoS as it stands picks one valid usage over another arbitrarily. The problem is not so much in the choosing, it's the ossification that follows, where a valid usage that wasnt the arbitrary choice becomes "banned", for lack of a better word, and editors who came along later are basically told they are wrong when all they're doing is using a valid form of the language.

   That's where the MoS needs to be softened, I think. These chosen usages are truly arbitrary, as they were chosen by those who just happened to be involved in the discussion at the time, and are then defended far too strongly as law. It's truly off-putting to consensus building and the collegiality that Wikipedia is based on. (Doesn't help that many of the defenses boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, either>)

7. As Darkfrog says above: [added 00:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)]

   The unit of consistency is the article.

   • Where there is consensus for consistency across Wikipedia, so much the better.
   • Since this is WP:CONSISTENCY, I would have thought it would be consensus; but the post immediately below disagrees with MOS as it stands.

Expressing these positions (and I have not said anything else, really I haven't) has produced incoherent rage and insults. With two noteworthy exceptions, it has produced no replies of substance, and Tony's claim that provisions which make arbitrary choices reduce editwars seems unfounded.

And yet, outside this talk page, all of these appear to be consensus; many editors support them here.

Can we please have a substantive discussion, in which those who don't agree say which ones they disagree with, and on what grounds? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

We have, you just don't seem to want to listen to most. Levy and Blueboar's comments are common sense applied to every guideline and stated at the top of every one of them. Several editors have disagreed with you throwing the text into other parts of the MoS. Secondly, every style guide makes hard rulings on English usage. As brought up in the contractions section, many (I would hazard to say "most", in my limited estimation of common US guides) dissuade use of contractions in academic writing. Likewise, a significant minority say it's no big deal. But the point of a style guide is to enforce as much consistency as possible. As such, they make seemingly arbitrary decisions. That doesn't mean one is better than the others. In other words: Yes, some usages are purely stylistic, but if you profess to agree with the idea of the Manual of Style, a manual of style, then you must accept these stylistic variations. The Manual of Style is already far weaker than any sensible guide. So what's your point? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The point is there appears to be a fundamental disagreement about what the proper scope and purpose of the MOS actually is and that this, in conjunction with a complete breakdown in civility by some of the regulars here, is leading to the ongoing nonsense that keeps getting the page protected. Unless there is better consensus as to the fundamental scope issues (which probably needs to Wikipedia wide, not just the usual suspects here, then this will continue.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Style guides presumably work better at places like Encyclopedia Britannica than at Wikipedia. Our serial comma debates quiet down when someone finds out the Manual of Style permits both styles. It's imaginable that both sides would say the Manual allows their style, therefore they shall continue their quest to the death, but I don't remember that happening. The most memorable edit wars are over whether something is an exception to a guideline or not. Furthermore, many editors insist they are right regardless of the Manual of Style, and the Manual's arbitrary decisions presumably reinforce that attitude. So I'm far from convinced that arbitrary decisions reduce more edit wars than they cause.

Exceptions to guidelines, as in point 4 for instance, are real but overemphasized. Remember that nearly all of our guidelines are unknown throughout most of Wikipedia, and most of our guidelines are unknown even to Manual of Style regulars. Did you know we have a guideline on musical F sharp? If not, then why would you look it up? So obstructing an obscure guideline because of a small percentage of even more obscure, unexplained exceptions, is making the tail wag the dog.

On the one hand, many of the arguments advanced in favor of this platform seem to dissolve on close examination. On the other hand, many editors, not just one, have argued that challenges to arbitrary decisions are routinely shouted down by the WP:OWNers of this page. So responses like "bleep no" do make me lose confidence. At least it isn't as uncivil here as it was a couple years ago. Art LaPella (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The page protection issues are entirely because of PMA continually adding back his text after a one-shot response here; it's hardly a bellwether of anything. The last time this page was protected was more than two years ago, so the idea that this is such a hot topic seems unfounded.

Any manual of style has some degree of arbitrariness, indeed any rule, period, has some descent from fiat. At some point, you have to draw the lines in the sand. I'm asking if people agree with a certain level of arbitrariness; if you don't, then you cannot support the notion of a style guide at any point, because with the English language it is impossible to have something that is in keeping with all standards of usage and provides a level of consistency across articles. The whole point of many WikiProjects, infoboxes, and templates is consistency. You will never find a consensus that "editors can do exactly what they like", so you're left with only one alternative. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

PMA's point 1 is that there should be a Manual, but his point 2 is that his favorite rule is the absence of a rule about serial commas, so perhaps he should explain that one; does it mean he wants only a list of all the things that are optional? The Manual has some arbitrary rules, and some universal rules like capitalizing Monday that can be found elsewhere, and I'm not sure I'd miss either one. But I'm pretty sure that isn't a consensus. Art LaPella (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sections like the one about serial commas are useful (as you yourself say) to quiet debates; they are probably more useful than arbitrary choices by the divine MOS. But I have no objection to the MOS making choices among the styles of English if

• The decision to do so is consensus of Wikipedians in general, not just a handful of regulars.
• MOS gives a reason for the decision (as with Logical Quotation; it need be no longer than that) which may induce others to join the consensus
• The choice made is frequently used in English, not something some Wikipedian has made up; acknowledgment of the existence of other possibilities might also support the consensus.

Again, I'll settle for two out of three.

I don't think there is a consensus for arbitrary choices either; more editors have supported this platform on this talk page than have revert-warred against it. (I have done my best to reach a compromise position, adhering to WP:1RR, and perpetually proposing new language; I will support anybody who can do better.)

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

On some issues, formal modern English offers no real choice (sentences end in punctuation; use the United States is); it is sometimes useful to remind editors of these anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's actually far more important to remind them that extended nominal groups (e.g. in many image captions) do not end in punctuation. --78.35.199.178 (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As much consistency as possible?

I thank David Fuchs for stating a position: that MOS should enforce as much consistency as possible; this is the third substantive claim by the defenders of the present text.

However, this post makes two errors of fact.

• Style guides do not require as much consistency "as possible"; they require as much consistency as is useful to the publication in question. Certainly MOS does not require as much consistency as possible, and never has. We could require that the encyclopedia use honour and the Oxford comma (or any of the other three choices possible) but we explicitly do not, and refuse to rule out other options - and those provisions are consensus.
• On the other hand, nobody has yet claimed that editors should be able to do whatever they like. Certainly this platform does not; that would have been one much shorter plank, not seven.
  • Also, rejecting editors can do exactly what they like does not leave one non-null style guide; it leaves indefinitely many. That is no justification for any particular text, including this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Fuchs wants the MOS to produce "as much consistency as possible", but that is not consensus - and MOS itself explicitly rejects that position. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • Congrats, you can make straw men. I specifically pointed out that the MoS is nowhere as stringent as any normal style guide, if you cared to read my entire post. And if you say there are an infinite number of style guides, write your own and come back here when you're finished so everyone can comment on your whole cloth idea. Also, how about you stop dividing the discussion into your own headers? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 06:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Oddly enough, the relevant guideline says make a new header for a new topic. Why is this guideline not binding? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This might not be the thread to state this, but I would like the MOS to be able to establish basic rules of grammar/style that a bot ("AI") might follow in the future. I am tired of making low level changes. I don't see why a bot (for example) can't keep up with census data. (This might not require MOS, but it is the bot application at the low level, that I am trying to emphasize). If we are all "style artists" who try to outdo each other, the encyclopedia goes downhill IMO. We already have well-paid hype on television. We volunteers can't compete with that. We can compete with objectively and consistency. We don't rely on hype to sell the next few minutes of virtual time. Hopefully, we rely on something more solid. "Artistry" is people aiming for Pulitzers. I just want my articles to be accurate.

And I don't want to be forced to have a "style discussion" with all editors, new and old, on each and every article I work on! Student7 (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This last outcry is a red herring; nobody has ever suggested any such thing.

On the main post:A bot is not an AI, an artificial intelligence. An AI would understand what the sentences it read meant; no such machine exists. It is impossible to parse sentences in general without understanding; most of English grammar, including most of the topics covered on this page, cannot be edited correctly without doing so; the only acceptable proof-reader is the human eye.

Some bot-like programs can assist, and will be right more often than not. Few such programs have a lower error rate than the average Wikipedia page; they are much longer and more sophisticated than our bots; if the bot has a higher error-rate than our editors, it will make things worse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Adopting rules that are not English in order to make bots' work easier sacrifices the purpose of Wikipedia to our tools. However, we could look among existing styles of English and pick those which are most suited to bot management. The most obvious example of this would be typesetters' quotation: always put trailing commas and periods inside quotation marks. Even this would require a careful regex not to fail in strings like The following characters: #, *, ", &,... but that can very likely be done; in fact, the rule is widely adopted because it is undemanding on copy-editors. Unfortunately, MOS recommends against it unconditionally. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but while this form of punctuation is necessary and correct in American English, that is not always the case for other varieties. Is it possible to program a bot to detect the form of spelling used (keeping in mind that there are more than two sets of spelling rules) before implementing its program on an article? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is largely a question of variety; but for those, like Student7, who want rules enforceable by bot, this would be a place to start. Most actual rules, even such straightforward ones as Always close parentheses, will never be enforceable by bot - until we have AIs.

I doubt that bot detection of variety is feasible, although it is not impossible. It could search for diagnostic words, like honour or defence, but if the list is of reasonable length, most articles won't have any of them.

Also, any bot will have trouble telling inconsistency within dialect from some Commonwealth dialects. Canadians use some, but not all, American spellings; I believe Australians use labour, even though the Australian Labor Party inherits its name from the spelling-reform era a century and more ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Automated spell-checking bots are currently not allowed per WP:BOTPOL, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Bots cannot function error-free in context and language sensitive content. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC) edited 22:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Automated bots shouldn't be confused with semi-automated bots including AWB. What BOTPOL says about spelling, for instance, is not "in an unattended fashion". My AWB has some WP:LQ logic because ," and ." are usually wrong (as defined by that guideline), and I manually undo the changes otherwise. Art LaPella (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, obviously, when a human is looking at the edit, it is no longer the software making context decisions. I added explicit "automated" to my former comment to avoid imprecision. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A review of Wikipedia's bot documents shows they use the word "bot" inconsistently, so I hereby back down a notch. Art LaPella (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be theoretically possible to check for spelling variant before a bot edit. This would involve checking the discussion page for the variant template. These are rarely used. The less since "everyone knows" what Yankee Stadium is, and Buckingham Palace. So they are (most likely) not labeled, nor are most of the articles, unfortunately. We could enforce labeling for all articles but probably not worth it.

I had once hoped that a spelling variant template could be checked to fling my editor into the proper spell checker, but that was a pipe dream!  :) Student7 (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Simple poll

This discussion has clearly drifted from topic to topic and no clear opinion on the matter has been gained. As such, I've set up a simple poll below. Please do not discuss the matter next to your position! Simply choose your position, then add a pound symbol ( # ), and your name. I hate that this matter needs to be dealt with in a more bureaucratic fashion, but it seems ultimately necessary in resolving some issues. Also, while this will likely illustrate a clear preference by the contributing editors, it does not necessarily illustrate a clear consensus for every editor or user of wikipedia. --Xession (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Topic 1

--Xession (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• This poll will only determine whether the above, original wording should or should not, be changed. A preferred wording is only designated by voting to oppose changing the original wording; agreeing to change the wording does not designate what the wording will be, only that a change in the wording is necessary. If recommended to do so, subsequent changes will be decided at a later time.

• Please, do not discuss the matter in the polling region. This is a simple poll to gain perspective on support and opposition to the above proposition. Discussions will only spur further comments in the polling region, which is not the intent of this poll. Further discussion on the matter will be considered at a later time.

Agree: -this vote is to recommend changing the wording

1. --Xession (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
2. --Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Any shorter or less clumsy sentence which preserves the meaning of the section; silence would do this.
3. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK to the basic idea of "Stylistic issues, otherwise not covered by MoS, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources." 19:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Yes, but please make a specific proposal next time. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Too vague IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
7. The sentence is highly subjective as currently written. What constitutes "high-quality" to many, might not be enough quality for others. Also, not all contributors have access to a "high-quality" source on English style. Cliff (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: -this vote is to oppose changing the original wording

1. --Dicklyon (lame poll – voting for an unspecified change seems only likely to be more trouble than it's worth)
2. Strongest possible oppose, per this. To requote:

   We have our own manual of style, specific to our own needs. Sometimes we disagree with allowed styles, other times we impose one over all others, and sometimes we permit all of them. PMAnderson's version strips the MOS of it's power to discriminate against styles deemed undesired. Many MOSes would allow for YYYY-MM-DD in prose. Yet we don't want that. Many MOSes would likewise impose the Harvard style of citation. We allow all styles. Many MOSes tells you to use titlecase for sections. We choose sentence case. External sources provide good guidance most of the time, but which can be different from our agreed-upon house style. But most damning of all, several reliable sources have shit-poor stylistic standards. Assume for instance, that all books on say... whale reproduction italicizes the English names of whale species blah blah blah, the blue whale is a .... Should we then start italicizing the English name of whales in the article on the reproduction of whales, and not italicize them otherwise, as most books don't italicize the English names of species? The answer is a resounding NO. In this case, books on whale reproduction can take a hike. PManderson's version tells you that yes, if you can find a subset of book with weird, sub-par, or otherwise-innapropriate-for-Wikipedia conventions, you can now Wikilawyer their horrible style into articles.

   I have no faith that this poll will not be used as a wedge by PMAnderson (and possibly others) to resume/continue his war on the MOS. Asserting that this passages should be changed to something without specifying what that something is pure folly. Make a concrete proposal for rewording, and submit that to the community. A "should we change it" poll will yield as much result as a poll asking "Is something broken with RFA". You might get 90% approval, but no consensus. We already have a solid guideline, a good guideline. If it can be refined, great, but let's not undermine it by making polls that would equate "can it be improved" to "this has no consensus / this version sucks". No matter the original intents of the poll/Xession, the well has been poisoned and nothing meaningful can be gained from it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

   Please, reread the rules of this poll. Discussion is not wanted. The only purpose of this poll is to reflect on the opinions of editors who have contributed in this drawn out debate. Many opinions have been expressed but no localized area has existed yet, to collect consensus on the matter. Discussing the matter here, continues this trend and prohibits the process. Thank you.--Xession (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

   It was my impression that "preferred wording is only designated by voting to oppose changing the original wording" would be followed, especially by Pmanderson, who seems to have a strong position on this. However, if the agreeing editors do not give an actual resolution, then this poll is redundant. What is going to be proposed on closure of this? If it is a change in wording, then we might as well propose it already. I !voted "agree" to make a point -- my reasoning for the change differs from other editors, yet I am left to !vote agree and am also directed not to comment on this further. This poll looks like a fallacious complex question. Even though no conclusions should be drawn from this poll on closure, I am weary that any blanket conclusion can only further individual agenda. Can the agreeing editors at least specify their proposed change? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

3. Ozob (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Oppose - just close this thing and the RfC, until someone comes forward with a concrete proposal for change.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
5. I think I have registered my reasons several times above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
6. OpposeChaosdruid (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Oppose as I cannot assume that "something else... to be determined later" will necessarily be better than the status quo. Cnilep (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

Could you clarify what is "agree" and "oppose" precisely? Can you rename them to "change"/"not change" or similar? If I follow the above (i.e. "it is suggested the wording should be changed"), then:

Agree with "the wording should be changed" -> !vote "agree" -> both users have not given new wording

Disagree with "the wording should be changed" -> !vote "oppose" -> it says "preferred wording is only designated by voting to oppose". So apparently these are the other way around, but then it contradicts the original question. P.S. remove this comment to not clog the poll when this is fixed if you want. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict itself. If you vote to oppose the change, then you are voting to keep the original text, which is boldfaced and located under the topic at hand. Voting to agree to the change is not voting in agreement with previous suggestions for wording; rather it indicates you agree the wording needs to be changed. However, I will change it to help clarify. --Xession (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I.e., if you vote to approve, you are not committed to a particular wording, but to the position that there is a significantly better one, reasonably available. I, for example, hold that the first clause is weasel-wording and that the whole sentence says nothing not implicit in the rest of the section. Perhaps we should include the other two sentences. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you please add "change the wording" and "keep the wording" in parenthesis so it's perfectly clear for everyone? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Change it to what ? Like the RfC it's unclear exactly what this question is asking, i.e. what it will be changed to, whether it's a minor tweak to the wording or replacing it with something completely different (and then what?). Without that the question is pretty useless--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

That's because the only effect of passing this would be to open a discussion as to what the new wording should be, which simply discussing the sentence has failed to do. I have no particular preferred wording; I will accept anything which preserves the present sense but is shorter and less weaselly (which is why I have proposed about five, including leaving the sentence out altogether); I will discuss changes in meaning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the entire issue at hand is whether the original wording should stand or not. If we determine the original wording is not preferred, only then is it reasonable to suggest alternative wordings. Otherwise, suggestions to change the wording are pointless. Editors such as Tony, would prefer the wording to remain intact and unchanged, while PMAnderson would prefer the wording be changed. Other editors may oppose changing the wording, while others with agree that it does need to be changed.--Xession (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would change the wording slightly, so I !voted under "agree". Then again my change can be seen as basically rewording/clarification, so may as well have been put under "oppose". My reason for "agree" most likely does not match Xession's or PMAnderson's reason. I have no clue how the closing user will sort this out. So I have to second that either new wording or removal would have been more suitable for consensus building. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That certainly fits within the position to "Agree". The question at hand is whether changes to the statement should occur or not. If you feel any change is necessary, clarity, rewording or otherwise, then you would be within the position to "Agree". At a later time, discussion can take place on formulating the best statement possible if such action is warranted. --Xession (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite so; Hellknows' wording would be a drastic change in substance, which could weaken MOS drastically if anybody paid attention to it, but it is certainly agreement within the meaning of the poll. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"weaken MOS drastically"? Actually, my intent was quite the opposite -- only consult sources if the MoS doesn't already cover a certain stylistic change. That would certainly strengthen the MoS's influence. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly "weaken"; most of MOS's rules are hand-waving followed by a couple of examples. Whether they apply to any individual case depends on whether that case is analogous to the examples given; evidence of actual usage is the chief objective tool to show that the analogy is sound. This wording could therefore take away the major tool for interpretation of the MOS. If you want examples, write me; this is getting off-topic, to what the revised wording should be.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with John. This poll doesn't help much unless the alternate wording (or at least the reason why the existing wording does or does not need to be changed) is shown. For example, if we're suggesting that the existing wording should be changed to, "Let us eat cheeses, for the weather is merry and the mosquitoes are fearful," then I would vote to keep the current wording, but this would not be the case for all such alternate wordings. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur; if the choices are between what we have and something else, but that something else is not defined, then we don't know what we're getting. The intent is clearly to see if the current wording has support, but true judgment requires comparison, which this doesn't allow.

But, I must know your inspiration for that line, Darkfrog. 'Tis hilarious.oknazevad (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

To the contrary, I believe it is rather easy to decide if you feel the original wording adequately conveys the intended meaning. Alternately, people may feel the wording is not adequate or does not convey their understanding of the matter. To this, it seems to me at least, easy to decide whether to support or oppose a change to the wording. Previous debates on the matter went no where, regardless of alternate suggestions and regardless of demanding the phrase stay the same, effetively making it a stalemate. To resolve the issue, the process has to begin somewhere, and I believe that should be here, with this poll. If consensus is met to oppose any change to the wording, this debate can be over and we can all move on or if consensus is met to make a change to the wording, then arguments to oppose changing the original wording can end, allowing reasonable suggestions to receive proper attention. This is a logical, necessary step in progressing through this. --Xession (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

By 'intended meaning' you mean what? You have taken time to identify the writer or writers and have asked them what they meant to convey writing it? 'Intended meaning' is a chimera in this or any other discussion of an article or project page. All there is is the text. If it is unclear suggest how to improve it. If you disagree with it say what you would replace it with. Then propose it, so we can have a substantive discussion, not a meaningless poll.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If the intention for a passage in the MoS is unclear, why should it be included in the MoS? The entire purpose for it is to provide a clear guideline, accessible to all. If one person feels a certain portion is unclear, it is likely others have felt the same. I do not seek to provide an alternative here. I've stated clearly the intent of this poll and will not engage in advising alternative wordings unless a consensus is met to recommend doing so. Previous recommendations have been ignored or lambasted by the same individuals and buried in the discussions above, never to be given full consideration. The purpose of this poll is to clarify if any further discussion on the matter is necessary.--Xession (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's why, Xession (love the name, BTW): In no case that I can think of is the wording of this or any part of Wikipedia perfect. If the question is whether or not there is any problem at all with any given part of the MoS, the answer will always be "yes." So should the wording be changed? Yes, absolutely, once a better option is presented. In order for us to know if the time has come, we need to know what that proposed better option is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In a perfect world, more people would have had the chance to review previous suggestions. Instead, a select few lead a rampaging debate, not regarding the suggested alternative, but rather the fact that it was not necessary to change it at all. It would have been wonderful for this debate to have been over long ago, but instead it continued into a complete stalemate where one person ended up locking the entire article down so that it could no longer be changed. Clearly something is wrong in the process if the first step needs to be a suggestion, because that is the only process, prior to this, that has occurred.--Xession (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If the question is a general "should things be improved" then the answer is yes, provided they can be improved. There is never a reason to not improve things, provided that the "improvements" are actually improvements. However, what you (and others) failed to show is that this passage a) actually needs improvement b) can actually be improved c) what that actual "improvements" would be. Until these three things are done, any and all polls on "possible hypothetical improvements" are utterly meaningless. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you. Though, in this situation, the poll served its purpose well. Discussion of this topic has since been suspended, in part because of the poll. As the poll stands, no further discussion on the matter is warranted as the majority weigh in that the wording does not need to be changed. However, you continue to disregard this and attempt to still discuss an already dead topic. --Xession (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And that's exactly why this poll needs to present its alternate wording, Headbomb, or else be useless.

Xession, I'm disappointed that you would use a poll to stifle discussion. Sharing ideas about the overall purpose and ideal role of the MoS is a good thing. Headbomb can keep talking about them or this poll or anything else if he wants to. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The only way I could prevent him from further discussion is to ban him, which would require me to be an admin (which I'm not) and it would require me to be ruthless and careless with banning (which I wouldn't). He is welcome to discuss the matter further as much as he would like. However, I see it as useless as no one is intending to refute, as much as I can tell, any further on the matter. Lastly, it's a bit patronizing to claim disappointment in me; what vested interest would you possibly have in my discussion that would cause you to realize I failed to live up to your expectations? --Xession (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There is another way: Stop responding to him and ask others to do the same. No one can hold a discussion alone.

Okay, I am disappointed that a poll would be used to stifle discussion. I hope that's better for you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Cliff's comment that the term "high-quality source" is highly subjective. I find that, in Wikipedia's particular case, this term is good. It allows for the idea that what would be a high-quality source for the article Pikachu might be a low-quality source for Japanese art. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wording in Hyphens section

In Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens, point 2, bullet 1, there is this sentence:

American English reflects the same factors, but tends to close up without a hyphen when possible.

I have never heard the expression "tends to close up". Although I can infer the meaning, I recommend it be simplified. –CWenger (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That phrasal verb is defined on this page, with a transitive meaning.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't we try to avoid jargon such as this, particularly in the MOS which we hope will be widely read by editors? I feel like the same meaning could be conveyed more concisely by simply saying, "American English reflects the same factors, but tends to omit hyphens when possible." –CWenger (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It means something different:

• omit: co-operate ⇒ co operate
• close up: co-operate ⇒ cooperate

I can't think of a way of changing it that preserves meaning. E.g. 'contract' is similar but it implies contraction which means something else in English grammar.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. I guess the current wording is fine. Thanks. –CWenger (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving an example immediately after the phrase should solve this problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. But just to check: does this neglect a tendency also to simply keep the elements separate and spaced rather than hyphenating? Not sure. Tony (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

With prefixes? a "sub section" is part of a vessel, or of a sandwich, not a subsection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Just trying: a suggested formulation for WP:FOLLOW

I don't know where to put this, so I'm simply putting it in a new section. Somehow I can't get my head around what the essence of the hotly debated issue is, but I'm wondering if the various parties might be happy with the following formulation:

In stylistic points of usage on which this Manual of Style gives no guidance, observe the style adopted by reliable high-quality sources, preferably English-language secondary sources, and follow the usage most commonly adopted – unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise.

 --Lambiam 19:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

PMAnderson/Septrionalis changed the text of that line and it morphed into a discussion about what the proper role of the MoS should be.

This text looks perfectly fine (except for the dash; we should leave that out). So does the original. So does what PMA/S suggested. They all seem to state the same thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Darkfrog. Tony (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That is rather more restrictive than the present text, which says nothing like "where the Manual of Style gives no guidance". It could make most of the MOS distinctly less useful: much of the guidance of MOS consists of a hand-wave backed up by a couple of examples, which apply to all analogous cases. By this wording, we couldn't appeal to usage to help decide whether the text in question was analogous to example A or to example B; that would leave us with WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, of which we have too much as it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this either. Where you write "appeal to usage", whose usage are you referring to, Wikipedia's usage, or the usage of high-quality sources? Can you give a simple clarifying example where the formulation above would make a material difference with your preferred formulation? It seems to me that that would need to be an example of a stylistic issue on which our MoS does not give guidance, and for which editors are not well advised to follow the usage of high-quality sources. This then leaves the question: what should they do instead (other than consult PMA)? Or do you mean they should follow the high-quality sources even if it goes against the MoS? But then you wouldn't have written that my formulation would make most of the MoS less useful, because this would make it completely useless except for really Wikipedia-specific stuff. I'm really lost here what it is you want and how it differs from what others want.  --Lambiam 17:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I want a simplification of wording without change of meaning. The present text, although clumsy and weaselly, does not include any limitation that usage only has weight when MOS says nothing; several of us here - and most of Wikipedia in practice - would prefer to write English as she exists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Strange, from the discussion I got the impression that others resisted your proposed reformulation because they were opposed to the implied change of meaning. It is certainly true that the present text is clumsy; I wasn't sure at all what it intended to say, and the text above is the result of an attempt at guessing the intended meaning and formulating it in an understandable way. But I still don't see how what you want would make a material difference with what I wrote. Could you give a simple example where the two versions would plausibly lead an editor to different conclusions?  --Lambiam 21:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That's because certain editors have invented meanings for the contending texts which are not anywhere in their actual words (I am reminded of Humpty Dumpty, myself): the most extreme claim is that leaving out this first sentence produces a section which says that "we must always follow Google even if there are good reasons not to" - despite the next sentence.

Let me make up an example: consider WP:HYPHEN, section 2, discussed immediately above: "2.[Hyphens] link certain prefixes with their main word (non-linear, sub-section, super-achiever)," with a long note that American and British usage differ.

Which prefixes? What are the differences between American and British English over any specific phrase?

At the moment, the way to answer either question is to consult usage, either in reliable sources or (on this issue) in a good dictionary. The proposal would rule that out (MOS has a rule, however vague; therefore WP:FOLLOW does not apply); how else tney propose to answer the questions is not clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What I see there is not a rule but an observation about usage. So let me try a concrete example.

Say, I'm wondering: should I use metaphysics or meta-physics in the article I'm writing? I consult our MoS for guidance, and find the section on Hyphens. I read it through from the beginning to the end, then backwards, boustrophedon, rot13'ed, ..., to no avail; I can't find the answer to my question.

Alas, MoS, our MoS, this compendium of the wisdom of the Wikipedia style crowds, has failed its oracular function on this burning issue. What to do? But then I remember a general principle, one whose significance had thus far escaped me (because I could not imagine that the MoS might fail to provide me guidance): Follow the sources.

So I check what it says again, and there it is: In stylistic points of usage on which this Manual of Style gives no guidance – yes, that certainly applies here, go on – observe the style adopted by reliable high-quality sources, and follow the usage most commonly adopted. So now I now what to do to find the answer to the question.

Even if one should mistake the observation "hyphens link certain prefixes with their main word" for a rule, is it not clear that, interpreted as a rule, this sentence does not tell one whether it should be metaphysics or meta-physics? Do you really think that the presence of this sentence justifies the claim that the MoS gives guidance on this issue?  --Lambiam 01:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think your proposed text will work that way; it will at best spark a hundred disputes whether a given section of MOS is a rule or an observation about usage - because MOS' "rules" are most of them equally vague.

Rather than start exactly this sort of discussion here (for any other "rule" I might choose is also an observation), pick something that you think is a rule, and there will be nine chances out of ten that either it is controversial because it mandates barbarisms, or that needs usage to interpret it in the same way. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

So, apparently, you think that for the concrete example I've given, editors might reasonably and plausibly argue that this gives them carte blanche to write 'meta-physics', with a hyphen, in articles. I find that strange; I think that this is extremely implausible, and, moreover, that hypothetical editors who so argue don't understand English or are unreasonable (or possibly both), so that whatever formulation we adopt here is not going to make a difference.

By what I think is a rule, MoS tells us that we should write (at least as far as hyphens are concerned) 'a 10 ft pole' and 'a 10-foot pole', but nor 'a 10-ft pole' or 'a 10 foot pole'. The rule, as formulated, is clear enough. I don't know whether it is controversial or not, but if it is, I don't see how that is relevant to the MOS:FOLLOW rule. Is there some confusion with the guidelines of WP:FOLLOW?  --Lambiam 17:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Read MOS:FOLLOW throughout; I didn't know there was an essay.
2. Meta- is a prefix which demonstrably can take a hyphen (the OED prefers meta-philosophical, although it can be spelled either way; meta-physical is actually found in authors writing about its etymological sense); the only way to argue that meta-physical should be changed is to show that it is usage to write with no hyphen.
3. I don't remember whether the "10 ft pole" rule is controversial; it ought to be; both halves oversimplify. But does it apply to "10-gallon hats"? Only usage will tell. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But I have a concrete proposal: stop trying to write in new content and put

In general, observe the style adopted by reliable high-quality sources, preferably English-language secondary sources, and follow the usage most commonly adopted – unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise.

How about that? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not "preferably" English-language sources which should matter, it's only English-language sources. Even if 95% of the sources about some particular topic are in French and hence put spaces before colons, that's no good reason for us to do the same. --A. di M. (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Right; I have corrected the proposal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose as usual. That still weakens the MOS, and for the same reasons as in all the brouhaha of the last weeks on this topic. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)\

No, it doesn't. Try reading what this proposal (immediately above), and the present text, actually say, before resuming your profane brouhaha.

• This proposal means exactly the same as the present text; it's just shorter and clearer.
• Neither says that MOS cannot advise depatures from usage.
• Both say that MOS should have good reason for departing from usage.

It is possible that the last point is the sticking place; some editors do seem to suppose that MOS should be able to decree whatever a half-dozen regulars want. But that's not the present text either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this proposal to replace the wording of "Follow the sources" to the one proposed? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

So "treatment of proper names" example is left out and "If the sources can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage, follow current English usage instead—and consult more sources." is removed. Last sentence is just contradicting itself (if sources aren't current usage, follow current usage, but still consult more sources? This just leaves eventually finding a source that supports some "current usage", while it, in fact, should be the other way around -- current usage is what the sources use). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It was intended to meab no more than: If the sources for the article are unrepresentative in their syntax, they may well be unrepresentative in content too - in which case more sources will be useful. But if it is not clear, away with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It is open to too much interpretation, depending on how one wants to pull the blanket. So I say: either re-word it clearly or get rid of it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I support original proposal (by Lambiam 7pm 6-3) without "sources, preferably" -- it's supposed to be English, not some other language sources. The space before colon example is spot on. I oppose the latter proposal (by PMAnderson 11pm 8-3). Rationale is basically -- MoS should give consistent instruction in general, not sources (it's from sources that we should strive to arrive at consensus as to what to put into MoS). If MoS is missing something (various weird cases), then sources should be used. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you believe then that MoS should give instruction which has no connection with usage? which somebody has made up? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I have seen very few examples where MoS has instructed to do something I found real stupid. So I trust in good faith of editors who work on consensus ("make up") all the details of MoS. If you spot a silly "made up" rule and point it out, I'm sure other intelligent editors will work their way to correct it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly your mileage varies. The stupider and less English the made-up "rule" is, the more fiercely it is fought for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

So "write in capitals and place period after each letter" would be supported by everyone then? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish it were that reasonable. The made-up rules that make it into the MoS are the ones that the regulars on this discussion page like the most. I'll use PMAnderson's term, "Improvers of English." I doubt anyone on here (and please don't prove me wrong, guys; I still have a lot of faith in many of you) would propose that Wikipedia be in all caps or sprinkled with unnecessary periods. However, there's WP: LQ. While it describes a practice that's considered correct in British English, it directly contradicts the guidance of almost every American English style guide and almost every quality American English source. People claim that it's there to prevent errors, but in all the times it's been challenged no one has ever offered even one example of correct American punctuation causing any errors on Wikipedia. It's there because it's popular. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language: generic masculine?

An editor recently suggested that the generic masculine is gender-neutral language within the spirit of the MOS. Is this possible? JeffConrad (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

MOS, being a collection of words, has no spirit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

On the substantive issue, there is no consensus - and never has been - on what is "gender-neutral language" is, or how much MOS should say about it. Those who are concerned about the subject almost always deprecate the generic masculine; but no alternative invariably has the same clarity and precision.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the third-person singular "one" has exactly the same clarity and precision. It just sounds a bit too stuffy for a modern encyclopedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC

So does the singular they. Contrary to some claims it was never ungrammatical in English (in the right situations), and while it used to be informal, nowadays I've seen it in lease contracts and communications from my university. --A. di M. (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Those may be the best alternatives, but both risk ambiguity with the natural senses of the words: one with one of them, and the singular they with the plural they. Also, in British English, the tendency of one to be read as second person is undesirable for Wikipedia, just as you is; in American it is alien; the singular they is alien everywhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously about the singular they being alien everywhere? It's been used for centuries on both sides of the pond: see e.g. this interview and the entry for they in this book. --A. di M. (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. A resident foreigner, perhaps, or even an archaism; but, like double negatives (which were normal in Anglo-Saxon), not the general usage of well-edited English sources. I see that the first link leads to usage after everybody, which is a special case: but even there it is unusual everywhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The single-sex exception specified at WP:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language implies that this usage is not normally gender-neutral (exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis). Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language (an essay referred to by the guideline) seems to be even clearer that using "a masculine or feminine pronoun to refer to a generic or hypothetical person" is not gender-neutral.--Boson (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both PMAnderson and Boson. I learned to use generic masculine, which in most cases made for much simpler, more natural writing. But it has drawn objection for quite some time, and is deprecated in almost every major style guide (including the MOS, as I read it), so I haven’t used it in 30 years. I am not a proponent of singular they, so this leaves a bit of a quandary once the obvious reasonable workarounds, such as using plurals and using nouns rather than pronouns, have been exhausted. The context in which my original question arose entailed many instances, so that wording such as “his or her” would make the article unreadable; moreover, frequent use of the possessive and the reflexive was required. In such circumstances, I usually alternate masculine and feminine gender in different sections, but keep things consistent within a given context to avoid confusion. Although this approach has its drawbacks, I’ve nonetheless found it to be the most palatable of several unsatisfactory alternatives. This approach has drawn a fair number of objections; unfortunately, the objectors have all had different preferred remedies. The most recent objection was that any instance of feminine gender implied that the circumstances could apply only to a woman, and the usage is therefore sexist and insulting—hence the insistence on the generic masculine. To be honest, I have difficulty buying this, and in any event, find the generic masculine difficult to reconcile with the MOS.

This all leads to the question: does alternation of masculine and feminine gender, with a nearly equal number of instances overall, qualify as gender neutral? It seems to me that it’s essentially a variant of “he or she”, with the alternation in different sections rather than in every instance. And it’s a fairly common style among those who eschew the singular they; quite honestly, I was surprised that anyone took issue with it. If alternation is acceptable for WP, it would seem that MOS:STABILITY would govern, because it’s simply impossible to incorporate everyone’s preferred style without an article changing hourly.

It is of course always possible to use plurals or to repeat nouns rather than use pronouns, but sometimes this results in painfully contrived writing that draws attention to itself. To me, it seems silly to crucify an article on the cross of eliminating all instances of gendered pronouns. What do others think? JeffConrad (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The most unambiguous statement on gender neutral language is at Wikipedia:Use modern language#Gender neutrality, which gives a long list of things not to say, but makes no attempt to suggest an alternative (except in special cases). That is in conformance with political correctness; we're expected to feel guilty no matter which phrase we use. Given Wikipedia's volunteer model, I don't think that is going to change, so I suggest using "he" and ignoring anyone who wants to object or change it. Art LaPella (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What a terrible essay! The claim that the subjunctive should be avoided is especially ridiculous. Not sure what I suggest be done, except make sure that it never gets promoted to guideline. --Trovatore (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Largely the opinions of one editor, a dedicated Improver of English. It makes clear that he does not recognize any distinction between archaic, obsolete, and out of fashion. He is entitled to make his opinions an {{essay}}, and we are entitled to ignore it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Art, to some extent, I agree that Wikipedia:Use modern language#Gender neutrality is a concession to political correctness. But generic masculine is almost universally deprecated, and its use now is as distracting for many readers as singular they or some obvious contortion is for others. Were I to change to it, the article would almost certainly be in a state of constant edit warring—there already have been more than enough battles with proponents of singular they. And I tend to agree with Boson that generic masculine is difficult to square with WP:MOS and WP:GENDER. Given the alternatives, I’m inclined to stick with alternating gender references. As I mentioned, it’s at best the least of evils. But it’s a fairly common technique that’s listed as a “modern solution” in Gender-neutral pronoun, and that finds support from Garner and the Oxford Style Manual.

So I return to the original questions:

1. Does alternating gender references conflict with the MOS? Several editors have suggested that it is, without really saying why.
2. Is there any merit to one editor’s insistence that any instance of feminine gender is sexist and insulting? To me, it seems pretty off the wall, and is an objection I’ve never seen raised before.

JeffConrad (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is a de facto standard for people in examples about cryptography to be called Alice and Bob so that you can distinguish them by referring to the former as "her" and the latter as "him". That's a good idea IMO, and I would have never thought of it as sexist. A. di M. (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that it is also very common when discussing two-player games to refer to one side as "he" and the other as "she". (I'm sure I've seen this in chess and in Go.) I do not think that alternating gender references conflicts with the MoS; if it does, the MoS should be changed. I do not think there is any merit to the claim that female pronouns are sexist. Ozob (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternating "he" and "she" when these pronouns to not refer to two specific, different entities that have been established as male and female, respectively (real or hypothetical, such as this Alice and Bob) might not be against the MoS but it sure would be crummy writing. We should tell people to use plurals: "Sociologists ...they ...they" rather than "Sociologist ...he ...she." Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if people feel that "he" can be more sexist than "she," we should use the same rules for both, which in this case means avoiding point. "He or she" not as awkward as switching back and forth or using just one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the same rules should apply to both; to do otherwise would be blatantly sexist. I also agree that “he or she” is a reasonable choice when there are only a few instances, but as WP:GENDER notes, it becomes tedious if repeated within a short space. And when there are many instances, the material can quickly become unreadable. Direct alternation was the first choice of the usage panel for the American Heritage Dictionary; however, the question posed involved only a single instance. I had a situation in which, despite every other trick I could think of, the necessity of the possessive and the reflexive entailed seven instances of direct alternation in a single short paragraph. I changed to sectional alternation because I could not bear to read my own writing. Conceivably, I could have used plurals or repeated nouns rather than using pronouns, but to me, either approach was just as awkward (and more contrived) than the direct alternation. I’d give an example, but I’m mindful of Blueboar’s request not to drag a article-specific issue onto this talk page, especially when it seems to involve a fairly unusual situation. JeffConrad (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose any discussion on this issue in the MOS. Leave it up to the editors who are writing articles to determine which pronouns to use. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Blueboar. I actually hesitated to raise the issue, but wanted to see if folks here consider alternation of masculine and feminine gender a clear violation of the MOS; I shall take the responses to mean they do not. Whether it’s a good idea is a question to be resolved elsewhere, in light of the specifics of individual articles. Fair enough? JeffConrad (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors don't appear to like the clunky alternatives "they" and "one" but I would nonetheless avoid masculine or feminine. They usually can be avoided. How often do we need a generic anyway, outside of policy statements about editors? Usually when we incriminate someone generically in a discussion, we use "he." No one seems to object to that!  :) But where else do we need a generic? It's an encyclopedia. I hardly ever have found the need for this. In discussions, I've used s/he. No one has complained but I'd hate to see "s/he" in an article!

In example above, Player 1, player 2, Server, Receiver/Responder. There are a lot of alternatives. Student7 (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point with mention of generic; the APA style guide expresses concern that alternation can suggest that he or she can be generic, which that guide considers absolutely unacceptable. I hadn’t seen it as generic, but rather as specific instances of each gender given for example, much as would be done if I were to illustrate using a film or cartoon. JeffConrad (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never liked alternation. I find it quite distracting. JIMp _talk·cont 07:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Informative headings and subheadings

This is to remind all contributors to this talk page of the importance of using headings and subheadings which clearly indicate what specifically is being discussed. I refer to such information as "topical information". On the other hand, I use the expression "attitudinal information" to denote what is conveyed by the following headings and subheadings: "Comments", "Threaded discussion", "Simple poll", "Topic 1", "Question", "Just trying". A heading or subheading which is topically informative facilitates use of the Archives, and facilitates use of links to sections and subsections. Some discussions in the present version of this talk page could someday be referred to by the following puzzling links.

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 120#Comments
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 120#Threaded discussion
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 120#Simple poll
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 120#Topic 1
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 120#Question
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 120#Just trying

I mentioned this problem about a year ago, in a discussion now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 114#Informative headings, subheadings, sub-subheadings, etc..
—Wavelength (talk) 06:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Also, this should cover these arbitary section breaks. If a long section could benefit from being split, how much it benefits would depend on how much sense the split makes. Arbitary breaks make no sense (otherwise they wouldn't be arbitary). JIMp _talk·cont 07:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The point of arbitrary breaks is to make sections smaller, so as to make it take shorter for the commenters to locate the [edit] link and for their browsers to load the section in the edit window. But they could (and should) be titled “Arb. break 1 (Informative headings and subheadings)” rather than just “Arb. break 1”, even because if there are several subsections titled “Arb. break 1” in the talk page, someone following a link to one could get to the ‘wrong’ one. --A. di M. (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sections should not be organized by size but rather by meaning. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, that is ideal, but often the progress of a discussion is not easy to organize by meaning.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't even think it is the ideal. Not on a talk page. The ideal for organization on a talk page is that discussion both clear and easy to follow. They should (ideally) be organized by both meaning and size. And in reality we don't achieve even that. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate

Saad Madi Saad al Azmi was not born in 1989. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.173.230 (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to tell us that. If there's an article that claims he was born in 1989, just correct it. Find a source giving his actual date of birth—a book or web site—and cite it using one of the templates on this page: WP:CT. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Cite web and cite news templates

I made a post at WP:citing sources [12] regarding use of these templates, but have had limited response so far. If you have any comments on the topic please post them there. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Italic captions

Any input is welcomed at Template talk:Infobox automobile. This discussion concerns whether or not image captions should be italicised by default. Thank you! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Section headings : Uniqueness

Reading through MOS:HEAD here, I see "Section and subsection headings should preferably be unique within a page; ...". I think that this should say "must" rather than "should preferably". The heading is used as the ID of the HTML heading element e.g.,

<h3><span class="editsection">[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&action=edit&section=9" title="Edit section: Section headings">edit</a>]</span> <span class="mw-headline" id="Section_headings">Section headings</span></h3>

(emphasis mine). As far as I know, HTML standards require the IDs to be unique. See

The id attribute assigns a unique identifier to an element ...

(emphasis mine) here and

id = name [CS] This attribute assigns a name to an element. This name must be unique in a document.

here (emphasis mine). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope this won't be another "Do as I say, not as I do" guideline. For instance, MOS:ANIME has two subsection headings entitled "Lead", two entitled "Infobox", two "Reception", two "References" and two "External links". Art LaPella (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

About a year ago the software was changed so that now if two sections have the same title, the figure "2" is appended to ID of the second one. Still a pretty bad idea, though, as people not aware of this won't know how to link to the second section. (Even the links you get in edit summaries will point to the ID without the 2.) --A. di M. (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The 2 does show up in the URL, which is how I learned about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

template:American English

{{American English}} use of the flag is in question, see Template talk:American English

184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)/rewrite

Was there a consensus !vote to make the recent (14 March 2011) Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)/rewrite a guideline? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A vote? The only vote we've had in the last month was about a proposed change to some intro text to the main MoS page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the draft space for a proposed rewrite of the MOSICON guide; it's not a style guide itself, at least not yet. There's been some contentious discussion over the content and application of MOSICON in recent weeks, and one of the ideas is to overhaul the guideline. See the talk page for more. oknazevad (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Then it should wear {{proposed}}, precisely to avoid this discussion. If it is accepted, it becomes the new text of the guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to pop it on there. Looking at the draft page, it looks like it's just the existing guideline copied over. I haven't really been involved with the debate much, but I've been watching what's been transpiring, which is why I felt the need to inform people here. oknazevad (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Shortcut box

{{editprotected}}

Can an admin please add {{shortcut|MOS:FIRSTPERSON|WP:FIRSTPERSON}} below the === First-person pronouns === line?

Thanks! 28bytes (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done —GFOLEY FOUR— 17:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Author format in citation templates

There is a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Using names or initials in citations regarding author naming conventions in citations templates. We could use independent input to achieve a consensus. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

page is no fun any more

I'm OK with some back and forth forum debates...but I thought this place would be a locus for language lovers and there would be some fun discussion to all learn from. About how to write better at wiki or even in general. But it is all arguing about en dashes for like yearz and yearz. I don't even agree with the en-dashes, but I think it's better to just have a system and follow it. And surely there are more interesting things to discuss. Like the talk on picture layout was good.

This page is such a wasteland, I don't even come here much. Maybe that is no loss and that the people who want decade long dashwar arguments are all happy with the talk page. But maybe there are some others who feel same as I. Where can we gather to discuss article writing? TCO (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It is far better that disputes and arguments be centralised here and resolved, if possible, than located out in the articles themselves. MoS and MoS talk thus minimise edit-wars in articles. It is a dynamic, ongoing task, and I think the result is the best style guide for online purposes, despite a few issues. Tony (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that many on here treat decisions made here as legislation to be enacted throughout Wikipedia, as if some maximum consensus was reached. I really have to agree somewhat with TCO; the MoS discussion page does little beyond promoting the egos of long-standing members and stifle the suggestions of new and interested members. --Xession (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ego drives all WP contributions, in every respect. Not to say that it shouldn't be socially constructed. We do see examples on this page where it's not. New and interested members: they are encouraged, and the personnel at the style guides is significantly different from, say, two years ago. That is not a bad thing at all. Consensus: MoS actually changes little nowadays; the big years for building it were 2006–08. It is natural that it would become more stable. Tony (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

While I'm generally in favor of centralizing things because this makes them easier to find, I do not feel that the contributors to this page are either representative of Wikipedia as a whole or sufficiently objective about the decisions made about the MoS.

"New and interested members are encouraged"? Really? I seem to recall a lot of, "Oh NO! We don't want to talk about THIS again!" whenever someone new would raise an issue.

As for ego driving contributions... I find that Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sources counteract this somewhat. Even where ego is the impetus, each contributor has to end up saying, "But you don't have to take my word for it. I can back it up." The MoS should be held to a standard at least that strict. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It never has been fun; it's always been a handful of revert-warriors looking for power, and silencing the objections of those who would prefer to write English. I applaud TCO for his efforts to do something different. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It was a reasonable place to contribute for exactly 12 months. The page was stable, people got on well. It was productive. Tony (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Was that because there were only eight or so people on it and no one who disagreed with them showed up or stayed long? This question is not asked in sarcasm. What this page needs is a way of resolving disagreements that doesn't knock things down to popularity contests. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes.

That is not answered in sarcasm; most of the archives of this page are those few people telling puzzled newbies to go away and accept the immemmorial consensus on what some subset of them had invented.

Tony is, however, mistaken; there was a previous period of good conduct. Back in 2005, this was a useful and harmonious page; it was also largely what TCO would like, a discussion of English usage and what advice would be most useful to editors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Support TCO's desire for English lovers to converge and discuss writing. It is sad how this article has degraded into petty conflict over pointless mishmash. Maybe we should try to find some things to discuss which won't have any controversy over them in order to generate some good will here.AerobicFox (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm the most persistent person to "treat decisions made here as legislation to be enacted throughout Wikipedia, as if some maximum consensus was reached". I'm not altogether sure that's ideal, but what came before didn't make sense either. There was less "good will", not more, and people spent years arguing over rules that nobody ever used. If that was better, why can't we be honest and call the MoS an essay? But if we want a guideline, doesn't that imply it should be used? And that requires some kind of automation: can we get over the fantasy that individual authors study the MoS as if they worked for Britannica before writing an article, when even MoS regulars don't understand their own rules? Art LaPella (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"can we get over the fantasy that individual authors study the MoS as if they worked for Britannica before writing an article, when even MoS regulars don't understand their own rules?" This is precisely why you shouldn't use decisions made here as legislation throughout Wikipedia. Your interpretation may be entirely separate from what was intended or what some other editor understands. Why should your interpretation overrule someone else's and cause a massive headache to a great many other editors who may prefer or understand a different interpretation? These type of issues are exactly why the MoS should only be a guideline. A guideline isn't a rulebook; it is simply the first place to look to quickly answer a question. Such is the case with a dictionary, but a dictionary can't explain to you everything involved with a word, so we have encyclopedias, but an encyclopedia likely can't explain to you all the dynamics of a particular subject, so we have published journals, which conflict with eachother in content leaving a person to pick and choose which is the best information, so then we have researchers who do the hard research into areas yet unanswered or unsettled. The point is, everyone has an opinion which should be no better than any other single person's here. The MoS should not overrule someone's opinion, nor should a small group who uses this page to discuss/legislate these matters. To reach a proper consensus on the matter, consensus needs to be met on each article so that those who care enough to watch those articles get a chance to voice their opinion. Only then can a consensus among those who care about that material be reached. Otherwise, we have a small group of people who act as if they know everything about every article on Wikipedia, legislating rules on topics that may otherwise be overly restricted from a good article being created. Now, should many of the guidelines be followed? I would certainly say yes because many of them deal with proper grammar and syntax. However, it shouldn't be lazily automated. We are writing material for the consumption of a very large population and automating many tasks is, in my opinion, disingenuous to all of them.--Xession (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If "other editors ... prefer or understand a different interpretation" of the guideline, I tend to avoid the issue. There are plenty of other MoS guidelines to automate. If other editors simply insist they know better than the guideline, without disputing its interpretation, without arguing for WP:EXCEPTIONS, and without bothering to post here at all, that's when I get bureaucratic about it. "Only then can a consensus among those who care about that material be reached" refers to a tiny minority of articles. The articles readers really encounter are more like SM UB-85, which ignores several rules including spelling. No amount of debating dashes is going to influence that article. You can fix that one manually, but there are 3 million others. Treating guidelines like legislation isn't the opposite of getting a consensus on interpretation; a consensus on interpretation is a routine part of how real-life judges use legislation. Art LaPella (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that a vast majority of people choose not to watch this page. How are they to voice their opinion on a matter before it is implemented far and wide throughout Wikipedia if the only discussion that took place was here? Discussion may then be engaged on an individual article but is only met with verbiage claiming consensus was met on the matter and to not change it; I've seen this and it pisses me off to no end. Essentially what has happened is a small committee has overtaken the position as rule-makers (legislators) on Wikipedia, where they have in the past and currently still engage in discussing matters here, reached a small consensus on this page, and then gone out and changed a vast number of articles to reflect the change, for better or worse, and without the input of a larger group of people, only to then claim a consensus was met. The difference between legislation and a guideline, is that legislation is a rule or law, and a guideline is a statement of what should be but not what must be. Therefore, if the guideline is used as the name implies, discussion on the MoS page should not used as justification for changing an article. Instead, it should possibly be pointed to if a discussion is engaged on an article, to signal how others feel on the matter. Ultimately, the small number of people on this page shouldn't outweigh the opinion of the people really involved with contributing to articles though.--Xession (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, most people don't watch this page. They don't watch Ex-dividend date either, because they don't care about ex-dividend dates. Most people also don't care if someone changes their hyphen to a dash. If they do care (and they probably shouldn't), then I think they should be here. You distinguished guidelines from legislation, but you didn't distinguish guidelines from essays. I don't think there is a consensus to make the Manual of Style an essay, but I wouldn't stop it. Art LaPella (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOS is bloated and unusable. The Economist's style guide is written simply, with examples, and has many fewer rules. --Philcha (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• The Economist's style guide is excellent, and last year I added it to one of my style tutorial pages as a key recommendation. But it is for professional writers, paid, tightly linked within an organisation, writing in one variety of English, in a narrrowly defined linguistic register. It is also inadequate in its coverage in some ways. Tony (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fox has an interesting idea. We're all here because we hold the (probably minority) belief that small details add up and create a professional-looking result. Maybe we could do something with that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

To me, the MOS can be divided into two types of rules: mechanical rules that help to enforce a common visual look and text markings which, once a style has been set, should be followed across the entire work; and subjective rules where the exact nature depends on those writing the page, what information they are presenting, etc. The problem of late - at least going back as far as the date delinking case, is when editors attempt to enforce the subjective rules as mechanical rules. That should not be happening, and that's why there's been several problems with MOS-related issues in the last few years. To those that support the MOS, the one thing to consider is that when articles are brought towards FA/GA compliance, that's when the subjective aspects of the MOS will be evaluated, such that while all FAs may have slight variances with respect to the subjective parts of the MOS, that variance will have been narrowed from the range exhibited by all articles because of a consensus decisions to conform to the goals of the MOS. In other words, these subjective rules do not need active enforcement; they will be fixed in time. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Tony, I'm suggesting removing any rule that has no benefits for readers. For example, The Economist's style guide has only hyphens, not dashes. So scrap WP:DASH, which is a waste of time. --Philcha (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How about a new essay entitled WP:ENDASH and/or WP:HYPHEN. The idea would be to upgrade one of them to a policy. Arguments could take place there. It's the there part I like the most!  :) I am quite amenable to agreeing to changing the rest of my suggestion!  :) Student7 (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Would this include citations of <gasp> actual sources? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"Its really a WP:MOS syle issue" discussion at WP:OR talk

The Table of Contents structure discussion at OR] has been called an MOS style issue. PPdd (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing a period in the section Semicolon before "however"

Missing a period in the section Semicolon before "however"

The sentence "Regardless of how hard they tried, it was obvious they could not convert these people" is missing a period. XP1 (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but at this moment the page is protected from editing. Thank you for pointing out the omission.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. The protection policy allows uncontroversial corrections. Art LaPella (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How were you able to make that correction? I saw no edit tab at the top of the page, and no edit button anywhere on the page.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Art can edit the page because he's an administrator. If you see the protection log you will see it say "[edit=sysop]", which means only sysops (admins) can edit the page. Jenks24 (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I was made administrator in 2006 with the understanding that I would fix simple errors on the Main Page. I'm not sure I will ever feel confident enough about Wikipolitics to police Wikipedia like other administrators, beyond the unintrusive tactics you've seen me use here that don't require administrative tools. Art LaPella (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

STX: Thank you, Jenks24. At the top of the Manual of Style, I found the link to the protection log.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

En dashes

According to the En dashes section, "an en dash is not used for a hyphenated personal name (Lennard-Jones potential, named after John Lennard-Jones), nor a hyphenated place name (Guinea-Bissau), nor with an element that lacks lexical independence (the prefix Sino- in Sino-Japanese trade)." En dashes are also not normally used in the names of earthquakes. User:Good Olfactory moved 1925 Charlevoix-Kamouraska earthquake to 1925 Charlevoix–Kamouraska earthquake on November 30, 2009, which seems incorrect. Natural Resources Canada uses Charlevoix-Kamouraska in title of this earthquake, not Charlevoix–Kamouraska. It seems to me that some users don't bother doing research on the titles of earthquakes to make sure that the name is hyphenated or en dashed. In this case, the title of this earthquake should be 1925 Charlevoix-Kamouraska earthquake, not 1925 Charlevoix–Kamouraska earthquake. Volcanoguy 07:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

(Just noting that, according to my experience, the article won't be renamed until someone goes to Talk:1925_Charlevoix–Kamouraska_earthquake and posts a renaming request following the instructions at WP:RM.) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Just did that. I brought it here because the user that moved the page used "WP:ENDASH" in the edit summary, which redirects to MOS. Volcanoguy 09:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That's funny: first page of my google search, and look what came up: 1925 Charlevoix–kamouraska Earthquake: 1925 Charlevoix–kamouraska Earthquake on WN Network delivers the latest Videos and Editable pages for News & Events, including Entertainment, Music, Sports, ... wn.com/1925_Charlevoix–Kamouraska_earthquake. Tony (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried adding -wikipedia to the query? --A. di M. (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The general rule is that independent proper names are not connected by hyphens but by dashes: Green–Tao theorem; Gibbs–Duhem equation. Can you cite a reasonably authoritative source, like some respectable style guide, or some authority on earthquakes like the USGS, for your claim that the names of earthquakes are an exception to this rule?  --Lambiam 13:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up. I have the impression that often the region formed by Charlevoix and Kamouraska, both Defunct Quebec federal electoral districts, is written as "the Charlevoix-Kamouraska region", with a hyphen, also when not referring to any specific earthquake, but for example in discussing its geology, so this may not have anything to do with names of earthquakes. See for example the title of the first article on this list. Most Wikipedia articles write "Arizona-Mexico border" with a hyphen; nevertheless, I think that also for such cases the MoS rule states that en-dash is to be preferred.  --Lambiam 13:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If the name of the region is "Charlevoix-Kamouraska" then it should be "Charlevoix-Kamouraska", not "Charlevoix–Kamouraska". There is a difference. Just like what I quoted above, a hyphenated place name does not use an en dache. 1925 Charlevoix-Kamouraska earthquake says it all: it occurred in 1928 in the Charlevoix-Kamouraska region. And Tony, the page you found is an unreliable source. Volcanoguy 14:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, using an en dash insted of a hyphen in 1925 Charlevoix-Kamouraska earthquake is similar to WP:OR because reliable sources use Charlevoix-Kamouraska, not Charlevoix–Kamouraska. According to that policy, people are supposed to AVOID original research in Wikipedia articles. Volcanoguy 14:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As a related question, let's say virtually all the sources use 1925 Charlevoix-Kamouraska earthquake but Charlevoix and Kamouraska are two separate regions affected. Would we then follow the sources and use a hyphen, or follow the MoS and use an en dash? I think this is ambigious to most people and could use clarification: does WP:COMMONNAME include punctuation? –CWenger (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No. We have always felt free to impose good typography upon the unwashed masses. If Charlevoix and Kamouraska are indeed two separate regions (which a quick search indicates to me), then they should be connected by an en dash. Ozob (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As usual, lucid thinking by Ozob. Tony (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The existence of two regions called Charlevoix and Kamouraska doesn't mean that there can't exist a region called Charlevoix-Kamouraska comprising both, does it? In any event, that “unwashed masses” thing sounds like you mean we're allowed to use seeked as the past tense of seek even if pretty much everyone else uses sought. English is a natural language and as such it isn't always logical; the Lojban Wikipedia is over there. --A. di M. (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As Ozob said, if Charlevoix and Kamouraska are two different regions, which they are, then it requires an endash (similar to how an "Ontario–Quebec earthquake" would be dashed and not hyphenated). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it, how do we distinguish "Ontario–Quebec earthquake" from the hyphen consensus for "Austria-Hungary"? Art LaPella (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Definitely a hyphen for "Austro-Hungarian" Empire, since one item is not a complete unit, i.e., a noun. That's in MOSDASH already. Tony (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • That's why I didn't say "Austro-Hungarian". I meant Talk:Austria-Hungary#Dashes. Art LaPella (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

    Judging by Austria-Hungary, it seems that in certain realms, Austria-Hungary functioned as an indivisible unit, not as two separate states. For instance, it was impossible to distinguish the foreign policy of Austria from the foreign policy of Hungary because neither Austria nor Hungary had separate foreign policies; there was a single foreign policy for all Austria-Hungary. Furthermore, the ultimate authority rested in the monarch, a monarch of all Austria-Hungary. Altogether it feels to me like the name should be hyphenated. Ozob (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

    That applies to the case under discussion too, IMO: it's not like the seismic waves knew about the border between Charlevoix and Kamouraska; from a geological point of view that's one region. --A. di M. (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but we do not write articles from the perspective and language of an earthquake. We right them from the perspectives of humans, in the English language. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and apparently humans writing in English about that earthquake use a hyphen. --A. di M. (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

h00muns als0 right liek this! On Wikipedia, we use endashes when appropriate. If other people don't want to use endashes in their house style, that is their prerogative, not ours. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the same old position that MOS is entitled to make up any rule a half-dozen regulars like, whether it helps the encyclopedia or not. This is unsupported in policy and in MOS' text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the en dash in a template such as Template:Football box in the parameter "score", I know this is suppose to be a dead issue, but would it be OK to continue as is? I mean to continue with what seems to be the norm of spaced endashes in the scores despite it supposedly being against the MoS. The discussion from the talk page of the football box template regarding this, which was over a year ago, nothing seems to have been done or changed and spaced endashes are still the norm. For the article 2012 AFC Challenge Cup qualification, there are editors there who have contributed to other football articles and have followed the spaced endashes but only now are enforcing the unspaced endashes. So again, would it OK to just continue with the spaced version to be inline with other football articles and since nothing has been done to change this in all football articles. Banana Fingers (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Responding to a move involving an en dash: Mexican–American War

I have responded here to an administrator who has moved Mexican–American War to Mexican-American War, after Tony raised the matter with him. Since this is directly relevant to the present discussion, I place the text here for comment:

Text of Noetica's response

I'll join in here also, if that's all right. Graeme, yes: most sources have Mexican-American War, some have Mexican American War, and some do indeed have Mexican–American War. The following sources mix their styles, as we should not: "Mexican American War" 1; "Mexican American War" 2. As I have pointed out at the talkpage for the article you moved, this is a matter of central style for the look-and-feel of titles throughout the project. It is not at all clear that we must "follow the sources" in every particular of punctuation and related styling. Every serious, substantial publication has its own style for hyphens, dashes, italics, and so on: and every one of them will adapt some of these features according to its own need for visible consistency. Doing otherwise, they would do a disservice to their readers. There is no true consensus for the change you have made. At best, there is a merely local consensus, among editors whose focus is on the war in question. If the matter were addressed in a larger forum, the story would be quite different. Are we to think that there is project-wide consensus to allow editors at each article to decide such things? If so, should we be happy that the following should all drift their own way? Just a few of the many Mexico articles and categories, for a start: Category:Mexican–American War Battles of the Mexican–American War Mexican–American War campaigns Category:Treaties of the Mexican–American War Currently these and the items included under them accord closely with project-wide practice, as we see it manifest in this quick sample: Polish–Lithuanian War Spanish–American War Philippine–American War Comanche–Mexico War Meusebach–Comanche Treaty Category:Texas–Indian Wars Texas–Indian Wars Colombia–Peru War Finnish–Russian border Iran–Contra affair On and on the list could go. Have a look at the many articles under these categories: Category:Bilateral relations Category:Bilateral relations of Austria Category:Canada–Mexico relations Category:Mexico–Spain relations They are overwhelmingly in this well-entrenched style: Austria–Italy relations 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement Or this, where a space is involved in the element to the left or right of the en dash: Items included under Category:Treaties of the United States, like Category:Mexico – United States treaties Mexico – United States border There were three kinds of participant in the recent discussion for the article you moved: "Local" editors, typically doing good but narrowly focused work on that and similar articles; Editors dedicated to maintaining and extending the rational standards of consistency that are already in place throughout Wikipedia (Tony and myself, as it happens); and One editor who is bent on disabling MOS in its role to head off countless disputes at countless articles: PMAnderson, who favours a minimal manual of style that will be little more than an essay, and who has a documented history of manipulating local sentiment for such political ends. I urge you in the strongest terms to reconsider and revoke your move. It is against the best interests of the project as a whole, and it is (with respect) made on the shakiest theoretical and policy foundations (there is no policy concerning the style of such punctuation, just well-followed guidelines). It would not be approved of by the community if their attention were drawn to it and its insidious consequences. You will understand, therefore, that I reserve the option of raising the matter for wider scrutiny. Meanwhile, it is reasonable that I provide a link at WT:MOS to the request we are making, since the general issue has been discussed there recently.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 16:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: Discussion continues. Editors might want to follow it, since it has a definite bearing on how MOS guidelines are implemented or ignored – with implications for consistency throughout the Project.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have previously heard the argument that WP:TITLE outranks WP:DASH, and the former explicitly states "such characters should only be used when they are customarily used for the subject in reliable English secondary sources". So if you want to apply WP:DASH to titles, I think you need to take that argument to the WP:TITLE talk page. Art LaPella (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we used to. Way back (sample), wp:title used to direct the editor to wp:mosdash for guidance. Gradually, the explicit direction was changed to 'see wp:mosdash', then changed (here, I think) to a wikilink to wp:mosdash from dash , then (here, I think) changed to refer to outside sources. But there are a gazillion edits to that page. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Without reading the wall of text, Mexican-American is an adjectival phrase, so should be hyphenated. This is not a war between an entity called "Mexican" and an entity called "American", hence Mexican-American War rather than Mexican–American War, but Colombia–Peru War rather than Columbia-Peru War (unless it was a war with the single entity of "Columbia-Peru"). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a phrase at all, and why, exactly, is "Columbia–Peru" not adjectival, but "Columbian–Peruvian" is? Tony (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Among other things, a typically Columbian accent, *a typically Columbia accent, Juan is Columbian, *Juan is Columbia (at least not with non-metaphorical meanings). See The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Ch. 6, §2.4.1. --A. di M. (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Because "Columbia–Peru" is a compound noun, used attributively, like Peru national football team; Columbian-Peruvian is a compound adjective, like Peruvian Football Federation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is such a point of contention. The majority of readers, I'm sure, won't notice the difference. As such, they will most likelyread appropriately for context rather than the symbol. Cliff (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"majority" is an understatement, but the trick is to keep all such contention quarantined to this page, and let the rest of Wikipedia go about its business. Art LaPella (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the hyphen is that it appears to be a war involving Mexican-Americans, rather than between Mexicans and Americans. (For some reason, Wikipedia articles on ethnicities within nationalities use the model Mexican American rather than Mexican-American. I think this is a mistake, but mistake or not, most people will recognize Mexican-American as a name for a United States ethnicity.) --Trovatore (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Trovatore took the words out of my mouth. Even if the phrase is taken adjectivally, many readers will take it at first glance as meaning a war involving Mexican-American people. JeffConrad (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

How about "Mexican/American War"? Banaticus (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So, how do we get the article back to Mexican–American War? Considering it was just moved a few days ago. –CWenger (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd just re-open the discussion w another RfM, bringing up just this point. As for TITLE, many of our sources don't bother with en dashes, and so are not relevant. — kwami (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, Kwami and CWenger. I am desperately time-poor with a deadline next Monday. If someone does this, I'm prepared to support—to stand up for the continuation of our Manual of Style as a cohesive anchor in the English WP. What gets me is that no article-specific reasons were provided on the talk page as to why that particular article is different from the general principles and practices documented in the MoS. Now the article is inconsistent with a whole tranche of others in this respect. As Noetica points out, external practice is a dog's breakfast in this particular instance, and there's no reason we should allow WP to run after the lowest common factor. We've argued this out here before, and consensus is that we need common best practices, with reasonable uniformity throughout the project (just as any house style achieves). There is plenty of external authority for the principle at stake: en dashes to stand for "against", for opposities, etc. Tony (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The general principle of MOS is that compound adjectives take a hyphen. That's WP:HYPHEN, point 3. Therefore the move is in accord with MOS as it stands

This is also what English does. I have consulted fluent and educated speakers of the local dialect of English, and can summarize the response as uniformly "Wikipedia is spelling Mexican-American War how? Why use a dash, for goodness sake?" I have also looked for a reliable source using a dash - and found none; none have been presented in this discussion or any other.

In practice, we agree, I hope, that Franco-Prussian War and so on, take hyphens; this is an application of the same rule, with the difference that Mexican, unlike French, has no special combining form (Mexico- being unavailable)

In short, this tempest in a teapot is Tony's insistence on a rule which MOS does not state, for which no reliable source is cited, and which makes Wikipedia depart from idiomatic English; insofar as it matters, it is harmful. No wonder there is a consensus of 9-2 for the change - the opponents being Tony and Noetica, who had no substantive reason to oppose.

One possible solution is to move the present article to the other and perhaps more common name of the Mexican War. I believe it is not there now on the basis that this is somehow POV.

The other solution is to stop trying to reinvent English and move the other articles to what their subjects are actually called; beginning with the Spanish-American War. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"The general principle is that compound adjectives take a hyphen" — that's the point, I think. It's not a compound adjective. Mexican-American as a demonym is a compound adjective. This is more like two independent adjectives — think of it as Mexican and American war. (Obviously I'm not proposing that as a title, because no one says that. It's just the underlying meaning that I think justifies the dash.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a dvandva compound, like Spanish-American War and Franco-Prussian War. So? Dvandas are very old, probably PIE; in primitive Latin they can even have three members (as suovetaurilia). But this does not justify the dash, a distinction which no one uses or will understand; the style which Tony has made up is only better than "Mexican and American War" because fewer people will notice and be puzzled by it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sep, you've invented the attributive nominal vs. attributive adjective distinction. It's not supported in our sources, many of which call both "adjectives". There's no reinvention going on, but simply the application of a standardized convention of punctuation, which most publishers at least attempt. — kwami (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it's Tony who is wielding a distinction; I argue that all compound adjectives (in your sense) should be treated alike, unless usage suggests otherwise - and I don't think it does.

Why should Wikipedia use a "standard" which nobody else uses, has heard of, or will understand? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which don't consider attributive nominals to be adjectives: I've cited one somewhere else in this thread. (And that's definitely not the oldest one: I remember my father's English dictionary, published in the mid-1970s, saying that it listed such attributes as adjectives for simplicity even though some other dictionaries and grammars didn't.) In any event, they are treated differently by the English language, e.g. adjectives can normally be modified by adverbs but nouns normally can't. You'd need a helluva good evidence to claim “Sep ... invented the attributive nominal vs. attributive adjective distinction.” --A. di M. (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't very clear. He obviously didn't invent the grammatical distinction. What he invented was a distinction in the MOS: because the MOS used the word "adjective" loosely for attributive nouns, Sep argued that the hyphenation guidelines did not apply to attributive nouns, and conversely that the en-dash guideline applied only to attributive nouns. I am not aware of any MOS, here or elsewhere, that treat them differently. — kwami (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I posted a request to revert the move at talk:Mexican-American War. — kwami (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Doing harm to Wikipedia, and supported by this elegant post which leaps from "besides Wikipedia, virtually everybody uses a hyphen instead of an en dash" by way of assuming MOS says things it doesn't, to strong support for dashes - all in one post. In short, an effort to make Wikipedia into something that is not English and not supported by MOS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Cliff (above). No one will notice the change. I was taught to write by hand, not on a keyboard with this distinction. I have no idea which articles have hyphens and which have whateveritis. Neither I, nor my fellow editors are likely to conform to any criteria which is established here. Nor welcome changes when they are made. I had thought that some people were reading hyphens as gobbledygook on their screens for some reason I didn't understand. Now that's been cleared up..... :) Student7 (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You're essentially saying you don't know how to use typography properly, and that you don't care. WP needs people who do care. Thank you. Tony (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And you're essentially saying, or at least implying, that only people who know the difference between hyphenating compound adjectives and hyphenating attributives, care about Wikipedia. Actually, I contributed years of work to Wikipedia before I ever noticed the difference between hyphens and dashes, and over 99% of the readers won't notice either. Perhaps you meant to make a case for "Wikipedia needs people who do care about dashes". Or about formal English in general. Art LaPella (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words about my post, Septentrionalis. But I have a question for you: in what cases would you advocate using an en dash on Wikipedia? I ask because I think you will have a hard time finding en dashes in most sources. However, they can be very useful in multiple circumstances, hence why I think Wikipedia should be free to use its own typographical style. –CWenger (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

My standards on dashes are: Wikipedia should use them, when:

1. English generally does (that is, the English of well-printed reliable sources, not the Net);
2. reliable sources on English (style guides, dictionaries, and so forth) generally advise their use; and
3. it is generally consensus of Wikipedia editors that there is a good reason in some particular class of cases.

Two out of three will suffice. If dashes are "very useful" in any particular case, any of these standards will be easy to demonstrate; the usage Tony has made up satisfies none of them, however. I am willing to believe that the 6 actual provisions of WP:DASH do satisfy two or three standards as written, but feel no need to confirm this unless the provisions are challenged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Anderson now stalking me to change dashes into hyphens

I'm getting tired of this. Mr Anderson has widened his war against the Manual of Style, and particularly against his pet hate, en dashes, by stalking my contribs list. His latest edit-warring has not only made a fool of the article Eye–hand span by reversing the order in the first sentence (I have twice reverted); it has gone against the MoS's guideline on en dashes just as he is engineering at Mexican–American War. The sources at the bottom almost entirely use the eye–hand order, not hand–eye, too. I ask him to desist. Tony (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds plausible but I can't find it. Tony1 made [ this edit], [ this edit], and [ this redirect]. I can't find Mr. Anderson's name on the article at all. Art LaPella (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That appears to have been a typo for Eye–hand coordination, which Sep was edit warring on. — kwami (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Contrib stalking is really annoying. Surely there are enough dashed articles in this town for the both of you. However, Tony, are you sure that this is a war on the MoS, which I'm assuming is a term for WP:POINT, and not a sincere belief that hyphens are best? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Tony chooses to call it a "war on the MoS" to victimize the situation and by sensationalism, seek supporters for his position. Even if PMAnderson changed one of your edits on that page Tony, how can you be certain Anderson wasn't watching the page as well, rather than keeping a close eye on your contib list? If everyone will note, Tony immediately popped into the discussion for the Mexican-American War article rather soon after Anderson initiated it. You don't get to be hypocritical on here when your past actions are easily visible as well. --Xession (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll disregard the previous comment as in bad faith, except to say that if you check back through the Mexican–American War edit history, you'll find me there from time to time; could you provide evidence that Mr Anderson has ever contributed to Eye–hand coordination?

Sorry about the "coordination" mistake above. Mr Anderson, who I've stated before has my respect for his expertise in mathematics and the classics, was topic banned from all MoS pages for 12 months for edit-warring. This ban resulted from his breaching of previous conditions that had restricted his activities for a shorter period; I believe the complaint was made at WP:AE by Andy Walsh, although I think I made one when Mr Anderson launched into a tirade against the MoS from the Naming policy talk page, which he was frequenting during the restricted period. Part of the tirade involved labelling regular editors here as "MoS bullies". But there was worse.

During the year of the ban, I don't think I spent much time here, which was a welcome respite that allowed me to help the project in other ways; the page was relatively peaceful and harmonious. Since his ban ended, he has returned to pursue a campaign to downgrade the role of the MoS in WP. Not long ago, this involved a major change to the principles, slipped in under a misleading edit-summary. At least one RfA resulted. It went on for weeks.

Fast-forward a couple of weeks and the new target is en dashes, a pet hate of his. I can only imagine this is partly because he uses a skin/font/browser (I'm unsure which) that barely distinguishes between hyphens and en dashes visually; partly because he objects to using the button below the edit-box, or is unwilling to use the Windows short-cut; and partly because it's a convenient tool with which to put his case that the MoS is dictated to by eight editors, is it, who ... well, I won't repeat it: there are several variants. He has chosen Mexican–American War among the countless articles with titles that use an en dash to express opposition between the elements—supported by numerous, but not all, authorities (a far greater proportion than support WP's insistence on sentence case in article names and section titles, I might add). Through a flagrant breach of WP:INVOLVED, an admin came along, closed the discussion, and moved the page from dash to hyphen, while shortly after openly expressing his partisanship on the matter.

Mr Anderson's latest action is to follow me to the Eye–hand coordination, an article I started many years ago, to change the order of the dashed items, and the dash to a hyphen (in breach of the MoS). It is WP:POINTY and I wish it would stop. Please? Tony (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't hate dashes; I support them where English uses them; indeed, I have just re-added them to the article in question, on the grounds that they appear to be English usage (at least a significant proportion of the time). I object to dashes where they are never (or hardly ever) used. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As a neutral observer who does not give a damn about hyphens and dashes (hell, I am not even completely clear as to what the difference between them is), I find that both Tony and PMA are clearly edit warring and violating WP:POINT. They both need to stop their disruptive behavior... now. The place to debate the issue is here... not in articles. It is clear to me that there isn't a consensus on this issue, and both of you need to step back and compromise so we can reach one. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You sound anything but neutral. Could I suggest that rather than proudly parading your ignorance of basic typography, you familiarise yourself with it? Tony (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he is neutral. He doesn't however seem to understand that the English language has clearly defined rules over hyphens and dashes, and that there is clear consensus on where to use them.AerobicFox (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar seems neutral to me too. The fact that BB doesn't have a stake in what Tony and PMAnderson are fighting about means that he can focus on the way they're saying things rather than what they're saying. PMA shouldn't be following Tony from article to article and Tony is referring to PMA in inflammatory terms, which doesn't help. Referring to people on this page as "MoS bullies" might not be very discreet, but it's hardly inaccurate. Having a vision for the MoS that differs from other people's isn't inherently bad either. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There is clear consensus on where to use them in many circumstances - even though Tony often insists on disregarding that consensus. Looking at the sources for Eye–hand coordination, however, will show that this is not one of them: if I count correctly, two use a dash, three a hyphen. Nevertheless, I have restored the dashes in the first line - against the rest of the text (I would have done so before if I'd noticed the difference in Roman lettering); I object to Tony's persistent reversion on grounds of accuracy, not of style. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Both sides have valid points. There is no one correct way to use en dashes. Each publisher, assuming they use them at all, may have a different convention on exactly where to use them. Some only use them for numerical ranges using digits, some to distinguish compound attributive names from hyphenated names, some for numerical ranges using words, some for compounding compound words, some for compounding independent attributives (as at hand–eye and Mexican–American), etc. Sometimes these conventions may conflict. As an encyclopedia, one of our aims is to be as precise as possible. Therefore IMO discussion should center on which en-dash conventions maximize precision. Regardless, though, the whole point of a MOS is to centralize decisions on style. Debating it article by article is disruptive. — kwami (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's have a citation for a publisher who actually requires dashes for "compounding independent attributives (as at hand–eye and Mexican–American)", before we discuss any of this further. Certainly most do not, and any that do are exceptional and place a strain upon their readers. (In particular, the Economist does not even consider dashes for compounds at all; although they do use them - as punctuation; the CMOS does so only in the narrow case which we call WP:ENDASH 5.)

I should note, of course, that hand—eye is WP:ENDASH 2 or 3 (probably not genuinely distinct cases); Mexican–American is the word Tony and Kwami have made up. A citation for one is not a citation for the other, although references for the form actually in MOS would be genuinely helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's mount a challenge to WP's site-wide rule about using sentence, not title case for section headings, and while we're at it, for article names. The Practice In English Is Overwhelmingly For Title Case. Tony (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Uh, I think you're trying to make a point here, but please don't chop off your nose to spite your face. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if that's the practice, then why not? I can't think of an insurmountable problem that would prevent a bot from converting everything. Obviously we would want to convert it all at once if we're serious about doing it. Art LaPella (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

But what about external publishers that use sentence case (the minority of academic publishers, to be sure)? Why should WP sink to the lowest practice where there is a choice? That is the point I'm making. Tony (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

While I happen to prefer sentence case myself (mostly because it's easier for amateurs to use without capitalizing the wrong words) I would not be against permitting both sentence and title case on Wikipedia. Both are correct in English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The decision at Mexican-American War was that sources for the topic of the article should decide the style of the title. Since sources are not consistent, that would mean that WP cannot be consistent in style, unlike any normal encyclopedia. IMO this is potentially a serious issue: can a MOS be allowed to exist, given that it will inevitably conflict with our sources? — kwami (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Why don't we just accept that we have a house style which has been arrived at more or less by consensus, and leave it at that? We don't have to, and we ought not to, slavishly follow whichever style governed the first edit (except in certain cases), to the extent that an article's style may be radically different from one article to the next one I navigate to using the 'random article' button. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Because, in places, the consensus is wrong, differing from both the usage of reliable sources and from the advice of reputable style guides. The pet projects of a few editors here should not be imposed on the rest of Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with having a consensus "house style"... as long as we give our editors some degree of flexibility and avoid coming down on them like the "language polices". We need to accept that not everything requires a firm rule, and that "There is no firm rule on this" is itself an acceptable rule. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is more than one correct way to use en- and em-dashes, then the MoS should not select just one. It should allow users their freedom so long as each given article is internally consistent. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And that is what underlies this debate... there seems to be disagreement among editors as to whether there is more than one "correct" way to use en-and em-dashes, etc. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

@Darkfrog, the Manual of Style does give leeway in regards to how em or en dashes are formatted to a fairly lenient degree—for instance, we aren't prohibiting spaces between em dashes, for example, or (unlike one or two style guides I've seen) restricting their use to special circumstances (apparently some people consider em dashes improperly abrupt changes?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Then it does as it should, but I am referring to the issue under discussion, which, as far as I can tell, is hyphens vs. en-dashes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

ENGVAR question

I'm fairly, though certainly not completely, familiar with the differences between American and British English. I understand that British bands are generally considered to plural. The article for the band Yes begins, "Yes are an English rock band..." I understand that. It is another sentence in the opening paragraph that confuses me. It says, "The band have continued for many years and retain a large following". I understand why "Yes" is plural, but I don't understand how "the band" could be considered anything but singular. It seems that it should say, "the band has continued and retains a large following". I was reverted when I made this change. Is it correct that the words "the band" are to considered plural because the said band is British? Joefromrandb (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is yes 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 22:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Band" is considered semantically plural even though it is grammatically singular. This isn't exactly a UK–US distinction. It also depends on degree of formality. You will also get variation with many authors: "the band went their separate ways" (plural) vs maybe "the band was named" (singular), depending on whether it is being presented as a unit or as a group of individuals.

Cf. The jury was ready with its verdict vs The jury were still arguing (with each other) ; A covey was nesting in the meadow vs The covey were trying to regroup ; The ballad and play have been lost vs Bread and water does not satisfy. You get the same thing with all is well vs all are here. — kwami (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I think your second point speaks to this issue. It seems clear that "the band" is referring to a collective unit. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As for whether it's singular or plural in that example, I think it might be as much a matter of the POV you're trying to project as anything inherent. Are you focusing on the individuals, that is, fans of each band member, or fans of the band as a whole? I don't see it as a clear-cut decision, though perhaps the context helps.

Also, there may well be a tendency in BrE to use the plural as the default, and in AmE to use the singular as the default, and to only go with the other when there is a clear call for it. — kwami (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It also seems to me that there's a tendency in AmEng to refer to the members of the band as, well, "the members of the band", as an extension of "band", "group", "team", etc being treated as singular.

While mentioning teams, however, I wonder if we need to make more specific and explicit the North American sports teams conventions in the section on collective nouns, as the current wording doesn't fully capture the actual usage when nicknames are involved (especially plural ones). For those who aren't familiar, the typical naming convention for North American teams is a geographic designator (city/state/province/college, etc) followed by a nickname that is usually a plural noun; the full name of the team is both together. Unlike other collective nouns in AmEng, singular verbs are only used when the geographic name is used as shorthand; when the full name or just the nickname is used, it takes a plural verb. Recently I explained this to someone using the following example: The Los Angeles Lakers are an NBA team. The Lakers play in the Staples Center. Los Angeles is the defending NBA champion. I'm wondering if some more elucidation should be included, along with this example (Which can be updated every year. Yea!). It is a subtlety of AmEng, but one I've had to correct multiple times recently, so I think the MoS might benefit from it. oknazevad (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Unhyphenated proper attributives

When proper names are made attributive, they are (generally) not hyphenated. This is sometimes misinterpreted to mean that hyphens need to be dropped from attributive elements in proper names. I therefore propose the following addition to the section on hyphens:

1. • A hyphen is not used when the attributive element is capitalized in its non-attributive form / A hyphen is not used when a proper name is used as an attributive element: Cold War era, Homer Simpson effect (both Cold War and Homer Simpson are capitalized / proper names); compare Matter-Dominated Era, Great Black-backed Gull.

— kwami (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As raised in the previous section, I propose that we defer discussion on this excellent point till other more pressing matters are resolved concerning hyphens and dashes. We have to keep this manageable. Preferably, this section would be deleted by Kwami – for now. (While we're sorting out priorities, let's look again at the matter of protection.)–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Black-backed with a lowercase b? Really? (I'm not familiar with ornithological naming conventions, so take this as surprise, not sarcasm.) --A. di M. (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Really at Wikipedia, at least. Search Wikipedia:Wikiproject Birds for "The word immediately following a hyphen". Or see Category:Parrot stubs for examples showing compliance with that rule. Art LaPella (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)